lake management plan (lmp) in cass and crow wing …the view that protecting the lake and supporting...

Lake Management Plan (LMP) for

Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence & Smokey Hollow Lakes in

Cass and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota

Sponsored by Roosevelt and Lawrence Area Lakes Association (RALALA)

Finalized: January 2009 Reviewed RALALA Board: April 2009

Released: RALALA Board: April 16, 2009 (Subject to ongoing improvements and minor corrections)

RALALA LMP Mar 30 2009 Version 2009.A.01

Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Committee

of Cass County in support of RALALA

Special thanks to Don Hickman of the Initiative Foundation and to John Sumption of Cass County Environmental Services

for financial and leadership support.

This report summarizes the Citizen’s Lake Management Plan (LMP) for the following Lakes (Leavitt, Lawrence, Roosevelt, Smokey Hollow) and the watershed in which they abide. The Property Owners’ Association is the “Roosevelt And Lawrence Area Lakes Association” (RALALA).

OVERVIEW

In July 2008 RALALA (encompassing Lawrence, Leavitt, Roosevelt and Smokey Hollow Lakes) was invited to participate in the Initiative Foundation’s Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership program along with six other Lake Associations in Cass County. Under the coordination of John Sumption (Cass County Water Planner and Director of Environmental Services), representatives attended two days of training on strategic planning, communication and nonprofit group leadership.

PLAN BACKGROUND

This document is intended to create a record of historic and existing conditions and influences on Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes and to identify the goals of this community of lakes as expressed through RALALA. In addition, it is ultimately meant to help prioritize goals, and guide citizen action and engagement in the priority action areas. Clearly, state agencies and local units of government also have a vital role and responsibility in managing surface waters and other natural resources, but above all else this Lake Management Plan is intended to be an assessment of what we as citizens can influence, what our desired outcomes are and how we will participate in shaping our own destiny. This Lake Management Plan is also intended to be a “living document;” as new or better information becomes available, as we accomplish our goals or discover that alternative strategies are needed, it is our intent to update this plan so that it continues to serve as a useful guide to future leaders. In discussing lake management issues, it is impossible to avoid all scientific or technical terms. We have tried to express our goals, measures of success, and other themes as simply and clearly as possible, but have included a glossary of common limnological terms at the end of the plan to assist the reader. Limnology is the state of lake conditions and behavior.

As an organization, RALALA is more than twelve years old. It was established as a social organization to get neighbors knowing neighbors sharing a concern for the lakes. This has been accomplished primarily through a picnic, a newsletter and efforts to educate property owners to good stewardship practices. Along the way, it has accomplished greatly valued services to the lakes. Those services include a water safety patrol that provides volunteers every weekend of the summer season to patrol the waters to insure the safe operation of watercraft on the lakes. The water patrol also helped establish a water patrol on a lake not in the association.

ROOSEVELT AND LAWRENCE AREA LAKES ASSOCIATION (RALALA)

RALALA represents property owners and local commercial enterprises that pay dues. We have an approximately 30% increase in membership in 2008. There are more than seven hundred property owners with at least some building structure on the five basins / lakes.

Through research, with a common understanding and commitment, RALALA will deliberate and commit to actions to demonstrate our strong support of the Stewardship required to protect

RALALA VISION

and enhance the environmental resources. Our actions support the benefits and attractiveness of this area for business and tourism, as well as for our own property enjoyment.

RALALA sees itself as a collaborator and partner with the local communities of Emily and Outing.

RALALA STAKEHOLDERS AND CONNECTIONS

RALALA as a lake association is a service for a watershed that spans at least two counties, one city and at least two townships. This often requires double work due to many inconsistencies in local laws. This is an opportunity to bring people together and to solve problems of mutual concern as a team rather than as a local unit working on its own behalf, which would then not be serving the common good.

The final chapter of our detailed lake management plan summarizes the conclusions and priority action we have chosen to work on at this time. Specifically, for each priority action we have done our best to answer (

PRIORITIZED GOALS AND ACTIONS

for each goal presented

):

• What are the criteria for measuring success (measured as outcomes, not effort)? • What is our schedule for implementation (What needs to happen in the next 30 days,

60 days, one-year out)? • Who is responsible for implementation or measurement (name names!)? • What is the budget for this action/goal? • Is this an ongoing action/goal, or a one-time effort? If on-going, will we require

additional funds for full implementation? The areas of primary interest of the Stakeholders are: 1. Water Quality Data for assessing water quality on this set of lakes are mixed and often inconsistent. This Lake Management Plan documents what is known, and seeks to lay a foundation for additional compilation and interpretation. The Visioning Session participants stated that “conclusive information in layman terms is needed to share with residents on the state of testing of the actual water quality of each lake – Leavitt, Lawrence, Roosevelt and Smokey Hollow – we need to educate to achieve cooperation of residents”. On the MPCA’s web-site link, “Lake Water Quality Database,” additional water chemistry data is reported. The MPCA’s “Environmental Database Access” system also provides additional water chemistry data which includes total phosphorus concentrations, as well as other data The MN Pollution Control Agency web-site provides additional guidance on how to chart and interpret Lake Water Quality, including providing a spreadsheet which can be used to generate interpretive graphs: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html, as well as a simple model which allows us to compare what your water quality “should be” based on local influences. We intend to improve and consolidate reliable data as referenced in this plan. Ultimately all water chemistry (or physical) data is only a measure or reflection of whether the lake or river meets criteria or goals for the water body. Are our lakes able to support recreational uses without risk to public health? Do they support the best possible fishery? Are

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html�

the waters as aesthetically attractive as possible? These are our challenges to define, measure and improve performance, and this first year directly faces that challenge. Our two goals related to Water Quality are:

- Expand knowledge and practice of good Stewardship Principles amongst property owners through Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect water quality.

- Compile, structure, and evaluate the adequacy of exiting data. Through collaboration, develop the science and data to improve our information and insights.

2. Aquatic Vegetation In all of our discussions, we need to distinguish between beneficial vegetation (wildlife or fish habitat, vegetative buffer zones, and native species) and nuisance (impediments to recreation) or exotic/invasive (biological “threats” such as Eurasian milfoil, purple loosestrife, curly leaf pondweed). We need to recognize that control of the nuisance kind of vegetation may have adverse impacts on the fishery/wildlife end of things; it is very hard to please everyone. By Minnesota Rule, aesthetics are not part of the definition of nuisances. Recreational impairment is the standard used to define nuisance conditions related to aquatic plants. 3. Exotic Species As of this writing, there are no known infestations of exotic aquatic species in any of our specific lakes, but Eurasian water milfoil is prevalent in Ruth Lake in Emily and several others in Crow Wing County. In addition, a nearby Crow Wing County Lake as well as Mille Lacs Lake are now infested with Zebra Mussels. Thus, prevention and planning are essential for our resources. We have adopted the following combined goal

related to the interdependency of Aquatic Vegetation and Exotic Species:

- Improve resistance to - and strengthen prevention against - any invasion of exotic species into our waters.

4. Land Use and Zoning The water quality of a watershed, lake, or river is ultimately a reflection of the land uses within its watershed. While the specific impacts to a lake from various land uses vary as a function of local soils, topography, vegetation, precipitation, and other factors, it is ultimately the land uses which citizens have the most control over through prudent zoning. We have two goals related to Land Use and Zoning, which are:

- Each business, citizen and lake property owner come to understand and appreciate the view that protecting the lake and supporting the economy cannot only co-exist, but rather that they are mutually interdependent.

- Build an effective lake owners' process that will monitor, assess, and effectively act

regarding on-lake and watershed properties to protect, improve, or sustain critical elements of Lake Water Quality. We will work with the Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation – LLAWF - for guidance, assistance, and support.

5. Organizational Development and Communication

We have the following three goals related to Organizational Development and Communication:

- Continue RALALA’s traditional / past practices of supporting civic and community requests in the area;

- Each property owner be a member of a lake neighborhood community with a neighborhood captain relying on known year-round contact information in RALALA records for phone, mail, and e-mail.

- Establish and conduct thoughtful and effective events that enhance the RALALA presence in the community, build the RALALA membership, and grow funds to support the RALALA lake Management Plan and its priorities.

The attached summary is for discussion and review of important efforts through 2009 for RALALA. The complete detailed Plan is available by asking a Board Member or emailing a request to: [email protected] We hope this plan will take us on a journey of understanding and action to help protect the lakes we live on and depend on. This is meant to be a living document, and will rely on updated, new, improved and evolving sources to inform and advise interested persons. Give us your feedback, become involved in the Best Management Practices implementation. Help make our lakes a worthy legacy for our grandchildren – and beyond.

mailto:[email protected]�

2009 LMP SummarySubject Area and Goals: 2009

Priority Goal Areas RALALA EQI Grants Timeline

A $400 $1,450 $7,000 Summer

A $0 $2,965 $5,000 Summer

A (LUZ) - Land Use and Zoning $0 $575 $12,000 Monthly

B (SI) – Sustainability Initiative $0 $2,000 $5,000 Annual

A (ISAV) – Invasive Species and Aquatic Vegetation ? $1,750 TBD Summer

A (NN) – Neighborhood Networking $0 $100 n/a Summer

A (FRPR) – Fund Raising and Community Public Relations $0 $650 TBD Summer

A (TRA) – Traditional RALALA Activities $1,500 $0 $0 May

Totals: $1,900 $9,490 $29,000

Improve resistance to - and strengthen prevention against - any invasion of exotic species into our waters.

Each property owner be a member of a lake neighborhood community with a neighborhood captain relying on known year-round contact information in RALALA records for phone, mail, and e-mail.

(WQWA) – Water Quality / Water Assessment

Establish and conduct thoughtful and effective events that enhance the RALALA presence in the community, build the RALALA membership, and grow funds to support the RALALA lake Management Plan and its priorities.

Consider, continue and adjust (if needed) RALALA donations to selected local / community interests, requests and events.requests and events.

(WQSBMP) - Water Quality / Stewardship - Best Management Practices - BMPs

2009 Resources

Expand knowledge and practice of good Stewardship Principles amongst property owners through Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect water quality.

Compile, structure, evaluate the adequacy of exiting data.

Each business, citizen and lake property owner come to understand and appreciate the view that protecting the lake and supporting the economy cannot only co-exist, but rather that they are mutually interdependent.

Build an effective lake owners' process that will monitor, assess, and effectively act regarding on-lake and watershed properties to protect, improve, or sustain critical elements of Lake Water Quality. We will work with the Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation – LLAWF - for guidance, assistance, and support.

Lake Management Plan – Version 2009_A_01

Priority Area – (WQSBMP) - Water Quality / Stewardship - Best Management Practices - BMPs

GOAL: Expand knowledge and practice of good Stewardship Principles amongst property owners by coordination, communication, education and demonstration of Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect water quality.

Background: Stewardship improves as knowledge, community spirit and collaboration are increased. Stewardship Principles can help immediately for known situations (effective use of septics, surface water management, etc.). Each lake has its own unique features and characteristics. E.g. Lake Roosevelt – the North basin is demonstrably different form the South basin, yet data has not been aligned to that reality – until now. The data will be organized and segmented to match the basins. Plans for the implementation of shoreland / shoreline stewardship efforts will be developed, and grants will be sought.

I--------------- Resources-----------------I Description Measurement RALALA EQI Grants Schedule Proposed

Leader Strategies:

Coordinate, communicate, educate lake property owners as we explore “Stewardship”

Gain understanding with citizens as to actions that demonstrate good stewardship:

A) Shoreland Plantings B) Septic management / operations (BMPs) C) Watershed perspective

Citizen discussions Literature distributions Property profiles Shoreland projects Impacted properties

Jan Mosman

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Produce / publish statement Plan 2 or more Shoreland Plantings per lake Sustain Outing Site Collaborate for another “Community Site” in 2009 Develop communication plan for septic BMPs Distribute BMP information to interested owners Planting Requirements anticipated Expand successes to other neighborhoods

Published Number of sites Maintained Planned / installed Plan implemented Number of owners Number of helpers Numbers

$400 $0 $0

$400 TBD

$250 $250

$0 $200 $500 $500

$1,300 TBD

$0

$7,500 $0

$15,000 $1,000 $1,000

$10,000 TBD

August 1 June 15 July 20 August 1

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice $750 $7,000 Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $400 $1,450 $7,000 Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $400 $2,300 $10,000


Priority Area – (WQWA) – Water Quality / Water Assessment

GOAL: Compile, structure, evaluate the adequacy of exiting data. Define the requirements and processes to gain necessary additional data in the effort to protect the water quality in to the future. In addition, we seek to sustain and improve our existing data collection practices, in our efforts to sustain and improve our lakes’ water quality through proper application of solid science and awareness. This may require additional testing protocols as warranted to protect human health and water quality.

Background: Going forward, the data will now be organized and segmented to match the basins. In addition, existing official data (secchi, phosphorous, chlorides, oxygen, conductivity, etc) is sparse (some combination of too few years, too few locations, too narrow in scope) to either reach conclusions or to determine areas for improvement. Such scientific data must be expanded and extended to get an accurate scientific profile of each of our lakes and their connecting flows. Focusing efforts to respect, understand and plan for those unique qualities should enable better stewardship and overall success. This plan includes conferencing existing data with agencies, scientists, and property owners to determine status, define collection requirements / protocols that will most effectively assist research and understanding of our Water Quality. Plans for the implementation of any identified efforts will be developed, and grants will be sought for furtherance.

I-------------- Resources-----------------I Description Measurement RALALA EQI Grants Schedule Proposed

Leader Strategies:

Increase chemistry testing of lakes; Assemble available data, information and research

and explore with agencies, scientists, and property owners to examine, assess and recommend activities and actions to improve water quality - based on sound science

Conduct research per scientific standards

Lakes covered Meeting held Agencies engaged Understandings

Roger Brekken

Darril Wegscheid

Ed Evans

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Add North Roosevelt / Smokey Hollow (chemistry) Prepare lake scientific data Conduct data review meeting w/experts Communicate findings Develop plan to follow recommendations Plan for testing streams Sampling as needed per plans / schedules Consider Watershed linkages Engage broader local community on interests

Volunteers set Report of data Meeting set Minutes produced Plan defined Plan defined Lab results Assessment TBD

$40

$550 $400 $400

$0 $75

$1,500 TBD TBD

WAPOA

$0 $0 $0 $0

WAPOA $5,000

TBD TBD

April 30 June 1 July 1 August 1 August 1 May 1 Dec 30

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice $5,000 August 1 Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $2,965 $5,000 Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding TBD TBD


Priority Area – (LUZ) - Land Use and Zoning

GOAL: Each business, citizen and lake property owner come to understand and appreciate the view that protecting the lake and supporting the economy cannot only co-exist, but rather that they are mutually interdependent (sustainability). Remain involved and exert influence with local / county / state government units to protect the environment in light of this sustainability perspective.

Background: Mutual benefits best accrue as all property owners (business and property owners / taxpayers and consumers) work within and across the community to assure economic viability and stability that respects the lake and the environment and appropriate investments by businesses, residents and seasonal owners. This is especially challenging in the RALALA organization due to the lakes are located in two different counties and local governmental units.

I-------------- Resources-----------------I Description Measurement RALALA EQI Grants Schedul

e Proposed Leader

Strategies:

Develop and communicate the win / win view; Press for environmental care on NLORL Representation at local civic / government

meetings; Active members of community organizations

(Lions, Chamber, churches); Property owners interact regularly with MN DNR,

MPCA, SWCD, County & State Officials; Survey / measure attitudes in community

Developed Final results Reports Counts Counts Statistics

Don Dee

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Develop position paper on Sustainability Communicate message Develop plan to cover meetings Document memberships Align agency contact linkage Survey opinions across local communities Cover county and elected state officials Engage broader community in various ways Consult experts relative to science, law and other educational resources

Paper done Published RALALA Plan defined Organizations Id’d Agencies Id’d Statistical summary Defined Defined Per Plans

$300 $200

$0 $75 $0

$500 $0

$250 $10,000

$2,000

$10,000

May 15 May 21 May 1

May 30 May 1 Oct 15

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice $0 $2,000 Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $0 $575 $12,000 Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $0 $10,750 $10,000


Priority Area – (SI) – Sustainability Initiative

GOAL: Build an effective lake owners’ process that will monitor, assess, and effectively act regarding on-lake and watershed properties to protect,

improve, or sustain critical elements of Lake Water Quality. We will work with the Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation – LLAWF - for guidance, assistance, and support.

Background: It is essential to the long term health of the water and the local economy to protect critical habitat. Effective techniques include land / surface water zoning to reduce development intensity and impacts, conservation easements, land owners contracting for Environmental Easements, and possibly outright acquisition and dedication to public protection.


Leader Strategies:

Identify lake properties of substantive interest Build information on Conservation Easements, etc. Establish funding sources Target highest priority for voluntary action Evaluate priority lands for collaborative action

Report completed Assembled Options outlined Lists compiled Evaluation done

Darril Wegscheid

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Maps and inventory done for: Lawrence, Leavitt, Roosevelt Smokey Hollow, Morrison Be prepared / be tracking land activities Complete analysis of lands Develop contacts with owners Sustainable plans and involvement

Mapped Mapped Process in place Summarized List and status done Updates

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$1,000 $1,000

TBD

LLAWF LLAWF $5,000

TBD TBD

$50,000

Done Doing July 30 Dec 31 Dec 31

TBD

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice TBD Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $2,000 $5,000 Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $1,750 $50,000


Priority Area – (ISAV) – Invasive Species and Aquatic Vegetation

GOAL: Improve resistance to - and strengthen prevention against - any invasion of exotic species into any of our waters. Background: DNR Public Landing Monitoring Intern Program was begun in 2008, with donated funds and RALALA volunteers. We would expand the effort

within the EQI budget, train local volunteers and look forward to a more comprehensive inspection program. Zebra mussels are in the County - Lake Mille Lacs and Lake Ossawinnamakee, while Eurasian Milfoil is in Ruth lake (in Emily) and Lake Ossawinnamakee. Therefore , monitoring and educating lake users is critical.


Leader Strategies:

Collaborate with DNR for effective plan Monitor all landings Promote lake user awareness Collaborate as effectively as possible

Plan in place Volunteers scheduled Messages to owners Commercial Postings

April 30 Summer

June Summer

Roger Brekken Denny Neill Lloyd Thyen

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Cover all landings Printed materials in businesses Include in Newsletter and Annual meeting Coordinate Frequent Press Releases Collaborate with other Lake Associations & continue all of above

Hours covered Coverage Coverage Coverage Plans

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$1,000 $750

$0 $0

$1,000 $1,750

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice TBD Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $1,750 $5,000 Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $2,750 TBD


Priority Area – (NN) – Neighborhood Networking -

GOAL: Each property owner be a member of a lake neighborhood community with a neighborhood captain relying on known year-round contact information in RALALA records for phone, mail, and e-mail.

Background: To enable RALALA to better inform property owners, to enable “NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH”, to deliver RALALA information, and for similar efforts, we can benefit from developing and maintaining property owner access information and a ‘calling-tree’ contact perspective. Such an approach can better gather property owners’ opinions and issues for broader awareness and improved dialogue. Stronger lake area neighborhoods can also build a stronger community ‘at large’, and to serve as a vehicle for education and social contact.


Leader Strategies:

Link data and better enable contacts Build ‘beech captain’ and ‘calling tree’ structure Facilitate neighborhood dialogue / discussion Encourage social efforts in the neighborhoods Update meetings in neighborhoods

Rolli Maki Mary Kowalski Dave Johnson

Objectives: 2009

Post 2009

Organize county property records Link membership and neighborhood Build ‘beach captain’ segments Recruit initial pilot leaders Each lake / one neighborhood in 2009 Update LMP via coffee parties w/ neighborhoods Enable flow of information Get each lake started in 2009 All neighborhoods / all lakes by 2010 year end Annual Updates Expand with other data

Properties covered Members covered Coverage Lakes Covered Coverage Attendees Leaders’ access Completed Coverage Schedule Coverage

$100

$100

June July Aug July Sep

Jun - Sep Aug Sept Dec Aug Dec

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice n/a Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $0 $100 n/a Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $0 $100 n/a


Priority Area – (FRPR) – Fund Raising and Community Public Relations

GOAL: Establish and conduct thoughtful and effective events that enhance the RALALA presence in the community, build the RALALA membership, and grow funds to support the RALALA lake Management Plan and its priorities.

Background: In the Spring of 2006, the communities of Emily and Outing were faced with the largest-ever development in Emily, which posed potential significant threats to wild life, citizens, the traveling public and the water quality and health of Lake Roosevelt,. As a lakes association, we were unable to respond in any meaningful way - except with our physical (citizen) presence and words. It is the goal of the lakes association to raise funds to be able to protect our environment and citizens from serious harm to property values as well as physical health. This goal also supports our broader sustainability efforts. This overall goal is to provide dollars to do research on water quality, to explore related challenges, and to avoid / oppose unsustainable developments and plans. In the long term, this is also to provide funds to help assure that critical habitat is protected by covenants and environmental easements.


Leader Strategies:

Hold fund raising efforts in collaboration within our communities

Strengthen ties to communities via collaboration

Events held Funds raised

Summer

Dave Johnson; Linda Vanstraaten

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Breakfast fund raiser with Annual Meeting Barbeque fund raiser in July: - Include silent auction - Explore raffles and other options Improve, repeat, grow effort and results

$0

$150 $500

n/a n/a

May 23 July 25

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice TBD TBD Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $0 $650 TBD Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $0 $0 TBD


Priority Area – (TRA) – Traditional RALALA Activities toward the Community

GOAL: Consider, continue and adjust (if needed) RALALA donations to selected local / community interests, requests and events. Background: Traditionally, RALALA has been a strong supporter oh the lakes and the communities in the lakes area. RALALA plans to continue their

support and grow it. Contributions are made to the two communities (Outing and Emily) Emergency First Responders, Fire, Police and other efforts. Those contributions have increased within the last 5 years.


Leader Strategies:

Continue local contributions with warranted adjustments

John Rowell

Objectives 2009

Post 2009

Support local solicitations as determined Support local solicitations as determined

$1,500 $1,500

$0 $0

$0 $0

Grant Info 2009 - Grant writing expertise & advice TBD TBD Summary of Resources Required:

2009 Annual amount – with proposed grant funding $1,500 $0 TBD Post 2009 Ongoing budget – with proposed grant funding $1,500 $0 TBD

RALALA LMP Mar 30 2009 Version 2009.A.01 1

Lake Management Plan (LMP) for

Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence & Smokey Hollow Lakes in

Cass and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota

Sponsored by Roosevelt and Lawrence Area Lakes Association (RALALA)

Finalized: January 2009

Reviewed RALALA Board: April 2009 Released: RALALA Board: April 16, 2009

(Subject to ongoing improvements and minor corrections)

RALALA LMP Mar 30 2009 Version 2009.A.01

Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Committee

of Cass County in support of RALALA

Special thanks to Don Hickman of the Initiative Foundation and to John Sumption of Cass County Environmental Services

for financial and leadership support.


Table of Contents

Lake Management Plan Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes

I. Introduction:

Summary of Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Program Physical Description of lakes and drainage basin

Watershed size Watershed Hydrology Precipitation Soils Land Use

History of development/impacts by lake Organizational history

a) Mission b) Structure c) Accomplishments

II. Review of historical and existing conditions for each focus areas:

Water Quality Fisheries Management Plans Aquatic vegetation Wildlife Exotic Species Land Use and zoning Managing water surface use conflicts Public water access Sustainability Options Organizational Development and Communication

III. Visioning Session Summary/Conclusion

Outcome of Visioning Session IV. Priorities and Action Plans


A. 1. Water Quality Data, Charts and Discussions

Appendices

2. MN DNR Fisheries Management Plans: a. Fisheries Management Plan for Roosevelt Lake b. Fisheries Management Plan for Leavitt Lake c. Fisheries Management Plan for Lawrence Lake d. Fisheries Management Plan for Smokey Hollow Lake

B. Results of AW Labs testing: a. Water columns 2007-2008 b. Springs identification and testing – 2008 c. TSI Fly-over summary – 2008

C. Summary of Watershed (drainage area), Geology and Topology maps a. Leavitt / Lawrence watershed (To Hwy 58 channel at Outing)

(Including Morrison Lake) b. Spire Valley watershed (To North tip of North Roosevelt Lake) c. Roosevelt Lake (North and South) – the balance of the area

(Including Smokey Hollow, Little Emily and Papoose) d. USGS soil survey map

D. DNR Aquatic Plant Survey of Lawrence and Roosevelt Lakes E. Shoreland Area Fact Sheet F. Top 10 Shoreland BMPs G. Developmental Risk Properties – Leavitt Lake H. Developmental Risk Properties – Lawrence Lake I. Developmental Risk Properties – Roosevelt Lake J. Glossary - Guide to Common Acronyms and Abbreviations

Support Folders (ON A SEPARATE “SUPPORT DVD” - DUE TO FILE SIZE)

Support Folder 01 – Crow Wing, Cass, Pine River Data Support Folder 02 – Secchi Reports – CLMP MN PCA data Support Folder 03 - RALALA Organization Documents:

a. By-Laws b. Articles of Incorporation

Support Folder 04 – DNR Resources (Includes the Aquatic Plant Survey of 2008)

Support Folder 10 – Leavitt Property Mapping Support Folder 11 – Lawrence Property Mapping Support Folder 12 – Roosevelt Property Mapping


Introduction In July 2008 RALALA (encompassing Lawrence, Leavitt, Roosevelt and Smokey Hollow Lakes) was invited to participate in the Initiative Foundation’s Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership program along with six other Lake Associations in Cass County. Under the coordination of John Sumption (Cass County Water Planner and Director of Environmental Services), representatives attended two days of training on strategic planning, communication and nonprofit group leadership. Representatives of many state and local agencies, as well as nonprofit organizations also attended the training sessions in order to offer their assistance to each group in developing a strategic Lake Management Plan. RALALA was represented at the Healthy Lakes & Rivers training sessions by: Roger Brekken, Dave Johnson, Gary Larson, Jan and Mark Mosman, Denny Neill, Sue and Bill Schaeffer, Dave Schaumbeurg, Lloyd Thyen, and Darril Wegscheid. Following the training sessions, RALALA held an inclusive community planning/visioning session designed to identify key community concerns, assets, opportunities, and priorities. RALALA held this planning session on August 16th

Finally, we would like to thank the supporters of the Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership program for Cass County, including The McKnight Foundation, Laura Jane Musser Trust, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, McDowall Company, the Cass County Water Plan, Lake Hubert Conservation Association, Portage-Crooked Lakes Association, and the Sibley Lake Association of Crow Wing County, the Ann Lake Sportsmen’s Club of Kennebec County, various staff from the Initiative Foundation, and over thirty generous individuals.

, 2008, facilitated by Molly Zins of MN Waters. Approximately 60 people attended, with about 25 percent of the participants describing themselves as year round residents. Details of the public input received at this session are provided within this plan. This document is intended to create a record of historic and existing conditions and influences on Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes and to identify the goals of this community of lakes as expressed through RALALA. In addition, it is ultimately meant to help prioritize goals, and guide citizen action and engagement in the priority action areas. Clearly, state agencies and local units of government also have a vital role and responsibility in managing surface waters and other natural resources, but above all else this Lake Management Plan is intended to be an assessment of what we as citizens can influence, what our desired outcomes are and how we will participate in shaping our own destiny. This Lake Management Plan is also intended to be a “living document;” as new or better information becomes available, as we accomplish our goals or discover that alternative strategies are needed, it is our intent to update this plan so that it continues to serve as a useful guide to future leaders. Appendix J contains a list of terms and abbreviations. In discussing lake management issues, it is impossible to avoid all scientific or technical terms. We have tried to express our goals, measures of success, and other themes as simply and clearly as possible, but have included a glossary of common limnological terms at the end of the plan to assist the reader. Limnology is the state of lake conditions and behavior.


Physical Characteristics and location of Roosevelt, Leavitt, and Lawrence Lakes (The DNR Lake Reference # is shown for each lake). Roosevelt (#11-0043), Leavitt (#11-0037), Lawrence (#11-0053) and Smokey Hollow (#18-0220) Lakes are located in the southeast corner of Cass County around the community of Outing.

Much more detailed watershed maps and geological information are contained in Appendix C and in

SUPPORT FOLDER 01.


Per MN DNR data, the table below summarizes some of the physical characteristics of the lakes within this chain. The littoral area is that which is equal or less than 15 feet deep. Lake Name Surface Area

(Acres) Amount Littoral

Acres/(relative percent) Maximum Depth

(feet) Avg. Water Clarity

(feet) Roosevelt 1,510.56 390 (25.8%) 129 10.1 Leavitt 121.53 38 (31.3%) 60 6.0 Lawrence 224.9 87 (38.7%) 71 12.5 Smokey Hollow

114.0 52 (45.6%) 25 3.0

Total 1970.99 567 (28.8%) --- --- Lake Roosevelt is likely best understood as two basins connected by a channel under MN Highway 6 at Outing. Data is being organized and re-stated (where possible), with that fact in mind. One only has to look at this Google Earth view to recognize that critical differences are evident:

Google Earth View – zoom to “Outing, MN”

Water Level: The DNR Division of Waters has very limited historic water level data for Roosevelt, Leavitt, and Lawrence Lakes, with summary statistics presented below. Lawrence has only one sample ever documented, for example.

Roosevelt Leavitt Lawrence Period of Record 6/7/1961-5/19/1992 8/5/1980 # of readings 5 1 Highest Recorded Water Level

1,269.7 ft (May 19, 1992)

No data 1,269.16 (August 5, 1980)

Lowest Recorded Water Level

1,269.14 ft (Aug. 5, 1980)

1,269.16 (August 5, 1980)

Recorded range 0.56 feet 0 feet Average Water Level 1,269.28 ft 1,269.16 ft Ordinary High Water Level

1,269.9 ft

1,269.9 feet


No water level data were found for Smokey Hollow Lake. Water depth is referenced to a standard marker in the County Road 58 Bridge. The following chart depicts the variation in surface water level of Lake Roosevelt over recent years:

Source: http://thoreau.dnr.state.mn.us/perl/lk_hydrograph.pl?years=10&width=600&height=400&id=49007900&name=Alexander

1) Leavitt / Lawrence watershed (To CR 58 channel at Outing)

Watershed Descriptions Appendix C also contains the following watershed maps:

(This includes Morrison Lake) 2) Spire Valley watershed (To North tip of North Roosevelt Lake) 3) Roosevelt Lake (North and South) – the balance of the area

(This includes Smokey Hollow, Little Emily and Papoose) Precipitation: We are relying on a 1989 Lake Assessment Program (LAP) study of Woman, Child and Girl Lakes near Longville Minnesota by the Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for relevant data. That study noted that average annual precipitation for the area ranges between 26-28 inches, and evaporation ranges between 30-32 inches. Annual average runoff is approximately 6 inches. One-in-ten year low and high runoff is approximately 2 inches and 8 inches respectively. The USGS data in Appendix G provides similar information.

http://thoreau.dnr.state.mn.us/perl/lk_hydrograph.pl?years=10&width=600&height=400&id=49007900&name=Alexander�

http://thoreau.dnr.state.mn.us/perl/lk_hydrograph.pl?years=10&width=600&height=400&id=49007900&name=Alexander�


Freeze-up and Ice-out: Fall freeze-up is normally about mid-December, while springtime ice-out on Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lake has usually occurred by mid-April. However, in 2007 that occurred in early May: Lawrence Lake and North Roosevelt are usually about two days earlier on freeze up. The following data is for South Roosevelt. Ice up Ice out 12/6/07 5/4/08 12/21/06 4/22/07 12/17/05 4/11/06 12/18/04 4/13/05 Soils: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) – the soil surveys for the two counties – are provided in SUPPORT FOLDER 01. As of 2008, the Crow Wing County Geological Atlas is available from the DNR Geology / Hydrogeology on line as well as in printed form. Development History: Development around the lakes has generally been gradual, with some recent efforts at larger areas and number of dwellings being considered. A considerable amount of open land remains, and thus needs attention to assure protection of sensitive environmental values being balanced with sustainable development. All existing dwelling areas need to examine how they can improve their performance, so that we may improve the overall area for tourism, sustainable development and property enjoyment. Introduction / History of RALALA ROOSEVELT AND LAWRENCE AREA LAKES ASSOCIATION – known as RALALA - as an organization is twelve years old. It was established in 1996 as a social organization to get neighbors knowing neighbors sharing a concern for the lakes. This has been accomplished primarily through a picnic, a newsletter and efforts to educate property owners to good stewardship practices. Along the way, it has accomplished greatly valued services to the lakes. Those services include a water safety patrol that provides volunteers every weekend of the summer season to patrol the waters to insure the safe operation of watercraft on the lakes. The water patrol also helped establish a water patrol on a lake not in the association. The lake association has been responsible for the Secchi disk readings on Lawrence, Leavitt and Roosevelt since 1996. This is a great service to the ongoing management of the water quality trends and challenges to the lakes. Because of the two county presence across Roosevelt and Smokey Hollow, the lake association has become the common thread for working at water issues and lake management over the years.


Historically, RALALA volunteers planned and developed an ‘Aquascaping’ project for the highway shoreline in Outing. This award-winning effort is regularly maintained by RALALA members, and is a showcase for citizen awareness as well as an enhancement for that area. Most recently, the lakes association has challenged itself to become a more robust organization in pursuit of water management and sustainable development. RALALA has become actively engaged in gaining citizen input in this lake management planning process. RALALA members and other citizens have engaged in an ongoing effort with the City of Emily while is has been engaged in efforts to strike the balance for sustainable developments, and has been re-writing its Shoreland Ordinances. RALALA has sought to strengthen its working relationship with local officials in the Crooked Lake Township to tackle an old problem of storm water, and potentially of septic systems, affecting Lawrence and Roosevelt lakes. RALALA has engaged the Leech Lake Foundation to help establish a conservation and education effort. This is an initiative to develop a sustainability fund helping enable us preserve lands in, along and around the lake that afford essential and vital habitat for maintaining the quality of aquatic life. Such sustainable environments are crucial to making and holding the RALALA lakes as “premier” assets for property owners surrounding the five basins, and more broadly in Cass and Crow Wing Counties. These environmental values support economic success and enhance investment rewards for our area citizens, with strong fisheries, great vacation destinations, and attractive scenic and natural experiences. WHOM WE REPRESENT: RALALA represents property owners and local commercial enterprises that pay dues. We have an approximately 30% increase in membership in 2008. There are more than seven hundred property owners with at least some building structure on the five basins / lakes. Smokey Hollow – with a very active group of owners - is not adequately represented on the RALALA Board at present, and thus the bylaws need to be addressed. Morrison Lake is in the area, is part of the watershed for Lawrence Lake, but has not (yet) been officially invited to the process. That too will be an action item for the Board to deliberate. The majority of participating owners are on the largest lake - Roosevelt. Our MISSION: Members work to maintain and improve water quality in our lakes and surrounding watershed for future generations and ourselves. Our VISION: Through research, with a common understanding and commitment, RALALA will deliberate and commit to action that which will demonstrate our strong support of the Stewardship required to protect and enhance the environmental resources, which in turn supports the attractiveness of this area for business and tourism, as well as for our own property enjoyment. STAKEHOLDERS AND CONNECTIONS:


RALALA sees itself as a collaborator and partner with the local communities of Emily and Outing. Working cooperatively to encourage ordinances, which protect our resource and at the same time encouraging responsible growth is a change. RALALA will challenge abuse of the resource by shortsightedness or obvious distortion of local ordinances. The mantra of the association is: the waters cannot speak for themselves, so we must speak for them. RALALA as a lake association is a service within two counties. This often requires double work due to many inconsistencies in local laws. This is an opportunity to bring people together and to solve problems of mutual concern as a team rather than as a local unit working on its own behalf, which would then not be serving the common good. RALALA belongs to ACCLA - ASSOCIATION OF CASS COUNTY LAKE ASSOCIATIONS, and to LARA - (Crow Wing County) LAKES AND RIVERS ASSOCIATION. Both County lakes associations are working together for the good of the region. RALALA and individual property owners are members of Minnesota Waters, who also host our RALALA website. We also participate in the Pine River Watershed Association. This collaboration of lake associations and related citizen and professional groups creates understanding and voice to the issues of lake stewardship. We learn from the experts and share with our members. To accomplish our role as responsible stewards, we work in close collaboration with the DNR, the MPCA, and our local township, county and city government bodies. As the lakes are developed to the maximum level of lakeshore available, it is extremely important that all parties work in collaboration to protect the sensitive ecosystem of lakes and watershed. We are working together for healthy lakes, since healthy lakes support healthy business communities in the surrounding areas. SERVICES - RALALA is a service organization. We provide many services-all of which issue from a care and concern for the health of the lakes we serve. Those: services include the following: MEMBERSHIP – the membership committee manages the lakeshore owner members as well as the commercial members who join RALALA. Membership seeks new members on an ongoing basis and spearheads the annual nominating committee for candidates for election to the Board of Directors. NEWSLETTER - the lake association historically publishes three newsletters a year. It added a fourth last winter to keep members connected to the ongoing issues and happenings of the lakes. The newsletter serves as an educational tool and highlights the happenings on the lakes, including the fish caught. WEBSITE – In the past year, RALALA has substantially expanded the use of our website hosted on the MN Waters’ web hosting service. The website provides newsletters, timely issue updates, and substantial background for interested individuals. We intend to post this Lake Management


Plan and supporting materials there for greater access. We plan for more use of hot links to dynamic information of value to our members and area. DNR Liaison - manages the lakes affiliation with the DNR in Brainerd and Cass County. Members organize regular trips to the DNR office for lake owners to keep abreast with the lakes’ health and learn of the status, challenges and threats to our lakes. MN DNR continues to be an ongoing, integral and essential resource for scientific and practical assistance in our stewardship efforts. WATER PATROL - the lakes association sponsors the water patrol on Roosevelt and Lawrence lakes. Staffed with volunteers the patrol boat is on the lakes all weekends of the summer season. SECCHI DISK – Board Leadership coordinates the readings by volunteers on all of our lakes and encourages participation. We expect to add more rigor to that process as a result of this LMP. Board leadership also manages the Whitefish Area Property Owners Association (WAPOA) sponsored phosphorus and chlorophyll readings for the Lawrence, Leavitt and South Roosevelt. That effort will be broadened in 2009 to separate the North and South basins of Roosevelt, and to include Smokey Hollow. Initiation of testing of all inflow and outflow streams is also under consideration. PARK CLEAN UP - a group of volunteers from the lake association cleans up Luscher Park on Lawrence Lake and maintains the award winning Aquascaping project adjacent to State 6 on South Roosevelt in Outing. AQUASCAPE – RALALA members completed an award-winning natural environment landscaping in Outing several years ago. This area demonstrates the value and beauty of natural flora in protecting water quality. SOCIAL EVENTS - volunteers from the association lead and manage the annual picnic, participation in Emily Days and Outing Waterrama, as well as special projects like the tee shirt project to promote the lake association. BOAT INSPECTIONS - newly piloted project is the boat inspection for invasive species at the public landing. This program, in conjunction with DNR interns, was piloted in the summer ’08 season and will be recommended for future continuance. Urgency continues to grow as infestations of exotic species (specifically - zebra mussels and Eurasian Milfoil) spread into lakes within miles of our lakes. FUND RAISING - a new committee has been established to help raise funds in support of Environmental Quality Initiatives / water quality / lake management issues. The focus of the fund raising projects centers on the following projects: sustainability, resource assessment and protection, estate planning/directed giving, and foundation trust fund establishment. SUPPORT FOLDER 03 contains the By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation for RALALA. These are being reviewed to consider member approval of refinements at an appropriate Annual Membership Meeting.


THE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN Our Lake Management Plan addressed these key areas of concern in the following pages:

1. Water Quality 2. Fisheries Management Plans 3. Aquatic vegetation 4. Wildlife 5. Exotic Species 6. Land Use and Zoning 7. Managing water surface use conflicts 8. Public water access 9. Sustainability Options 10. Organizational Development and Communication

We prioritized our concerns and focused on the four key areas of Water Quality, Aquatic Vegetation, Exotic Species, and Land Use and Zoning. 1. Water Quality Much of the following information, with greater supporting data is provided in Appendix A1. Data for assessing water quality on this set of lakes are mixed and often inconsistent. This Lake Management Plan documents what is known, and seeks to lay a foundation for additional compilation and interpretation. The Visioning Session participants stated that “conclusive information in layman terms is needed to share with residents on the state of testing of the actual water quality of each lake – Leavitt, Lawrence, Roosevelt and Smokey Hollow – we need to educate to achieve cooperation of residents”. SUPPORT FOLDER 04 contains a great deal of information on the stewardship of land and water by various BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs). The articles are rich in examples and in identifying resources for interested parties. Since 1973, citizen volunteers from Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes have participated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), recording secchi disc transparency – a measure of water clarity. SUPPORT FOLDER 02 contains a map for locations of Secchi volunteer sampling (many sites are for short duration) as well as the sampling reports through 2007 for each active volunteer sampler. On the MPCA’s web-site link, “Lake Water Quality Database,” additional water chemistry data is reported. The MPCA’s “Environmental Database Access” system also provides additional water chemistry data which includes total phosphorus concentrations, as well as other data. One application of secchi disc transparency data is to convert the clarity measurements into a Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) score. The Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) is a tool used to summarize several measurements of water quality into one index value, which can be used to compare a lake to other lakes, or to historic/future data as a measure of degradation or improvement. In many ways, the index can be viewed as a measure of the potential for algae productivity. Since most people value lakes with low algae productivity, the lower the TSI value the healthier the lake. Specifically:


TSI Range Trophic Status Characteristics 0-40 Oligotrophic Clean Lake 41-50

Mesotrophic Temporary algae & aquatic plant problems

50-70

Eutrophic Persistent algae & aquatic plant problems

Greater than 70 Hypereutrophic Extreme algae & aquatic plant problems

Based on the data provided on the MPCA website, an average concentration (or depth) for the key TSI parameters can be determined, and the associated TSI score calculated. Appendix E. displays the MPCA-generated historic site locations and graphs for each volunteer in the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) for the years they have been active. This site map will further assist the separation of analysis for North versus South Roosevelt. Average annual Trophic Status Index measurements based on MN DNR history: Year Roosevelt Leavitt Lawrence Smokey Hollow 1973 --- --- 44.0 --- 1980 --- --- --- 51.1 1986 --- 52.7 --- --- 1987 --- --- --- --- 1988 --- --- --- --- 1989 --- 46.1 --- --- 1990 --- 45.6 --- --- 1991 --- 48.5 --- --- 1992 --- 44.4 --- --- 1993 --- 54.5 --- --- 1994 44.0 46.5 42.4 --- 1995 42.9 46.0 43.5 --- 1996 39.8 45.3 40.8 --- 1997 40.2 45.6 40.9 --- 1998 41.5 44.3 42.0 1999 42.4 46.1 37.9 52.1 2000 39.3 42.0 41.8 --- 2001 45.6 47.0 45.3 54.5 2002 44.3 47.0 45.3 52.8 2003 41.3 44.3 43.0 --- 2004 41.2 42.8 44.3 --- 2005 43.1 49.7 42.9 --- 2006 42.2 44.8 42.4 --- 2007 42.3 44.1 41.9 ---


These data suggest that water quality in Roosevelt, Leavitt, and Lawrence Lakes have routinely exhibited “mesotrophic” conditions (a TSI score above 40 but below 50) during the period of record, while Smokey Hollow tends for the eutrophic (above 50 but below 70). However, the lack of sufficient data across all basins hampers the discussion of the status of water quality. The 1986 index for Leavitt Lake is based on fourteen relatively low (shallow) secchi disc measurements (recorded between June and September) and may suggest that water quality on this lake has indeed improved in recent years. More likely this is a reflection of water level, precipitation and/or weather, as similar measurements were again recorded in 1993. Leavitt Lake exhibits significant tannin discoloration. With concerns for their water quality (downstream from this watershed), the Whitefish Area Property Owners (WAPOA) engaged RALALA to participate in their summer water quality testing. Starting in 2006, RALALA agreed to sample three lakes / basins (South Roosevelt, Lawrence, and Leavitt) monthly per the WAPOA plan, and to bring the samples to their collection center in Cross Lake. WAPOA then has them analyzed and reports the results. The materials in Appendix A1 show resulting data from that effort with WAPOA:

a) A table of results for each of our tested lakes for the two years, and b) Four graphical compilations of the TSI data by lake (data from varied DNR sources).

The next charts attempt to graphically portray the TSI for each lake. Again, however, the data is lacking to provide comprehensive scientific conclusions – per the MPCA.


The figure above shows the long-term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Roosevelt Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1995.

Roosevelt Lake (#11-0043)Trophic Status Index 1981-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/95

11/1

/95

5/1/

96

11/1

/96

5/1/

97

11/1

/97

5/1/

98

11/1

/98

5/1/

99

11/1

/99

5/1/

00

11/1

/00

5/1/

01

11/1

/01

5/1/

02

11/1

/02

5/1/

03

11/1

/03

5/1/

04

11/1

/04

5/1/

05

11/1

/05

5/1/

06

11/1

/06

5/1/

07

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex

TSI (secchi) TSI (Chlorophyll a) TSI (Phosphorus)

Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic


The figure above shows the long-term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Leavitt Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1986.

Leavitt Lake (#11-0037)Trophic Status Index 1986-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/86

5/1/

87

5/1/

88

5/1/

89

5/1/

90

5/1/

91

5/1/

92

5/1/

93

5/1/

94

5/1/

95

5/1/

96

5/1/

97

5/1/

98

5/1/

99

5/1/

00

5/1/

01

5/1/

02

5/1/

03

5/1/

04

5/1/

05

5/1/

06

5/1/

07

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic


The figure above shows the long-term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Lawrence Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1995.

Lawrence Lake (#11-0053)Trophic Status Index 1973-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/19

95

11/1

/199

5

5/1/

1996

11/1

/199

6

5/1/

1997

11/1

/199

7

5/1/

1998

11/1

/199

8

5/1/

1999

11/1

/199

9

5/1/

2000

11/1

/200

0

5/1/

2001

11/1

/200

1

5/1/

2002

11/1

/200

2

5/1/

2003

11/1

/200

3

5/1/

2004

11/1

/200

4

5/1/

2005

11/1

/200

5

5/1/

2006

11/1

/200

6

5/1/

2007

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic


The figure above shows the long-term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Smokey Hollow Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within eutrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1980.

Smokey Hollow Lake (#18-0220)Trophic Status Index 1980-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/80

5/1/

81

5/1/

82

5/1/

83

5/1/

84

5/1/

85

5/1/

86

5/1/

87

5/1/

88

5/1/

89

5/1/

90

5/1/

91

5/1/

92

5/1/

93

5/1/

94

5/1/

95

5/1/

96

5/1/

97

5/1/

98

5/1/

99

5/1/

00

5/1/

01

5/1/

02

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic


A second method of assessing water quality and determining whether a water body is the “best that it can be” is to compare it to other lakes of similar morphology, geology, and land uses. Listed below are ranges of common measures of water quality based on many years and locations of water quality. The tables below are adapted from the MN Pollution Control Agency “Environmental Data Access” database, and compare observed results in Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes to common water quality ranges for lakes within the Northern Lakes and Forests Eco-region. Average Summer Water Quality Parameter Typical Range:

Northern Lakes & Forest

Eco-region

Roosevelt Lake

Average +

St. Dev.

Leavitt Lake

Average +

St. Dev.

Lawrence Lake

Average +

St. Dev.

Smokey Hollow

Lake Average +

St. Dev. Total Phosphorus (μg/L) 14 – 27 16.4 + 2.2 19.8 + 3.4 19.0 + 7.0 No data Chlorophyll a (μg/L) mean 4 – 10 6.7 + 2.1 6.7 + 4.0 3.7 + 1.6 No data Chlorophyll a (μg/L) maximum <15 9.27 13.7 6.0 No data Secchi disc (feet) 8 – 15 11.5 + 2.5 8.6 + 2.6 9.8 + 1.9 5.5 + 1.3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.4 – 0.75 0.39 + 0.04 No data No data 0.74* Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.01 No data No data No data No data Alkalinity (mg/L) 40-140 137.5 + 12.6 No data No data 13.8 + 3.2 Color (Pt-Color units) 10 – 35 15.0 + 5.8 No data No data 60.0* pH 7.2 – 8.3 8.3 + 0.6 8.0 + 0.4 8.4 + 0.5 7.2 + 0.4 Chloride (mg/L) 0.6 – 1.2 2.0 + 0.2 No data No data 1.02* Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) <1 – 2 2.4 + 1.1 No data No data No data Conductivity (μmhos/cm) 50 – 250 247.8 + 23.2 214.6 + 27.5 228.1 + 24.3 30.9 + 16.0

* indicates data represents a single sample, therefore no standard deviation is presented.


A third application of these data is to compare phosphorus concentrations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency water quality criterion for swimming and other recreational contact. The Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion phosphorus criteria level of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L) serves as the upper threshold for full-support for swimmable use. This concentration corresponds to Carlson's TSI values of 54 or lower.

For the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion, summer-mean total phosphorus concentrations above 35 µg/L were associated with nonsupport of aquatic recreational use. At concentrations above about 35 µg/L mild blooms occur over 50 percent of the summer, nuisance blooms (> 20 µg/L of chlorophyll a) about 15 percent of the summer. Phosphorus concentrations above criteria levels would result in greater frequencies of nuisance algal blooms and increased frequencies of "impaired swimming." Name Mean Total

Phosphorus (µg/l) Carlson’s Trophic Stratus Index (Secchi)

MPCA Swimming Criterion

Roosevelt 15.0 43 Full Support Leavitt No data 45 Full Support (poor data) 1 Lawrence No data 44.5 Full Support (poor data) 1 Smokey Hollow No data 53.2 Partial Support (poor data) 1

1

The MN Pollution Control Agency web-site provides additional guidance on how to chart and interpret Lake Water Quality, including providing a spreadsheet which can be used to generate interpretive graphs:

Fully supporting lakes with insufficient data show as better than the thresholds based on limited data; however, the lake cannot be assessed as fully supporting for aquatic recreation until more data is collected.

Based on the phosphorus concentration (estimated using secchi depth) presented above, Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow all “fully support” recreational use and contact. Nonetheless, Leavitt appears on some websites as “impaired”. South Roosevelt apparently demonstrates summer ‘bloom’ in recent years.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html, as well as a simple model which allows us to compare what your water quality “should be” based on local influences. We intend to improve and consolidate reliable data references in this plan.

Ultimately all water chemistry (or physical) data is only a measure or reflection of whether the lake or river meets criteria or goals for the water body. Are our lakes able to support recreational uses without risk to public health? Do they support the best possible fishery? Are the waters as aesthetically attractive as possible? These are our challenges to define, measure and improve performance, and this first year directly faces that challenge.

Attached appendices for additional RALALA information from recent scientific research: Appendix B) Results of AW Labs testing:

a. Water columns 2007-2008 b. Springs identification and testing – 2008 c. TSI “Fly-over” summary – 2008

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html�


2. Fisheries:

Much of the following data along with greater supporting data is provided in Appendix A2. In addition, SUPPORT FOLDER 04 contains a very extensive report for the 2008 DNR Aquatic Vegetation Survey (part of the broad limnology study for Lawrence and Roosevelt Lakes. This was undertaken with the collaboration of Cass County. More of these DNR limnology results are expected to be published by the summer of 2009.

Detailed (by lake) Fisheries Management Plans are available on the DNR website, and are usually updated annually. A copy is provided in Appendix A1. The following summarizes some key aspects. A summary of the Official Status of Roosevelt Lake, according to the MN DNR fisheries summary (July 10, 2006), is:

Roosevelt Lake is a 1,585 acre lake located at Outing Minnesota. Maximum depth is 129 feet and 25 % of the surface area is less than 15 feet deep. It is a lake with moderate to heavy shoreline development. Water clarity is good, with a secchi disc reading of 10 feet.

Lake trout have been stocked since 1982. Since 1995 they have been stocked every other year instead of yearly. Different varieties of trout have been tried at various times. A total of 17 lake trout were sampled in 2006 in gill nets, the trout ranged in size from 7.5 to 8.6 inches. All of these fish were stocked in the spring of 2006. Stocking success and survival of lake trout has been very poor in the last ten years; recent surveys have found no fish stocked from previous years, also little if any return to the angler has been observed. Good oxygen levels in the cooler water preferred by lake trout has been limited or completely absent in recent years, thus quality habitat is lacking for lake trout. The stocking of lake trout has been evaluated, and has been halted (hopefully, no longer than necessary). Walleye stocking is being increased. The walleye fishery is doing well with high angler satisfaction and a modest net catch of 2.6/gill net, very similar to the 2000 population assessment. Black crappie numbers were good, and fish up to 11.0 inches were observed. A spring electro fishing assessment of the bass population indicated a very high population of largemouth bass with sizes ranging from 3.9 to 16.1 inches observed. The average size was 11.4 inches. Smallmouth bass were observed in moderate numbers with fish up to 19.6 inches captured.

The DNR Fisheries Management Plan notes the following limiting factors for Roosevelt Lake: Lake trout spawning habitat seems to be of poor quality. Results of recent summer temperature / oxygen profiles showed a decreasing quantity of suitable lake trout habitat exists. The last reported trout summer-kill occurred in 1989, however, decreased habitat and competition with an abundant tullibee population may be limiting long-term survival of lake trout. Quality northern pike spawning habitat is scarce. High abundance and slow growth of bluegills are periodic problems. Water Quality will need to be improved in order to have any potential option for trout in the future.


The Official Status of Leavitt Lake, according to the MN DNR fisheries summary (June 12, 2006), is: Leavitt Lake is a 130 acre lake located one mile northeast of Outing. There is a public access on the southwest corner of the lake. The water has a brown tint bog stain color with a secchi disc reading of 6.0 feet. The northern pike catch rate in gill nets was low compared to similar lake types, but higher than past nettings. The average size was 21.3 inches with fish up to 35.8 inches observed. The walleye population is low and only two fish were observed. Black crappie numbers were similar to past surveys with modest numbers observed and sizes ranging from 4.50 to 9.7 inches present. The average size was small at 6.2 inches. Bluegills were present in good numbers with 30 percent of the fish greater than 7.0 inches. In the Fall of 2007, work was completed on the CR 58 bridge and dam, with the expectation that Walleye and other species will be able to move into Leavitt (from Lawrence) and spawn.

The DNR Fisheries Management Plan also notes the following limiting factors for Leavitt Lake:

The lake has limited productivity and bog-stained water. Oxygen is insufficient for fish below about 18 feet in summer.

The Official Status of Lawrence Lake, according to the MN DNR fisheries summary (August 7, 2006), is:

Lawrence Lake is located on the east edge of Outing in Cass County. Lawrence Lake is 230 acres with a maximum depth of 71 ft. The lake is comprised of two basins with the western basin slightly larger and deeper. About 38% of the lake is less than 15 feet deep. A boat launch and small park are located on the west end of the lake about 0.2 miles east of Highway 6 on CR 58. Smaller boats (up to 24’ pontoons) may also reach Lawrence Lake from Roosevelt Lake via the outlet channel under CR 58. A fisheries survey of Lawrence Lake was done in August 2006 to assess the fish community and aquatic habitat. This was the first survey done in 17 years since a fishery population assessment in August 1989. The aquatic vegetation in Lawrence Lake was diverse with 30 species or genera found. Waterlilies were common along most of the shore in shallow water. Several pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), bushy pondweed, coontail, northern milfoil, and wild celery were common and formed a dense, but generally narrow band of vegetation due to the steep drop-off along most of the lakeshore. The predominate substrate in shallow waters was sand with a muck bottom common in shallow vegetation rich bays, particularly on the east end and the south bays of the west basin. Water clarity was 12.5 ft. in August and the water had a slight bog stain color. Bluegills were the most common species in the gill nets with a catch of nearly 29 per net. The top predator species best sampled with gill nets, walleye and northern pike, were both caught in moderate numbers compared to other similar lakes in Minnesota.


Walleyes ranged from 10.2 to 25.6 inches long with a mean length of 19.4 inches. Most walleyes were around 17 to 22 inches long. Northern pike captured in the gill nets were relatively large compared to other similar lakes with a mean weight of 4.8 pounds. Northern pike ranged from 19.9 to 37.5 inches with many fish around 25 inches in length. Black crappie gill net catch was also high compared to other similar lakes, however, the black crappie were fairly small with a mean length of 7.3 inches with the largest at 8.5 inches long. Other species captured in the gill nets were caught in low to moderate numbers. Bluegill comprised the majority of the fish captured in the trap nets and were caught in moderate numbers compared to other similar lakes. Trap net captured bluegills were relatively small with a size range from 3.4 to 7.4 inches with most fish around 4 inches long. Larger bluegills were actually caught in the gill nets with a mean length of 6.3 inches and a maximum length of 8.3 inches. Other species captured in the trap nets were caught a moderate to low numbers. While the shoreline of Lawrence Lake is fairly well developed with about 117 houses present, most the lakeshore owners have not yet undertaken extensive removal of the riparian terrestrial or aquatic vegetation. Natural vegetation along lakeshores is critical habitat for most aquatic species for at least a portion of their life.

The DNR Fisheries Management Plan notes the following limiting factors for Lawrence Lake: The lake borders on being oligotrophic. The lake is also bog stained. The lake typically becomes unsuitable for fish below about 12-15 feet in summer due to low oxygen levels. Panfish numbers are sometimes excessive, but growth is often slow. A relatively small littoral area may contribute to the problem.

The Official Status of Smokey Hollow Lake, according to the MN DNR fisheries summary (July 24, 1985), is:

Northern Pike abundance is very low (1.33 per net) size modest and growth rate fast. Abundance or northern pike apparently correlates with past stocking. Yellow and brown bullheads are present in moderate numbers and all sizes present. Bluegill abundance is about two times local average and growth rate slow with small size. Black crappies are very abundant with majority of fish in the II, III and IV year class and growth rate varying from slow to good. Yellow perch are present in low to moderate numbers as forage food.

The DNR Fisheries Management Plan notes the following limiting factors for Smokey Hollow Lake:

“…the low yellow perch population which limited the success of re-establishing a northern pike population.”

Our lakes have been stocked on a planned basis. In some instances the stocking has a limited and short-term benefit. The DNR fisheries specialist provide information about the limiting factors for specific fish species on a lake-by-lake basis. These factors may include spawning habitat, nursery areas or protective cover.


In previous years the DNR has had numerous grants to enhance fisheries habitat, most of which require a local cash or “in-kind” (volunteer hours or materials) match. If these grants survive the current state budget crisis, we intend to apply for Initiative Foundation funds that can be applied to provide some of this cash match. Virtually all lake associations “support strong fisheries,” but the key to a successful and fulfilling role is to define a citizen role that compliments or helps shape DNR programs and strategies. Lake Water Quality and Aquatic Vegetation are crucial to healthy lakes. Strong Environmental Stewardship is critical to all of the above. For Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes, the DNR Area Fisheries Manager is: Tim Brastrup, Regional Fisheries Offices, MN Dept. of Natural Resources, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401 (218) 833-8636, email: [email protected]. As highlighted earlier, the MN DNR is compiling a very thorough limnology study of Lawrence and Roosevelt, with final reporting expected in the summer of 2009. Several sub-reports have already been made available. Mr. Brastrup and his colleagues routinely prepare fisheries management plans for Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes. These are attached as appendices to this citizen-based Lake Management Plan. RALALA considers MN DNR to be essential to all efforts relating to water and water quality. They have a strong history of excellence in our area, and we look forward to further strengthening that bond. 3. Aquatic Vegetation (For the most current information, see Appendix D – DNR Aquatic Plant Survey Report of 2008). In all of our discussions, we need to distinguish between beneficial vegetation (wildlife or fish habitat, vegetative buffer zones, and native species) and nuisance (impediments to recreation) or exotic/invasive (biological “threats” such as Eurasian milfoil, purple loosestrife, curly leaf pondweed). We need to recognize that control of the nuisance kind of vegetation may have adverse impacts on the fishery/wildlife end of things; it is very hard to please everyone. By Minnesota Rule, aesthetics are not part of the definition of nuisances. Recreational impairment is the standard used to define nuisance conditions related to aquatic plants. We fully intend to rely on good resources such as: Ed Feiler at the MN Department of Natural Resources, Regional Fisheries Office, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401, (218) 825-3001, [email protected]. Wayne Mueller is the DNR’s Aquatic plant management specialist for Cass County, and can be contacted at 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401, Phone: (218) 828-2535, Email: [email protected]. Specifically, we intend to: 1) Monitor recreational activity and access to the lakes according to DNR and County regulations

without allowing infestations of exotic species;





Provide information to the community by the Spring of 2009 as to the efforts; Do this through the newsletter to the membership, and via handouts to the community giving telephone numbers and contacts for lake owners – we will examine efficacy of selling magnets that hold the information for citizens.

2) Re-issue the “Naturalizing Your Property” information or direct community members to where they can access this information. We intend to publish DNR regulations regarding clearing shorelines and the use of weed killers. We will seek to find mentors around the lakes to assist in naturalizing shorelines.

3) The AW Labs “TSI Fly Over” may offer additional data for identifying vegetation concentrations. Depending on the areas, more specific assessment may be needed and conducted in 2009 and beyond.

4) The MN DNR is exhaustive limnology study of Lawrence and Roosevelt Lake will also support

the assessment of aquatic growth, sensitive shoreline protection and provide needed scientific support for decision making. We intend to follow-on with any recommended additional inventorying of aquatic vegetation within areas of interest in our lakes.

5) Several Master Gardeners are RALALA property owners, and their assistance and grant writing

will be developed into expanding demonstration plats (like the Outing Aquascaping) and the ongoing implementation of shoreline planting BMPs (Best Management Practices).

2. Wildlife The “Blue Book,” Developing a Lake Management Plan notes that:

“Minnesota’s lakes are home to many species of wildlife. From our famous loons and bald eagles to muskrats, otters, and frogs, wildlife is an important part of our relationship with lakes. In fact, Minnesota’s abundant wildlife can be attributed largely to our wealth of surface water. From small marshes to large lakes, these waters are essential to the survival of wildlife. The most important wildlife habitat begins at the shoreline. The more natural the shoreline, with trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, the more likely that wildlife will be there. Just as important is the shallow water zone close to shore. Cattail, bulrush, and wild rice along the shoreline provide both feeding and nesting areas for wildlife. Loons, black terns and red-necked grebes are important Minnesota birds that are particularly affected by destruction of this vegetation. Underwater vegetation is also important to wildlife for many portions of their life cycle, including breeding and rearing of their young.

In, over and around our specific lakes are eagles, osprey, otters, mink, muskrat, beaver, heron, loons, frogs, deer, wolves, coyotes, porcupine, skunk, and a wide variety of song birds, water fowl, grouse, woodpeckers and more. At the present, we do not have a ‘bird-watching’ focus, but we are open to assess the possibilities to begin inventorying the bird diversity and to establish a baseline.


We expect to rely on the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Section. For Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lake, the DNR Area Wildlife Manager is Gary Drotts, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd MN 56401. His phone number is 218-828-2314. His e-mail is [email protected]. Pam Perry is the Non-Game Wildlife Specialist, and can be reached at (218) 828-2228, [email protected]. The Minnesota County Biological Survey has completed their survey for Cass County. We will explore Crow Wing and other sources, to develop a composite picture of the diversity present in this area. 3. Exotic Species As of this writing, there are no known infestations of exotic aquatic species in any of our specific lakes, but Eurasian water milfoil is prevalent in Ruth Lake in Emily and several others in Crow Wing County. In addition, a nearby Crow Wing County Lake as well as Mille Lacs Lake are now infested with Zebra Mussels. Thus, prevention and planning are essential for our resources. We feel very strongly that the best approach is prevention – keep the species out of the area. In the summer of 2008, RALALA contracted with the MN DNR for an intern, supplemented by RALALA members, to observe and educate boaters at the public landings. Since viable contamination levels of many species are very small and can / do hide in live wells and other hidden areas, greater care is required across a broader set of practices as lake users are cleaning their full array of equipment (boat, live wells, trailer, motor, etc.). The most supportive and next best approach for prevention is education. That is, education of the property owners and the broader base of users of the lake. In the years ahead, more dissemination of BMPs via the internet and printed materials will be essential. RALALA has discussed (with other lake associations) our common options /possible improvements via collaboration on signage and message delivery for a wider geographical area. More and improved signage (around the lakes area, such as food and bait stores, gas stations, rest areas, etc.) can help educate and raise awareness. Members have begun efforts to develop and deploy specific steps along these and other lines of attack. No single approach will accomplish the total task. So, we need to be working with the MN DNR and others to have a plan ready – should an invasive species be introduced. Background "Exotic" species -- organisms introduced into habitats where they are not native -- are severe world-wide agents of habitat alternation and degradation. A major cause of biological diversity loss throughout the world, they are considered "biological pollutants." Introducing species accidentally or intentionally, from one habitat into another, is risky business. Freed from the predators, parasites, pathogens, and competitors that have kept their numbers in check, species introduced into new habitats often overrun their new home and crowd out native species. In the presence of enough food and favorable environment, their numbers will explode. Once established, exotics rarely can be eliminated.




Most species introductions are the work of humans. Some introductions, such as carp and purple loosestrife, are intentional and do unexpected damage. But many exotic introductions are accidental. The species are carried in on animals, vehicles, ships, commercial goods, produce, and even clothing. Some exotic introductions are ecologically harmless and some are beneficial. But other exotic introductions are harmful to recreation and ecosystems. They have been caused the extinction of native species -- especially those of confined habitats such as islands and aquatic ecosystems. The recent development of fast ocean freighters has greatly increased the risk of new exotics in the Great Lakes region. Ships take on ballast water in Europe for stability during the ocean crossing. This water is pumped out when the ships pick up their loads in Great Lakes ports. Because the ships make the crossing so much faster now, and harbors are often less polluted, more exotic species are likely to survive the journey and thrive in the new waters. Many of the plants and animals described in this guide arrived in the Great Lakes this way. But they are now being spread throughout the continent's interior in and on boats and other recreational watercraft and equipment. This guide is designed to help water recreationalists recognize these exotics and help stop their further spread. Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Eurasian water milfoil was accidentally introduced to North America from Europe. Spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and also by water birds, it reached Midwestern states between the 1950s and 1980s. In nutrient-rich lakes it can form thick underwater stands of tangled stems and vast mats of vegetation at the water's surface. In shallow areas the plant can interfere with water recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. The plant's floating canopy can also crowd out important native water plants. A key factor in the plant's success is its ability to reproduce through stem fragmentation and runners. A single segment of stem and leaves can take root and form a new colony. Fragments clinging to boats and trailers can spread the plant from lake to lake. The mechanical clearing of aquatic plants for beaches, docks, and landings creates thousands of new stem fragments. Removing native vegetation crates perfect habitat for invading Eurasian water milfoil. Eurasian water milfoil has difficulty becoming established in lakes with well established populations of native plants. In some lakes the plant appears to coexist with native flora and has little impact on fish and other aquatic animals. Likely means of spread: Milfoil may become entangled in boat propellers, or may attach to keeps and rudders of sailboats. Stems can become lodged among any watercraft apparatus or sports equipment that moves through the water, especially boat trailers. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant from Europe and Asia. It was introduced into the East Coast of North America in the 1800s. First spreading along roads, canals, and drainage ditches, then


later distributed as an ornamental, this exotic plant is in 40 states and all Canadian border provinces. Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. The plant can form dense, impenetrable stands which are unsuitable as cover, food, or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads, and turtles. Many are rare and endangered wetland plants and animals and are also at risk. Purple loosestrife thrives on disturbed, moist soils, often invading after some type of construction activity. Eradicating an established stand is difficult because of an enormous number of seeds in the soil. One adult plant can disperse 2 million seeds annually. The plant is able to re-sprout from roots and broken stems that fall to the ground or into the water. A major reason for purple loosestrife's expansion is a lack of effective predators in North America. Several European insects that only attack purple loosestrife are being tested as a possible long-term biological control of purple loosestrife in North America. Likely means of spread: Seeds escape from gardens and nurseries into wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Once in aquatic system, moving water and wetland animals easily spreads the seeds. Other Midwestern Aquatic Exotics Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) is an exotic plant that forms surface mats that interfere with aquatic recreation. The plant usually drops to the lake bottom by early July. Curly-leaf pondweed was the most severe nuisance aquatic plant in the Midwest until Eurasian water milfoil appeared. It was accidentally introduced along with the common carp. Flowering rush (Botumus umbellatus) is a perennial plant from Europe and Asia that was introduced in the Midwest as an ornamental plant. It grows in shallow areas of lakes as an emergent, and as a submersed form in water up to 10 feet deep. Its dense stands crowd out native species like bulrush. The emergent form has pink, umbellate-shaped flowers, and is 3 feet tall with triangular-shaped stems. Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) is a bottom-dwelling fish, native to Eastern Europe that entered the eastern Great Lakes in ballast water. They can spawn several times per year, grow to about 10 inches, are aggressive, and compete with native bottom-dwellers like sculpins and log perch. They are expected to be harmful to Great Lakes and inland fisheries. Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) are native to streams in the Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee region. Spread by anglers who use them as bait, rusty crayfish are prolific and can severely reduce lake and stream vegetation, depriving native fish and their prey of cover and food. They also reduce native crayfish populations. White perch (Morone americana) are native to Atlantic coastal regions and invaded the Great Lakes through the Erie and Welland canals. Prolific competitors of native fish species, white perch have the potential to cause declines of Great Lakes walleye populations.


6. Land Use and zoning The water quality of a watershed, lake, or river is ultimately a reflection of the land uses within its watershed. While the specific impacts to a lake from various land uses vary as a function of local soils, topography, vegetation, precipitation, and other factors, it is ultimately the land uses which citizens have the most control over through prudent zoning. RALALA has become very attentive to the local government and land development efforts. Sitting as we do amongst three different local units of government and two counties, there are numerous issues of concern as far as uniformity, simplicity, and consistency. In specific, although completely within Cass County, the downtown area of Outing sits in a small area bordered by three water basins - and sits just above the water table. Private / public collaboration efforts are being explored to improve the water management on and around this important and busy area, with the funding coming from special grants to assist with just such issues. Many zoning regulations are based upon the Shoreland Management Act and/or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) classification of a given lake. The DNR has classified all lakes within Minnesota as General Development (GD), Recreational Development (RD), or Natural Environmental (NE) lakes, and assigned a unique identification number to the lake for ease of reference. Counties in turn have used these classifications as a tool to establish minimum lot area (width and setbacks) that is intended to protect and preserve the character reflected in the classification. The MN DNR is in the rules process to adopt revised Shoreland Ordinances. Local units of government are actively revising their ordinances as well. On any shoreland, the permissible density and setbacks for virtually all new uses are determined by the lake or river classification standards established by the Department of Natural Resources. Roosevelt (#11-0043) is classified as a General Development (GD) Lake, while Leavitt (#11-0037) and Lawrence (#11-0053) are Recreational (RD) Lakes. Natural Environment lakes are generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. In Cass County, an NE management district is “established to preserve and enhance high quality waters by protecting them from pollution and to protect shorelands of waters which are unsuitable for development; to maintain a low density of development; and to maintain high standards of quality for permitted development.” Recreational Development lakes are generally medium-sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil, and ground water situations on the lands around them. They often are characterized by moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists mainly of seasonal and year-round residences and recreationally-oriented commercial uses. Many of these lakes have capacities for accommodating additional development and use. In Cass County the RD management district is established to “managed proposed development reasonably consistent with existing development and use; to provide for the beneficial use of public waters by the general public, as well as the riparian owners; to provide for


multiplicity of lake uses; and to protect areas unsuitable for residential and commercial uses from development.” General Development lakes are generally large, deep lakes or lakes of varying sizes and depths with high levels and mixes of existing development. These lakes often are extensively used for recreation and, except for the very large lakes, are heavily developed around the shore. Second and third tiers of development are fairly common. The larger examples in this class can accommodate additional development and use. Cass County’s Shoreland Ordinance notes that “the GD management district is established to provide minimum regulations in areas presently developed as high density, multiple use areas; and to provide guidance for future growth of commercial and industrial establishments which require locations on protected waters.” In Cass County the zoning standards associated with each water body class are:

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL | WITH GUEST QUARTERS Lake Classification

Min. Lot Area (ft2)

Min. Lot Width

Min. Buildable Area (ft2)**

Min. Lot Area (ft2)

Min. Lot Width

Min. Buildable Area (ft2)**

General Development -Riparian

30,000 100' 12,000 60,000 180' 27,000

General Development -Non-Riparian

40,000 150' 20,000 80,000 265’ 40,000

Recreational Development- Riparian

40,000 150’ 16,000 80,000 225’ 40,000

Recreational Development-Non-Riparian

40,000 150’ 20,000 80,000 265’ 40,000

Natural Environment-Riparian 80,000 200’ 40,000 120,000 300’ 60,000

Natural Environment-Non-Riparian

80,000 200’ 40,000 160,000 400 80,000

The City of Emily is presently amending Ordinances for lakeshore as an early effort to use the MN DNR Alternative Lakeshore Ordinances. The effort is represented to reduce pressure on the lakes, while encouraging responsible development. The option to add extra protection for sensitive shoreline / bays etc. is being proposed in Emily, but the details are still being refined as of this writing. Major concerns (going forward) are for conversions of resorts to time share and other usage patterns which may greatly expand the pressures on the waters. New ownership patterns that purport to give riparian rights to non-riparian property owners is of special concern. Most lakes have numerous properties that are “grand fathered,” or developed prior to the establishment of these restrictions. In general, these pre-existing uses are allowed to remain unless they are identified as a threat to human health or environment, or are destroyed by natural, accidental causes or in association with significant renovation.


Cass County has a web site which offers helpful contact information regarding planning and zoning matters: http://www.co.cass.mn.us/index.html. Details on shoreland standards and restrictions and answers to “frequently asked questions” regarding best management practices, resources of education or information, and additional assistance are provided through the Environmental Services Department and Planning and Zoning Department linkages. One may also download an excellent guide, “Welcome to Cass County: An Environmental Resources and Services directory for residents and businesses” from this site. Additional questions may be directed to: Environmental Services Department, County Courthouse, 1st Floor, 300 Minnesota Avenue. P.O. Box 3000, Walker, MN 56484-3000, Phone: 218-547-7241, Fax: 218-547-2440

7. Managing water surface use conflicts The goal of lake management is to ensure that the lake can continue to provide the benefits that attract homeowners and users. However, conflicts among uses arise almost invariably. Successful resolution of conflicts lies in the ability of the users to work collaboratively to arrive at acceptable compromises. The primary agency responsible for managing surface water use conflicts is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Information and Education. The Boat and Water Safety Section within the Bureau oversees surface water use and is in charge of administering the Water Surface Use Management (WSUM) program. The goal of this program is to enhance the recreation use, safety and enjoyment of the water surfaces in Minnesota and to preserve these water resources in a way that reflects the state’s concern for the protection of its natural resources. Within this context, any governmental unit may formulate, amend or delete controls for water surface use by adopting an ordinance. Submit the ordinance for approval by the MDNR Boat and Water Safety Coordinator by calling 1 (800) 766-6000 or (651) 296-3336. To gain approval the ordinance must:

• Where practical and feasible accommodate all compatible recreational uses; • Minimize adverse impacts on natural resources • Minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maximum use, safety and

enjoyment, and • Conform to the standards set in WSUM Rules.

From a practical standpoint, any community considering this action should also consult with their local law enforcement agency (that will largely enforce the local ordinance) to ensure that any restrictions can be effectively enforced. An alternative or complementary approach is to encourage education and a “community standard” of acceptable behavior. Annual distribution of state standards for hours of operation, setbacks from shorelands, loon nests, swimming areas, and other hazards or sensitive areas helps create “peer pressure” to minimize the types of behavior that tend to lead to the most conflicts. Historically, loons nesting area signs and navigation buoys have been deployed by RALALA members. Those practices are expected to be continued.

http://www.co.cass.mn.us/index.html�


There are growing concerns for boat speed within certain bays and along sensitive shorelines. There is growing interest amongst property owners and environmental experts to reduce agitation of the silt in shallow areas. These subjects will be further explored with the respective County sheriffs and the MN DNR. The MN DNR Limnology Study of Lake Roosevelt is eagerly awaited to aid proper selection and application of efforts to protect the waters. 8. Public water access Research has shown that Minnesotans rely heavily upon public access sites to access lakes and rivers. A 1988 boater survey conducted by the University of Minnesota showed that three-fourths of the state’s boat owners launch a boat at a public water access site at least once a year. In addition, over 80 percent of boat owners report using public water access sites for recreation activities other than boating. The primary agency responsible for pubic water accesses in Minnesota is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Trails and Waterways Unit. They are responsible for the acquisition, development and management of public water access sites. The DNR either manages them as individual units or enters into cooperative agreements with county, state, and federal agencies, as well as local units of government such as townships and municipalities. The DNR’s efforts to establish and manage public water access sites are guided by Minnesota Statutes and established written DNR policy. The goal of the public water access program is free and adequate public access to all of Minnesota’s lake and river resources consistent with recreational demand and resource capabilities to provide recreation opportunities. According to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Surveys, there are a total of five public accesses on Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes. Lake Ownership Type Description Roosevelt Unknown Unknown Unknown Roosevelt DNR Concrete East shore - approx. 1 mile south of Outing on Hwy 6. Leavitt DNR Concrete Southwest side of lake off Co. Rd. 58

Lawrence Township Concrete Northwest shore - approx. 0.2 mile off Highway 6 on Co. Rd. 58.

Smokey Hollow

DNR Unknown DNR ownership, T.139N, R.26W, S.35.

There is growing concern amongst members for the volume of boat traffic on Smokey Hollow Lake. While Roosevelt / Lawrence are much larger bodies of water, given that they are narrow water bodies in many spots, there are concerns for speed and disruption of shallow areas and wildlife / water fowl nesting areas. More surface water discussions are needed, with consultation of the Sheriff in each county. More buoys may be needed, and more volunteers may be essential for the water patrol and education at the launching ramps. RALALA has identified “educational opportunities” to help citizens learn, such as volunteer inspections of outboard motor propellers, trailers and tanks for exotic species, and for signage to help with exotic identification, etc. By engaging a MN DNR intern during the past summer, supplemented with RALALA volunteers, we have increased a needed effort to help stop the


aquatic hitchhikers that are already in the area from getting into our lakes. That level, and that coverage, are likely not sufficient as we proceed into the years ahead. These are great opportunities for volunteers – from college age to senior citizen, for community clubs or organizations – to fulfill important public service opportunities. Possible use of the RALALA Water Patrol to distribute BMP literature and to further educate boaters is being considered for the 2009 season. An assessment by the Army Corp of Engineers and MN DNR to dredge the Lawrence-to-Roosevelt channel may be addressed, with affected property owners and interested parties certainly being essential to any such efforts. 9. Sustainability Commitment RALALA is beginning strategic efforts to identify, understand and protect critical and sensitive environmental areas in our watershed. As such, we are also learning the BMPs for protection of sensitive areas, including Environmental Easements, and other similar devices. Through the Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation (LLAWF) and Cass County Environmental Services, we now have a map for Leavitt, Lawrence and for Roosevelt which detail parcels under a single ownership that might be targeted by a developer. These are shown in Appendices G, H and I respectively. In addition, SUPPORT FOLDERS 10, 11 & 12 provide more data for the teams working on this aspect. Those identified parcels, and other properties on these lakes, will be evaluated for their shoreline and aquatic conditions, with an eye toward gaining collaborative protection of critical environmental resource through one or more of the tools we know / can discover. 10. Organizational Development and Communication RALALA is intent on pursuing “Star Lakes” status for each basin / lake in its membership. To accomplish that, there are many factors to be accomplished, and those essential details, as they are evolved, will be assembled and distributed for membership consideration. With the MN DNR indicating that they will not stock trout in Lake Roosevelt due to the temperature and oxygen problems, we must reverse the decreasing quality in Roosevelt, especially south of the Outing Bridge. While it could be the most measurable, it is also the most difficult goal, to bring back trout into a lake this size. Whether this is even possible will be an ongoing subject for discussion and potential consideration Our economy depends on Tourism, and tourism depends on the Water Resources. These resources need to return to, and be sustained at a proper level of health. In RALALA, there is a commitment to build and sustain a ‘beach captains’ structure to enable more integral neighborhood’s to better communicate and to better support efforts such as “Neighborhood Watch.” This structure seeks to take membership numbers above the 50% of property owners by the end of 2010, as well as to immediately foster the pride and involvement needed to implement and sustain BMPs. This structure is intended to create more neighborhood demonstration projects of BMPs and to gain more widespread use of sound practices at the individual property level. Appendices E & F provide excellent overviews for Best Management Practices and Shoreland Management. We look forward to success in deploying such efforts.


RALALA has greatly expanded its use and reliance on its website (hosted at MN Waters). Newsletter distribution costs are being reduced by using known e-mail addresses for members, and then directing all parties to the materials on the website. Additional hot links are being added for critical BMP information and references for property owners’ use. The Board has significantly increased its efforts to address members’ concerns and resource protection issues. To that end, the Board has established the Environmental Quality Initiative (EQI) to add emphasis and energy to the very items identified as priorities in this Plan and to take on lake-area projects that RALALA has not previously been structured to accomplish. The need to establish EQI was triggered by the situation presented by the Northern Lights proposed development. EQI will supplant the ComPEL group, with which RALALA members are familiar, but the transition process is well-coordinated between ComPEL and RALALA, and there will be advantages with EQI. First, EQI will be part of the RALALA organization and under the jurisdiction of its Board of Directors. EQI operational policies have already been adopted by the Board. Secondly, it will broadly support water quality studies, analysis of property for conservation, assisting property owners to avoid parcel breakup and over-development -- all are among the EQI objectives and activities being planned. Finally, since EQI is a part of RALALA (a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable corporation), all EQI contributions are fully tax deductible for the donor, representing a savings of 25% or more for many contributors. Occasional direct mailings to all lakeshore property owners in the RALALA area is a practice being used. These mailings included additional information about EQI, and an invitation to contribute funds to jump-start the EQI projects. RALALA’s modest dues only provide enough funds for administrative expenses such as the Newsletter and some limited support for local groups. EQI is designed to allow for larger dreaming of projects to preserve, protect and improve our lakes. What if RALALA could have saved a piece of property prior to unwanted usage? Through more scientific analysis, can we actually improve the fish population in the lakes? The "ounce of prevention" adage applies here. Additional information will be available as the EQI programs move forward. A general mailing to all owners, RALALA website, and future RALALA mailings and e-mailings will encourage membership support so that RALALA, through its new EQI structure, can move forward. We can -- and must -- be positioned to seize opportunities to keep our lakes and environment healthy. RALALA is working across a wide set of issues, keying priorities to members’ concerns and timeliness of required actions. To that end, the RALALA Board is active throughout the year via e-mail, phone and person-to-person providing attention to issues. In the following months, RALALA by-laws are being reviewed with an eye towards identifying any needed adjustments in time for next the 2009 Annual Membership Meeting. RALALA will continue to expand its partnership with the agencies, such as MN DNR and Cass County Environmental Services, as well as other resources available to assist us. Explorations are


ongoing for university and college programs, and for student interns to be working within our watershed on critical environmental and resource issues. RALALA will continue its community activities as demonstrated in works such as the Outing Aquascaping, Sherriff’s Water Patrol, and Park Cleanup efforts. The number of members who are very active in RALALA efforts has grown significantly, and that will be a positive attribute for RALALA’s success into the future. Thus, membership too will be documented, planned and encouraged to even higher sustainable levels. GOALS: In addition to the above aspects, and the already ongoing commitments, RALALA has specific key Goals for the next 12 months as follows:

1) Water Quality – To take prospective measures to protect, improve, and sustain the water quality of the RALALA lakes.

a. For 2008-2009, this high priority area includes the ongoing assessment of the water conditions (chemistry, clarity, and causes of concern), as well as the assessment of the limnology of Lake Roosevelt, and the identification of sensitive shoreline and wetlands closest to the lakes. We will use the limnology study to consider further projects in aquatic plant inventorying on this and our other lakes. Options for summer internships will be explored.

b. Work to enable collaborative efforts for voluntary septic system assessments, with

grant funding for the inspections and low interest loans for owners needing to improve their system.

c. Over the recent 12+

months, local citizens have raised and invested more than $35,000 of individual contributions to make strides in the area of environmental understanding and protection. Further intense progress will depend on continued local support, and much more on significant grants and other sources of funding, in order to engage the needed level of sophisticated science.

d. Septic system assessment / inspection is a hot topic across government jurisdictions in our area. We seek collaboration / cooperation with property owners, by developing education, obtaining grants to defray inspection costs, and identifying low cost financing options to repair faulty systems, in order to improve septic performance. Several proposals have been offered, but much more work is needed to address issues such as:

i. Emily is in their ‘enforcement phase’ for their most recent 3-year cycle of

inspections and pumping, and looking to the lake association for support. The new cycle is also beginning.

ii. We will explore how to get better ‘septic screening information’ from the licensed septic pumping services – for example how they might recognize and report ‘cess pool’ systems, which are our greatest concern.


iii. Cass County and Crooked Lake Township could play an important role in a voluntary inspection system, if we can align implementation (grant) funding and the political will to begin a process in a deliberative manner, while recognizing the sheer size of the effort. For our lakes, there would be some estimated 550 sites with septic systems in Cass County.

iv. The summer fly-over may identify areas of the lake as candidates for more intense scrutiny. A winter fly-over might help identify specific septic systems that are under-performing. Those key aspects might better direct the actual inspection process to be the most cost effective. The summer fly-over has been paid for, executed and the report is being prepared. The potential winter fly-over might cost $20 - $30 per property owner, for a total that could reach $15,000 - $21,000 for our total area, if that were the appropriate scope.

e. This year, we intend to more aggressively identify and obtain grants:

i. Grants – outright and matching grants may available to engage cost-

effective evaluations and planning for needed 2009 – 2010 water quality improvement efforts;

ii. Professional grant writing support is being solicited to evaluate opportunities and pursue reasonable sources of grants;

iii. More support and evaluation is needed to align RALALA efforts for grant support, and to successfully secure such needed funding and support.

2) Protection of the Resources – To continue / increase the appropriate conservation of the

RALALA water and ecosystem resources, RALALA will be working even more aggressively on our own initiatives, and partnering with other lake associations on invasive species controls. With the MN DNR limnology study of Lake Roosevelt, and with its (and other methods for) identification of sensitive environmental areas, there will be a new effort to learn and begin to deploy tools to help land owners arrange Conservation Easements and other options to protect critical areas. Part of this effort is to learn about, and part is to begin deploying, new funding options such as ‘directed giving’. Also important will be the use of available public as well as foundation funds to establish the most cost-effective protection we can for the critical environmental values affecting our lakes. Outright acquisition of some property, and then placing it into conservation, may be a very necessary tool to have available.

3) Community Engagement, Organizational Development / Communication and Land Use and Planning

a. In the past year, hundreds of RALALA member hours have been spent with elected, appointed and hired public officials, as well as various agencies, academic experts and legal experts in the effort to improve what happens on the lands around our lakes. That effort will grow, and will also seek to promote prevention of adverse decisions, while achieving sustainable (and improved) business conditions. This will be accomplished as we gain more transparency in the processes, as well as by getting into early and ongoing citizen engagement.


b. Participants asked “how can the two counties merge on the rules and regulations? This is causing a great concern amongst lake owners as the lakes are divided between two counties. We are asking RALALA if they have an answer to this question”. This will require more concerted effort to further improve coordination in the short term. More effective long term options are not yet fully defined, but will need to be explored.

c. The ‘beach captain’ approach will be developed. The leadership structure will be established as part of this implementation. Property data is now available to RALALA for these lake properties, and will be fed to the Beach Captains. At least one network will be developed on each of the five basins, while the overall structure comes into place.

d. The deployment of shoreline / shore land BMPs in the neighborhoods - at the local lot level - is expected to improve and to bear fruit as local groups (Beach Captains) learn from and implement BMPs in their sphere of influence.

4) Invasive Species – a. Significant back grounding efforts are underway by attendees at the Visioning

Session. These include: i. MN DNR discussions / review about the present situation and status;

ii. Acquiring materials showing the impacts iii. Developing / acquiring rights to use materials on the Internet and in print for

our Beach Captains; b. Developing an education / communication plan going forward.

i. Use of the RALALA website to hot link to sources ii. Use of the website to maintain attention and awareness of the issue

iii. Use of the newsletter to promote interest and gain support c. Build information materials for the Beach Captains to be able to increase the

knowledge base and to gain volunteers within their neighborhood area.

Summary of Visioning/Planning Session On August 16, 2008 some 60 property owners met at the Crooked Lake Township Hall. With the gracious support of Ms. Molly Zins (MN Waters) the session completed in slightly more than two hours. The most common comments for the recent history centered on “we have been doing an awful lot and making a big difference.”

The most common comment for the future targeted more communication, closer neighborhood connections and contacts, and more development of RALALA’s organizational capability (member involvement) in affecting the resources for the benefit of all.

While every topic developed attendee interest, the five topics of highest interest were: Water Quality Land Use and Zoning Invasive Species


Aquatic Vegetation Organizational Development and Communication

The priority goals (while varied due to their specifics) relied on a balance of: Build the organization structure via the ‘beach captains’ approach

Continue the intense learning and involvement with local governments, agencies, and resource groups, as well as more collaboration with other lake associations.

Develop the ability to bring in more resources to help – volunteers and funds.

Great promise is present in the skills and talent diversity of the property owners. However many are not yet aware and / or not yet actively demonstrating actions needed to best protect the environmental resources. The assumption is that can be remedied with personal contact and a neighborhood focus – structured with up-to-date, accurate, actionable information.

Continued and increasing reliance on the State Agencies, and the implementation of BMPs will go a long way to contribute to success. Each area has marked objectives and assigned accountabilities for their next steps. Those key areas are summarized in Appendix J.

Prioritized Goals and Action Plan The Executive Summary of our lake management plan summarizes the conclusions and priority actions we have chosen to work on at this time. Specifically, for each priority action we have done our best to answer (for each goal presented):

• What are the criteria for measuring success (measured as outcomes, not effort)? • What is our schedule for implementation (What needs to happen in the next 30 days, 90

days, one-year out)? • Who is responsible for implementation or measurement (name names!)? • What is the budget for this action/goal, and if there may be grant monies for support? • Is this an ongoing action/goal, or a one-time effort? If on going, will we require additional

funds for full implementation? Following these expectations, the project charts identify our top priorities, our goals for each priority area, and how, who, and when we will implement action for each of these priorities. There are many choices. We have much data to absorb, and more information to gather. Our effort is to begin and to learn from pilot efforts as well as to engage members within the various lakes in the early stages of implementation.

We thank all who have brought us to this point, and all who will help us move forward. You are all a living link for our Community, our Lake, and our Future.

Appendix A1: Water Quality Data, Charts and Discussions Data for assessing water quality on this set of lakes are mixed and often inconsistent. This Lake Management Plan documents what is known, and is intended to lay a foundation for additional compilation and interpretation. The Visioning Session participants stated that “conclusive information in layman terms is needed to share with residents on the state of esting of the actual water quality of each lake – Leavitt, Lawrence, Roosevelt and Smokey tHollow – we need to educate to achieve cooperation of residents”. Since 1973, citizen volunteers from Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes have participated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), recording secchi disc transparency – a measure of water clarity. David MacDonald, Denny Neill, Lee Pertl, Richard Rask, Terri McKeon, Thomas Lauman, Deborah Nicholson, Eric W. Hanson, Mike McLain, Terry Farrington, Mary Kowalski and Cathy Tilman have all served as volunteers recording these data for Roosevelt Lake; Melvin W. Schramm for Leavitt Lake, and Myrle & Jill Reiswig, David Moe, uzz Heinecke and Terry Farrington for Lawrence Lake. The pre‐2008 sampler for Smokey BHollow Lake is not recorded in the CLMP data. On the MPCA’s web‐site link, “Lake Water Quality Database,” additional water chemistry data is reported. The MPCA’s “Environmental Database Access” system also provides dditional water chemistry data which includes total phosphorus concentrations, as well as aother data. One application of secchi disc transparency data is to convert the clarity measurements into a Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) score. The Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) is a tool used to summarize several measurements of water quality into one index value, which can be used to compare a lake to other lakes, or to historic/future data as a measure of degradation or improvement. In many ways, the index can be viewed as a measure of the otential for algae productivity. Since most people value lakes with low algae productivity, he lower the TSI value the healthier the lake. Specifically: pt

TSI Range

Trophic Status Characteristics

0‐40

1‐50

Oligotrophic

Mesotrophic

Clean Lake

Temporary algae & aquatic 4

0‐70

plant problems

Persistent algae & aquatic 5 Greater than 70

Eutrophic plant problems

Extreme algae & aquatic plant problems

Hypereutrophic

1

Based on the data provided on the MPCA website, an average concentration (or depth) for the key TSI parameters can be determined, and the associated TSI score calculated. Appendix E. displays the MNPCA‐generated historic site locations and graphs for each volunteer in the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) for the years they have been ctive. This site map will further assist the separation of analysis for North versus South oosevelt. aR Average annua Status Inde rements b N DNRl Trophic

Roosevelt

x measu

Leavitt

ased on M

Lawrence

history:

Smokey Hollow Year 1973 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 44.0 ‐‐‐ 1980 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 51.1 1986 ‐‐‐ 52.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1987 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1988 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1989 ‐‐‐ 46.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1990 ‐‐‐ 45.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1991 ‐‐‐ 48.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1992 ‐‐‐ 44.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1993 ‐‐‐ 54.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1994 44.0 46.5 42.4 ‐‐‐ 1995 42.9 46.0 43.5 ‐‐‐ 1996 39.8 45.3 40.8 ‐‐‐ 1997 40.2 45.6 40.9 ‐‐‐ 1998 41.5 44.3 42.0 1999 42.4 46.1 37.9 52.1 2000 39.3 42.0 41.8 ‐‐‐ 2001 45.6 47.0 45.3 54.5 2002 44.3 47.0 45.3 52.8 2003 41.3 44.3 43.0 ‐‐‐ 2004 41.2 42.8 44.3 ‐‐‐ 2005 43.1 49.7 42.9 ‐‐‐ 2006 42.2 44.8 42.4 ‐‐‐ 2007 42.3 44.1 41.9 ‐‐‐ These data suggest that water quality in Roosevelt, Leavitt, and Lawrence Lakes have routinely exhibited “mesotrophic” conditions (a TSI score above 40 but below 50) during he period of record, while Smokey Hollow tends for the eutrophic (above 50 but below t70). The 1986 index for Leavitt Lake is based on fourteen relatively low (shallow) secchi disc measurements (recorded between June and September) and may suggest that water quality on this lake has indeed improved in recent years. More likely this is a reflection of ater level, precipitation and/or weather, as similar measurements were again recorded in 993. Leavitt Lake exhibits significant tannin discoloration. w1

2

With concerns for their water quality (downstream from this watershed), the Whitefish Area Property Owners (WAPOA) engaged RALALA to participate in their summer water quality testing. Starting in 2006, RALALA agreed to sample three lakes (Roosevelt, awrence, and Leavitt) monthly per the WAPOA plan, and to bring the samples to their

orts the results. Lcollection center in Cross Lake. WAPOA then has them analyzed and rep The l fo lowing pages show resulting data from that effort with WAPOA:

a) A table of results for each of our tested lakes for the two years, and b) Four graphical compilations of the TSI data by lake (data from varied DNR sources).

3

WAPOAsupported water quality testing – 2006 / 2007 L

ake Roosevelt (South basin)

Lake/ID # Date

Secchi ft.

TP ppb

Chl a ppb

Ave. TSI

Phy. Con.

Rec. Suit. Color

Roosevelt 06/18/06 17.5 16.0 2.6 1 1 clear, slight tea

110 43 0 7/23 7.5 17.0 2.8 3 2 green 8/20 10.0 15.0 3.8 2 2 green 9/24 10.5 16.0 5.2 1 2 clear 06 Av 11.4 16.0 3.6 2 2 TSI 42.1 44.1 43.2 43.1 5/20/07 14.5 17.0 2.2 2 2 clear

6/24 14.5 16.0 5.0 1 1 clear, gray

green tint 7/22 8.5 18.0 5.2 2 2 green

8/19 9.5 16.0 6.4 2 2 gray green

9/23 14.0 24.0 6.5 1 1 clear 07Av 12.2 18.2 5.1 1.6 1.6 TSI 41.1 46.0 46.5 44.5 2 year Av 11.8 17.1 4.3 1.7 1.7

2 year TSI 41.6 45.1 45.0 43.9

4

WAPOAsupported water quality testing – 2006 / 2007 Lawrence Lake

Lake/ID # Date

Secchi ft.

TP ppb

Chl a ppb

Ave. TSI

Phy. Con.

Rec. Suit. Color

Lawrence 6/19/06 9.0 17.0 3.7 2 2 tea

stained

110053 7/23 12.0 10.0 1.8 2 2 tea

stained 8/20 12.0 20.0 5.8 2 2 green

9/25 11.0 15.0 5.6 2 2 tea

stained 06 Av 11.0 15.5 4.2 2 2 TSI 42.6 43.7 44.7 43.7

5/21/07 10.0 22.0 4.7 2 2 tea

stained

6/25 10.5 15.0 3.0 2 2 tea

stained

7/23 no

sample 30.0 1.9 3 2

tea stained

8/20 12.0 13.0 6.0 2 2 tea

stained 9/23 12.5 15.0 3.0 2 2 clear 07 Ave 11.3 19.0 3.7 2.2 2 TSI 42.2 46.6 43.5 44.1

2 year Av 11.1 17.3 4.0 2.1 2.0

2 year TSI 42.4 45.2 44.1 43.9

5

6

WAPOAsupported water quality testing – 2006 / 2007 L

eavitt Lake

Lake/ID # Date

Secchi ft.

TP ppb

Chl a ppb

Ave. TSI

Phy. Con.

Rec. Suit. Color

Leavitt 7/24/06 10.0 21.0 2.7 1 1 tea

stained

110037 8/21 11.0 15.0 5.5 1 1 tea

stained 9/25 11.0 15.0 2.4 1 1 slight tea 06 Av 10.7 17.0 3.5 1 1 TSI 43.0 45.0 43.0 43.7

5/20/07 4.5 25.0 1 3.7 2 2 tea

stained

6/24 7.3 21.0 5.0 2 2 dark tea

stain

7/22 12.2 18.0 5.8 2 2 tea

stained

8/19 11.8 16.0 5.4 2 2 tea

stained

9/23 14.0 19.0 3.4 1 2 tea

stained 07 Av 9.9 19.8 6.7 1.8 2 TSI 44.0 47.2 49.2 46.8 2 year Av 10.3 18.4 5.1 1.4 1.5

2 year TSI 43.5 46.1 46.6 45.4

Roosevelt Lake (#11-0043)Trophic Status Index 1981-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/95

11/1

/95

5/1/

96

11/1

/96

5/1/

97

11/1

/97

5/1/

98

11/1

/98

5/1/

99

11/1

/99

5/1/

00

11/1

/00

5/1/

01

11/1

/01

5/1/

02

11/1

/02

5/1/

03

11/1

/03

5/1/

04

11/1

/04

5/1/

05

11/1

/05

5/1/

06

11/1

/06

5/1/

07

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

The figure above shows the long‐term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Roosevelt Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1995.

7

Leavitt Lake (#11-0037)Trophic Status Index 1986-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/86

5/1/

87

5/1/

88

5/1/

89

5/1/

90

5/1/

91

5/1/

92

5/1/

93

5/1/

94

5/1/

95

5/1/

96

5/1/

97

5/1/

98

5/1/

99

5/1/

00

5/1/

01

5/1/

02

5/1/

03

5/1/

04

5/1/

05

5/1/

06

5/1/

07

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

The figure above shows the long‐term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Leavitt Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1986.

8

Lawrence Lake (#11-0053)Trophic Status Index 1973-2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/19

95

11/1

/199

5

5/1/

1996

11/1

/199

6

5/1/

1997

11/1

/199

7

5/1/

1998

11/1

/199

8

5/1/

1999

11/1

/199

9

5/1/

2000

11/1

/200

0

5/1/

2001

11/1

/200

1

5/1/

2002

11/1

/200

2

5/1/

2003

11/1

/200

3

5/1/

2004

11/1

/200

4

5/1/

2005

11/1

/200

5

5/1/

2006

11/1

/200

6

5/1/

2007

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

The figure above shows the long‐term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Lawrence Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1995.

9

Smokey Hollow Lake (#18-0220)Trophic Status Index 1980-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/80

5/1/

81

5/1/

82

5/1/

83

5/1/

84

5/1/

85

5/1/

86

5/1/

87

5/1/

88

5/1/

89

5/1/

90

5/1/

91

5/1/

92

5/1/

93

5/1/

94

5/1/

95

5/1/

96

5/1/

97

5/1/

98

5/1/

99

5/1/

00

5/1/

01

5/1/

02

Car

lson

's T

roph

ic S

tatu

s In

dex


Hypereutrophic

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

The figure above shows the long‐term trends in Trophic Status Index values for Smokey Hollow Lake for the years for which data are available. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important ‘take home message’ of this graph is that the secchi data range within eutrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1980.

10

11

A second method of assessing water quality and determining whether a water body is the “best that it can be” is to compare it to other lakes of similar morphology, geology, and land uses. Listed below are ranges of common measures of water quality based on many years and locations of water quality. The tables below are adapted from the MN Pollution Control Agency “Environmental Data Access” database, and compare observed results in Roosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow Lakes to common water quality ranges for lakes within the Northern Lakes and Forests Eco‐region. A mmer Water Quality verage SuParameter Typical

Range: Northern Lakes & Forest

Eco‐region

Roosevelt Lake

Average + St. Dev.

Leavitt Lake

Average + St. Dev.

Lawrence Lake

Average + St. Dev.

Smokey Hollow Lake

Average + St. Dev.

Total Phosphorus (μg/L) 14 – 27 16.4 + 2.2 19.8 + 3.4 19.0 + 7.0 No data Chlorophyll a (μg/L) mean 4 – 10 6.7 + 2.1 6.7 + 4.0 3.7 + 1.6 No data Chlorophyll (μg/L) maximum a <15 9.27 13.7 6.0 No data Secchi disc (feet) 8 – 15 11.5 + 2.5 8.6 + 2.6 9.8 + 1.9 5.5 + 1.3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.4 – 0.75 0.39 + 0.04 No data No data 0.74* Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.01 No data No data No data No data Alkalinity (mg/L) 40‐140 137.5 + 12.6 No data No data 13.8 + 3.2 Color (Pt‐Color units) 10 – 35 15.0 + 5.8 No data No data 60.0* pH 7.2 – 8.3 8.3 + 0.6 8.0 + 0.4 8.4 + 0.5 7.2 + 0.4 Chloride (mg/L) 0.6 – 1.2 2.0 + 0.2 No data No data 1.02* Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) <1 – 2 2.4 + 1.1 No data No data No data Conductivity (μmhos/cm) 50 – 250 247.8 + 23.2 214.6 +

27.5 228.1 + 24.3

30.9 + 16.0

* indicates data represents a single sample, therefore no standard deviation is presented.

A third application of these data is to compare phosphorus concentrations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency water quality criterion for swimming and other recreational contact. The Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion phosphorus criteria level of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L) serves as the upper threshold for full‐support for swimmable

o e d lsuse. This concentrati n corr spon s to Car on's TSI values of 54 or lower.

For the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion, summer‐mean total phosphorus concentrations above 35 µg/L were associated with nonsupport of aquatic recreational use. t concentrations above about 35 µg/L mild blooms occur over 50 percent of the summer, A

nuisance blooms (> 20 µg/L of chlorophyll a) about 15 percent of the summer. hosphorus concentrations above criteria levels would result in greater frequencies of

e algal blooms a d frequenc aired Pn uisanc

Name

nd increase

Mean Total Phosphorus

ies of "imp swimming."

MPCA Swimming Criterion

(µg/l)

Carlson’s Trophic Stratus Index (Secchi)

Roosevelt 15.0 43 Full Support Leavitt No data 45 Fu 1 ll Support (poor data)Lawrence No data 44.5 Fu 1 ll Support (poor data)Smokey Hollow No data 53.2 Partial Support (poor

data) 1

1 Fully supporting lakes with insufficient data show as better than the thresholds based on imited data; however, the lake cannot be assessed as fully supporting for aquatic lrecreation until more data is collected. Based on the phosphorus concentration (estimated using secchi depth) presented above, oosevelt, Leavitt, Lawrence and Smokey Hollow all “fully support” recreational use and Rcontact. Nonetheless, Leavitt appears on some websites as “impaired”. The MN Pollution Control Agency web‐site provides additional guidance on how to chart and interpret Lake Water Quality, including providing a spreadsheet which can be used to generate interpretive graphs: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html, as well as simple model which allows us to compare what your water quality “should be” based on alocal influences. We intend to improve and consolidate reliable data references in this plan. Ultimately all water chemistry (or physical) data is only a measure or reflection of whether the lake or river meets criteria or goals for the water body. Are our lakes able to support recreational uses without risk to public health? Do they support the best possible fishery? re the waters as aesthetically attractive as possible? These are our challenges to define, A

measure and improve performance, and this first year directly faces that challenge.

information from recent scientific research: Attac d ALALA Ap en

he appendices for additional R

p dix B) Results of AW Labs testing:

g – 2008

12

1. Water columns 2007‐2008 2. Springs identification and testin3. TSI “Fly‐over” summary – 2008

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/charting.html

1

Appendix A-2: DNR Fisheries Management Plan for Roosevelt Lake

Region

2

Area F212

Brainerd

D.O.W.

Number 11-43

County

Crow Wing

D.O.W. Lake Name

Roosevelt

Acreage

1585

Long Range Goal: Improve walleye abundance to be at least 4.0/GN. Operational Plan: 1) Discontinue lake trout stocking immediately pending results of strain evaluation. 2) Stock walleye fingerlings at a rate of 1pound/LA in alternate (odd numbered) years (390

pounds). 3) Test net on a six-year rotation with every other netting being a full lake survey The next

netting should be a population assessment in 2012. 4) Evaluate stocking success after each netting and revise stocking plans as necessary. 5) Annual summer temp/oxygen profiles to monitor abundance of lake trout habitat. Midrange Objective: Determine the future of lake trout stocking. Potential Plan: 1. Propose a MPCA-LAP study to identify potential nutrient problems. 5,000. 2. Repeat winter creel survey in 2012-13 25,000. 3. Conduct summer creel survey in 2012 50,000. 4. Pursue nutrient abatement plan for Spire Valley fish hatchery 100,000. TOTAL $ 175,500. NARRATIVE: (Historical perspectives - various surveys; past management; social considerations; present limiting factors; survey needs; land acquisition; habitat development and protection; commercial fishery; stocking plans; other management tools; and evaluation plans

Check the appropriate boxes below:

)

BWCAW Superior National Forest Chippewa National Forest Leech Lake Indian Reservation 1854 Ceded Territory 1837 Ceded Territory Fond du Lac Indian

Reservation Voyageurs National Park

Primary Species Management: walleye

Secondary Species Management:

smallmouth, largemouth bass

Area Supervisor Signature:

Date: Date sent from DNR Area Fisheries to USFS District Ranger:

Regional Manager Signature:

Date: Date sent from DNR Regional Fisheries to USFS Forest Supervisor:

2

LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Roosevelt Lake-Narrative Various surveys - Lake mapping was done in 1968. The initial lake survey was done in 1946. Subsequent nettings were done in 1950, 1968, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2006. Winter fish house counts were done in 1967 and annually from January, 1981-1993. A fall gill net lake trout assessment was done in 1992. A creel survey was done during the winter lake trout season, January-March, 1995. Results of the 2006 netting were fairly typical for the lake. Pike abundance rose to an all time high but remained below the first quartile value for the lake class. Pike averaged 25 inches long and 3.9 pounds. Walleye abundance, at 2.56/GN was similar to the 2000 catch, but was also below the first quartile value. Walleyes averaged 21.8 inches and 4.0 pounds in size. The smallmouth bass catch (0.25/GN) was in the “average” category. They averaged 14.4 inches and 1.83 pounds in size. Other centrarchid species were found in “average” to “high” numbers. Largemouth bass abundance was “high” and spring electrofishing produced a catch of 176 bass/hr. The yellow perch catch was below the first quartile value for the fourth consecutive netting. Tullibee numbers remained above the third quartile value for the third consecutive netting and was 55/GN in deep gill net sets. Size averaged 10 inches. Lake trout have been stocked since about 1980. After declining in the 2000 netting the 2006 catch was similar to that of 1995 in both standard and deep gill nets. However, all of the 2006 sample was of fish stocked earlier that spring, as yearlings. Additionally, both Gillis Lake and Isle Royal strains have been stocked since 2002. Gillis strain fish comprised 94% of the 2006 catch. We plan to evaluate strain survival based on data collected to date. Past management- Fish stocking has been the basic management tool. Pike, bass, crappies and rainbow trout were stocked, 1924-1945. From 1947-1972 mainly northern pike and occasional walleye fry stocking was done. Northern pike were last stocked in1980 and walleye fry in 1981. Lake trout stocking began in 1981. Walleye fingerling stocking began in 1990. Social considerations- Interest in the lake trout fishery peaked in the late 1990’s. Interest in trying to establish a walleye fishery has increased in recent years. The 1995 winter creel survey estimated the economic value of the winter lake trout fishery to be about $38,500 based on a trip value of $46.00 and an estimated 846 angler trips for the two-month season. Present limiting factors- Lake trout spawning habitat may be of poor quality. Results of recent summer temperature/oxygen profiles show a decreasing quantity of suitable lake trout habitat exists. The last reported trout summerkill occurred in 1989, however, decreased habitat and competition with an abundant tullibee population may be limiting long-term survival of lake trout. Quality northern pike spawning habitat is scarce. High abundance and slow growth of bluegills are periodic problems. Survey needs- The lake should be netted on a six-year rotation to monitor stocked fish populations. Every other netting should be a full survey. The next netting should be a population assessment in 2012. Spring electrofishing to monitor bass abundance should be incorporated into survey plans. Annual temperature/oxygen profiles should be done to evaluate lake trout habitat concerns. Land acquisition- Potential future acquisition should focus on areas important to preserving water quality and important fish habitat.

3

Habitat development and protection- Pursue AMA acquisition to protect critical fish habitat when opportunities arise. Use DOW, APM and WCA permit review process to help protect habitat. Maintenance of high water quality is imperative for a continuation of lake trout management. Use of MPCA-LAP program would help define current water quality and procedures to use to prevent degradation. Commercial fishery- There currently is low potential for commercial activity on this lake. Stocking plan- Lake trout stocking has been done since1981. In 1992 the quota was split evenly between Gillis and Isle Royal strains to determine whether strain affected survival. Recent temperature-oxygen profiles suggest that the physical environment is no longer conducive to supporting lake trout. In addition, Isle Royal strain fish will not be available until 2010 due to weather related hatchery losses. As a result, the planned strain evaluation will be done with currently existing data and lake trout stocking will be put on hold, pending the strain evaluation report. In the interim, walleye fingerlings will be stocked at a rate of 1 pound/LA in odd numbered years (390 pounds). Evaluation plans- Test nettings will be used to evaluate current stocking plans and to monitor fish populations Spring electrofishing will be done to monitor bass populations. Continued monitoring of summer temperature/oxygen profiles will help evaluate the quantity/quality of lake trout habitat. If lake trout management continues past 2012, an additional winter creel should be scheduled to supplement netting data and compare to 1995 creel data.

Roosevelt Lake (11-43) LMP netting summary Lake class 22

Species Gear Q1-Q3 1946 1950 1968 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 NOP G 3.00-7.89 0.7 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.81 2.19 WAE G 4.01-9.63 1.4 8.9 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.6 2.63 2.56 SMB G 0.20-0.87 0.2 0.13 0.25 LAT G none 0.3 0.00 0.31 LAT DG none 1.4 0.60 1.20 TLC G 0.50-5.20 6.8 2.8 1.7 9.5 7.2 4.9 16.1 6.50 6.00 TLC DG none 41.0 45.60 55.00 YEP G 7.06-33.87 28.3 11.3 7.1 10.7 25.6 5.7 3.4 4.94 3.63 BLG T 3.73-42.85 21.3 50.1 57.2 38.9 75.1 53.63 28.31 BLC T 0.25-1.74 1.2 7.1 5.6 11.7 5.6 4.06 3.00 LMB T 0.37-1.38 0.8 0.1 1.7 0.4 4.3 0.56 1.13 LMB E none 176.00 SMB E none 8.67

G=gill net DG=deep gill net T=trap net (not used in 1946, '50) E=electrofishing (fish/hr of run time)

4

Appendix A-2: DNR Fisheries Management Plan for Leavitt Lake

Region

2

Area F212

Brainerd

D.O.W

Number 11-37

County

Cass

D.O.W. Lake Name

Leavitt

Acreage

130

Long Range Goal: Maintain northern pike abundance of at least 2.0/gill net. Maintain largemouth bass abundance of at least 0.33/trap net and black crappie abundance of at least 0.5/trap net.

Operational Plan:

1. Gill net in 2012, then test net on a 12-year rotation with every other netting being a full lake survey. The next netting should be a population assessment in 2024.

2. Evaluate the functioning of the new culvert under County Road 58 between Lawrence and Leavitt Lakes.

Midrange Objective: Monitor fish populations through periodic test netting. Potential Plan: AMA/ aquatic environmental easement acquisition. 100,000. TOTAL $ 100,000. NARRATIVE: (Historical perspectives - various surveys; past management; social considerations; present limiting factors; survey needs; land acquisition; habitat development and protection; commercial fishery; stocking plans; other management tools; and evaluation plans


)



Primary Species Management: Northern pike

Secondary Species Management:

Largemouth bass, Black crappie





5

LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Leavitt Lake - Narrative Various surveys- The initial lake survey was done in 1949. Subsequent nettings were done in 1953, 1968, 1985, 1990, 1996 and 2006. The lake was mapped in 1938, with a revision done in 1971. In 2006, fish catches were not particularly different from previous nettings. The northern pike catch of 2.67/GN remained below the first quartile value for the lake class. Size averaged 21.3 inches and 2.3 pounds. Only three of the sixteen pike caught were at or above 24 inches long. Walleyes were not sampled in gill nets in 2006, and yellow perch were not sampled at all. The tullibee catch fell to 0.83/GN and was, again, below the first quartile value. Black crappies were sampled at a rate of 2.22/TN. Sixty-five percent of the fish were at least 8.0 inches long. The bluegill catch was 14.44/TN, similar to the 1996 catch. Thirty-three percent were at least 7.0 inches long. The largemouth bass catch, at 0.56/TN was average for the lake class. Past management- Past management has consisted primarily of fish stocking. A variety of species were stocked from 1929-1993. Brown trout were stocked in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1970, 1972 and 1976. Walleye was stocked on a regular basis in the 1960’s and 1980-1993. Stocking was discontinued after 1993. Social considerations- The lake is on the northeast side of the City of Outing. Riparian owners are part of a lake association, combined with members from Lawrence and Roosevelt Lakes Present limiting factors- The lake has limited productivity and bog-stained water. Oxygen is insufficient for fish below about 18 feet in summer. Survey needs- The lake should be gill netted in 2012, then netted on a twelve-year rotation with every second netting being a full lake survey. The next full netting should be a population assessment in 2024. Spring electrofishing to sample largemouth bass should be done in test netting years if workloads permit. Land acquisition- Pursue AMA acquisition and/or aquatic environmental easements if opportunities arise. Habitat development and protection- Protect habitat through APM, DOW and WCA permitting programs. Restoration of riparian habitat should be encouraged. Commercial fishery- There is limited potential for commercial activity on this lake. Stocking plans- There are currently no stocking plans for this lake. Evaluation plans- Periodic test netting will be used to monitor the fish population. Spring electrofishing would help monitor largemouth bass. The new culvert under Co. Rd 58 will be evaluated beginning in spring of 2008, and during high flow events as deemed necessary, to ensure it is operating as planned.

6

Leavitt Lake LMP netting summary. Lake Class 28 Species Gear Q1-Q3 1949 1953 1968 1985 1990 1996 2006

NOP G 2.75-8.67 2.50 0.00 2.00 0.67 1.75 2.67 WAE G 0.50-3.33 0.67 4.88 0.33 0.67 2.00 0.50 0.00 YEP G 1.90-23.70 1.00 0.63 0.67 2.33 0.67 3.00 0.00 TLC G 1.00-13.25 0.38 6.33 0.67 0.33 2.25 0.83 BLC G 0.16-0.50 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BLC T 0.50-3.25 0.56 0.83 0.20 4.75 8.00 14.50 2.22 BLG T 5.69-40.25 12.67 0.60 20.00 51.75 14.17 14.44 LMB T 0.33-1.55 0.33 0.56

G=gill net T=trap net

7

Appendix A-2: DNR Fisheries Management Plan for Lawrence Lake

Region 2

Area F212 Brainerd

D.O.W Number

11-53

County

Cass

D.O.W. Lake Name

Lawrence

Acreage

230 Long Range Goal: Maintain northern pike abundance near 3.0/GN with an average size near 5.0 pounds. Operational Plan:

1. Gill net in 2012, then test net on a twelve-year rotation with every other netting a full survey. The next netting should be a population assessment in 2024.

2. Evaluate the functioning of the new culvert under County Road 58 between Lawrence and Leavitt Lakes.

Midrange Objective: Monitor fish population through periodic test netting. Potential Plan: AMA/aquatic environmental easement acquisition 100,000 TOTAL $ 100,000. NARRATIVE: (Historical perspectives - various surveys; past management; social considerations; present limiting factors; survey needs; land acquisition; habitat development and protection; commercial fishery; stocking plans; other management tools; and evaluation plans


)



Primary Species Management: Northern pike

Secondary Species Management: Largemouth bass





8

LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Lawrence Lake - Narrative Various surveys - The initial lake survey was done in 1951. Subsequent nettings were done in 1968, 1979, 1989 and 2006. The lake was mapped in 1968. In 2006, fish catches were similar to previous nettings. Pike abundance (2.33/GN) was just above the first quartile value for the lake class (2.19/GN). Size averaged 27.5 inches and 4.79 pounds. The walleye catch was at 3.83/GN. Fish averaged 19.4 inches and 2.71 pounds. The yellow perch catch (0.33/GN) was “low” for the lake class. Tullibees were not sampled, for the first time. Crappie abundance was “high” in gill nets and “average” in trap nets. Bluegill abundance was down to 11.5/TN. Size remained small, averaging 4.7 inches and only 1% of the sample was at least 7 inches long. Past management - Lawrence Lake was opened to extended fishing for crappies and sunfish in 1952-’53 in an effort to control small panfish. Additionally, 40,000 fingerling crappies were removed in 1953, by permit. Northern pike, largemouth bass and walleyes were occasionally stocked between 1928 and 1991. Social considerations - The lake is on the northeast side of the City of Outing. The public access is frequently used as an alternative launch site to access Roosevelt Lake. Present limiting factors - The lake borders on being oligotrophic. The lake is also bog stained. The lake typically becomes unsuitable for fish below about 12-15 feet in summer due to low oxygen levels. Panfish numbers are sometimes excessive, but growth is often slow. A relatively small littoral area may contribute to the problem. Survey needs - The lake should be gill netted in 2012, then netted on a twelve-year rotation, with every second netting being a full survey. The next full netting should be a population assessment in 2024. Spring electrofishing for bass should be done in netting years if workloads permit. Land acquisition - Pursue AMA acquisition or aquatic environmental easements as opportunities arise. Habitat development and protection - Use APM, DOW and WCA permitting processes to protect habitat. Encourage riparian aquatic habitat restoration projects as opportunities arise. Commercial fishery - There is little potential for commercial activity on this lake. Stocking plan - There currently are no stocking plans for this lake. Evaluation plans - Periodic test netting will be used to monitor the lake’s fish population. Spring electrofishing would help monitor the bass population. The new culvert under Co. Rd 58 will be evaluated beginning in spring of 2008, and during high flow events, as deemed necessary, to ensure it is operating as planned.

9

Lawrence Lake (11-53) netting summary Lake Class 23 Species Gear Q1-Q3 1951 1968 1979 1989 2006

NOP G 2.19-8.70 0.17 1.67 2.33 3.00 2.33 WAE G 1.00-5.00 2.17 3.33 4.33 1.00 3.83 YEP G 1.48-13.81 5.00 17.67 27.67 2.67 0.33 TLC G 1.25-10.43 0.17 1.00 1.33 2.00 0.00 BLC G 0.33-1.67 3.67 2.00 5.67 0.33 2.17 BLC T 0.48-2.15 26.33 3.60 0.67 4.50 1.38 BLG T 7.74-43.38 23.67 28.60 15.33 21.75 11.50 LMB T 0.39-1.53 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75

G=gill net T=trap net

10

Appendix A-2: Lake Management Plan – Smokey Hollow

Appendix B: Report: (a) AW Labs ScientificAssessment of Water Columns INTRODUCTION The following report presents the results of the sampling conducted in August of 2007 and February of 2008. Information about lake water quality is essential in assessing a lake’s condition. The basis for winter profile sampling is to assess water quality when the lake is buffered from atmospheric influences. During the winter months, algae and other aquatic vegetation settles to the bottom and decays, as a result, the concentrations of total phosphorous and other nutrients increase at the deeper depths. Concentrations of phosphorous become elevated on the lake bottom, when the deeper lake waters become anoxic. Under these conditions, phosphorous is released from bottom sediments, resulting in the addition of more phosphorous to the deeper waters. Therefore, the samples collected will provide a “worst case” maximum record of nutrient levels in the lake. The summer profile sampling also defines the location of nutrients in the water column. The summer concentrations will differ from the winter due to phosphorus transport within the column by biological activity. The measure of where and how much phosphorus is present will provide a comparison on which to establish lake quality seasonal and yearly changes. The following tables and graphs contain data collected and analyzed, including total pounds of total phosphorus and chlorides. Figure one illustrates the sampling locations.

1

2

1

Figure 1 Sampling Locations

2

SAMPLING RESULTS John Reynolds and Kristin Dupre of A.W. Research Laboratories sampled Roosevelt Lake on August 14, 2007 and February 27, 2008. Darril Wegsheid from the lake association assisted John and Kristin during the August sampling by providing a pontoon boat. The sky conditions on August 14, 2007 were clear and sunny and the temperature was approximately 80º Fahrenheit. During February, the sky was clear and the temperature was approximately 20º Fahrenheit and the wind speed was approximately 15 mph. Parameters tested include total phosphorous, chlorides, pH, conductivity, redox, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Table 1 illustrates the raw data collected, for summer (South and North) and then for winter (South and North).

Table 1 raw data

Date Time Air Temp Sky Secchi Depth

MAX Depth TP Cl pH Cond Redox D.O. Temp

South 8/14/2007 12:00 80 Clear 10 100 Surface .021 2.42 8.60 231 267 8.81 24

10 .009 2.29 8.66 230 272 8.94 24 20 .018 2.53 8.46 247 284 8.15 23 30 <.005 2.44 8.38 284 301 5.20 12 40 .018 2.56 7.8 288 321 4.10 8 50 .018 2.50 7.58 287 317 3.6 6.5 60 .018 2.39 7.79 289 320 3.75 6.7 70 .008 2.48 7.38 286 333 2.87 6.4 80 .015 2.48 7.79 286 330 3.55 6.25 90 .017 2.47 7.60 285 335 2.75 6.15 100 .023 2.47 7.49 285 338 2.10 6.1 110 .027 2.48

Averages 0.018 2.459 7.957 272.5 310.73 4.89 11.74 North

8/14/2007 12:00 80 Clear 13 50 Surface .009 2.47 8.46 283 236 8.2 24 10 .015 2.61 8.48 282 244 7.9 24 20 .012 2.62 8.25 309 269 5.25 18 30 .023 2.64 7.95 327 280 <1 8.5 40 .041 2.61 7.43 334 77 <1 7 50 .070 2.58 7.24 340 46 <1 6.85

Averages 0.028 2.59 7.97 312.5 192 7.117 14.73

3

Date Time Air Temp Sky Secchi Depth

MAX Depth TP Cl pH Cond Redox D.O. Temp

South 2/27/2008 13:00 20 Clear N/A 108 Surface .021 2.63 7.87 289 243 10.39 .63

10 .022 2.52 7.77 280 258 8.66 2.53 20 .021 2.41 7.79 278 262 8.44 2.82 30 .019 2.40 7.85 277 277 6.73 3.17 40 .029 2.05 7.84 279 286 6.70 3.01 50 .025 2.16 7.85 281 289 7.18 2.88 60 .019 2.14 7.85 284 293 6.70 2.85 70 .018 2.17 7.84 286 297 6.32 2.86 80 .029 2.16 7.81 289 301 5.46 2.92 90 .030 2.16 7.77 291 304 5.36 2.97

Averages 0.023 2.28 7.824 283.4 281 7.194 2.664

North 2/27/2008 14:52 20 Clear N/A 35 Surface .027 2.60 8.36 333 231 10.87 .07

10 .024 2.56 8.17 320 246 8.31 3.13 20 .030 2.52 8.00 320 262 6.91 3.46 30 .023 2.48 7.74 324 274 2.88 3.80

Averages 0.026 2.54 8.068 324.3 253.25 7.24 2.612

4

DISSOLVED OXYGEN/TEMPERATURE PROFILES Dissolved oxygen is of major interest in water quality investigations because concentrations are an important gauge of existing water quality and the ability of the water body to support a well-balanced aquatic fauna. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below 2.0 mg/L would indicate possible anoxia at lower depths; this would cause loss of fish populations. Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature values were recorded at the surface and in 10-foot increments to the bottom of the lake. Graphs A-D illustrate the decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations and the temperature as the thermocline develops.

DOTemp

Roosevelt North Side Summer 2007

6.85

7

8.5

18

24

240

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dissolved Oxygen & Temp (C)

Dep

th (F

t) DOTemp

Graph A

DOTemp

R o o sev elt S o u th S id e S u m m er 2 0 0 7

6 .16 .1 56 .2 56 .46 .7

6 .58

1 22 3

2 42 40

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0

D isso lv ed O x y g en & T em p (C )

Dep

th (F

t) D OT em p

Graph B

5

DOTemp

R o o s e v e lt N o r th S id eW in te r 2 0 0 8

3 .8

3 .4 6

3 .1 3

0 .0 70

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2

D is s o lv e d O x y g e n & T e m p (C )

Dep

th (F

t) D OT e m p

Graph C h C

Graph D Graph D

DOTemp

R oosevelt South S ideW inter 2008

3.12

2.97

2.92

2.86

2.85

2.88

3.01

3.17

2.82

2.53

0.630

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

D issolved O xygen & T em p (C )

Dep

th (F

t) D OT em p

6

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS Phosphorus is a major plant nutrient. If present in excess of a critical concentration it stimulates plant growth. Phosphorus is a commonly the limiting factor of plant growth in lakes, and is the nutrient most easily controlled by man Phosphorous samples were taken at the surface of the lake and in 10-foot increments to the bottom of the lake. Graphs E-H illustrate the total milligrams per liter of phosphorous and graphs I-L illustrate the total pounds of phosphorous.

Roosevelt North Side Summer 2007

0

10

20

30

40

500 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

TP mg/L

Dep

th (F

)

TP mg/L

Graph E

Roosevelt South SideSummer 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

TP mg/L

Dep

th (F

)

TP mg/L

Graph F

7

Roosevelt North Side Winter 2008

0

10

20

300 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

TP mg/L

Dep

th (F

)

TP mg/L

Graph G

Roosevelt South SideWinter 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

TP mg/L

Dep

th

TP mg/L

Graph H

8

TOTAL POUNDS OF PHOSPHOROUS


0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 100 200 300 400 500

Total Pounds

Dep

th(F

)

Lbs Of TP

Graph I

Roosevelt North SideSummer 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

600 100 200 300 400 500

Total Pounds

Dep

th(F

)

Lbs Of TP

Graph J

9


0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Total Pounds

Dep

th(F

)

Lbs Of TP

Graph K

Roosevelt North SideWinter 2008

0

10

20

30

40

500 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Total Pounds

Dep

th (F

)

Lbs Of TP

Graph L

10

CHLORIDES High concentrations of chloride anion are usually not common in open lake systems. However, pollution sources of chlorides can modify natural ecosystems. Sources may include softeners, road salting and municipal wastewaters.

Chlorides were taken at the surface of the lake and in 10-foot increments to the bottom of the lake. Graphs M-P illustrate to total milligrams per liter of chlorides and graphs Q-T illustrate the total pounds of chlorides.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1202.25 2.35 2.45 2.55 2.65

Depth(F)

Chlorides (mg/L)


Chlorides

Graph M

0

10

20

30

40

502.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65

Depth (F)

Chlorides (mg/L)


Chlorides

Graph N

11


0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Chlorides (mg/L)

Dep

th(F

)

Chlorides

Graph O


0

10

20

300 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Chlorides (mg/L)

Dep

th (F

)

Chlorides

Graph P

12

TOTAL POUNDS OF CHLORIDES


0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Total Pounds

Dep

th (F

)

Lbs Of CL

Graph Q


0

10

20

30

40

50

600 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Total Pounds

Dep

th (F

)

Lbs Of CL

Graph R

13


0

20

40

60

80

100

1200 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Total Pounds

Dep

th (F

)

Lbs Of CL

Graph S


0

10

20

30

40

500 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Total Pounds

Dep

th (F

)

Lbs Of CL

Graph T

Name Date Total lbs. Of Phosphorous. Total lbs of ChloridesSouth Roosevelt Aug-07 2477 439676 South Roosevelt Feb-08 4147 415149 North Roosevelt Aug-07 371 49431 North Roosevelt Feb-08 457 44985

Table 2 Total pounds of Phosphorous and Chlorides.

Table 2

14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Data obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency from 2002 states the overall trophic status of Roosevelt Lake is Mesotrophic, having a moderate amount of dissolved nutrients, with temporary algae and aquatic plant problems. The data recorded during this study defines the following:

1. The dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles appear as expected and similar to such profiles from other lakes of the same size and depth with the exception of Roosevelt South during the February sampling. The dissolved oxygen concentrations do not show a consistent and smooth transition from the top to the bottom. The dissolved oxygen concentrations observed on the south lake during February show an increase of dissolved oxygen at the 50-foot level. This observation is an anomaly.

2. The summer phosphorus profile shows an anticipated curve on the north portion of the lake and an anomaly on the south portion of the lake. Spikes in phosphorus concentration appear at the following depths:

a. The surface b. 20 feet c. 40, 50 and 60 feet.

This observation is highly unusual. 3. The winter phosphorus profile shows anomalies in both the south and north portions of

the lake. In the north portion of the lake an increase of phosphorus is observed at 20 feet and the concentration at the bottom of the lake is lower than the phosphorus concentration at the top. Normally there is a steady increase in phosphorus from the top to the bottom during the winter months. On the south portion of the lake phosphorus spikes are observed at the following depths:

a. 10 feet b. 40 feet

and declines are observed at 50 through 70 feet. 4. The summer chloride concentrations show an unusual progression from the top to the

bottom. The variance in the fluctuation is up to approximately 0.25 mg/l on the south lake during the summer. The north side of the lake provides a concentration to depth progression similar to other lakes historically observed The total pounds distribution of total phosphorus and chloride fits a progression that has historically been observed in other lakes.

5. The total pounds of phosphorus increases approximately 1.6 times from summer to winter in the south lake. This is an indication of high internal loading from the sediments. The total pounds of chlorides decrease by approximately 24,000 lbs. or approximately 5% during the winter in the south side. However; the total pounds of chloride increase by approximately 23 % in the north portion of the lake during the winter. Further observations will need to be collected before an understanding of these observations can be put forth.

15

16

In conclusion the following is recommended for 2008

1. Conduct an Environmental Assessment Overflight during May or October 2008 to identify environmental areas of concern

2. Locate the springs along the shoreline of the lake, photograph and test the water for total phosphorus and chlorides.

3. Conduct a macro and micro profile on both the north and south portions of the lake during mid August 2008 to identify living populations present from the top to the bottom of the basins.

4. Model the flow characteristics within the lake to project the direction and rate of transport within the lake under various wind and meteorological conditions

Appendix B – b

TSI Springs Inventory and Assessment – winter 2008 – AW Labs

INTRODUCTION

Darril Wegscheid and Dave Johnson of Roosevelt Lake Association sampled various

spring around Roosevelt Lake on March 30, 2008. The purpose of the sampling was to

pinpoint areas around Roosevelt Lake that are inputting groundwater. The samples were

analyzed for total phosphorous, conductivity and chloride.

Total Phosphorous

Phosphorus is a major plant nutrient. If present in excess of a critical concentration it

stimulates plant growth. Phosphorus is a commonly the limiting factor of plant growth in

lakes, and is the nutrient most easily controlled by man.

Conductivity

Conductivity is a measure of a solution’s ability to carry an electrical current which is

related to the amount of ions in the solution. The measurement is used to obtain an

estimate of dissolved solids or salts content. Hence, the higher conductivity the more

contaminated the water is.

Chlorides

High concentrations of chloride anion are usually not common in open lake systems.

However, pollution sources of chlorides can modify natural ecosystems. Sources may

include industry, road salting, septic systems, and municipal wastewaters.

The following maps and tables indicate the sampling locations and the data collected,

including the sample results.

1

Roosevelt Lake Springs

Sky Partly Cloudy

Temperature 36ºF

Sampler Darril/Dave

Max Depth 1 ft

Date Time Sample

ID

Lab

ID

GPS

Coordinates

TP

mg/L

CL

mg/L

Cond.

30-Mar-08 1400 20 92306 40.807480 N

93.953011 W 0.028 4.71 317

1400 30 92307 46.803848 N

93.956398 W 0.101 12.1 309

1400 40 92308 46.802480 N

93.957718 W 0.041 5.03 324

1400 41 92309 46.801800 N

93.958326 W 0.059 2.12 304

1400 43 92310 46.801601 N

93.958565 W 0.063 1.76 343

1400 45 92311 46.801384 N

93.958656 W 0.027 4.98 312

1300 90 92312 46º 47’ 47.84” N

93º 58’ 40.40” W 0.028 1.2 334

1300 91 92313 46º 47’ 42.31” N

93º 58’50. 24 W 0.020 2.03 290

1300 92 92314 46º 47’ 42.34” N

93º 58’ 51.67” W 0.016 1.88 288

19-Jul-08 1700 101 Smokey Hollow Lake - reading

over deepest spot 0.052 < 1.00 38.6

2

Total Phosphorous Color Code Red numbers 0.090-0.12 Green numbers 0.040-0.065 Blue numbers 0.015-0.030

Conductivity Color Code Red number 320-345 Green numbers 300-319 Blue numbers 285-299

Chloride Color Code Red number 10-12.5 Green numbers 4.7-5.05 Blue numbers 1.2-2.15

Sampling Locations

20

43 41

40

30

101 45

90

91 92

3

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

20

43 41

40

30

101

45

90

91 92

4

Red numbers 0.090-0.12 mg/L Green numbers 0.040-0.065 mg/L Blue numbers 0.015-0.030 mg/L

Conductivity (µS)

20

43 41

40

30

101

45

90

91 92

5

Red number 320-345 µS Green numbers 300-319 µS Blue numbers 285-299 µS

6

Chloride (mg/L)

101

20

43 41

40

30

Red number 10-12.5 mg/L Green numbers 4.7-5.05 mg/L Blue numbers 1.2-2.15 mg/L

45

90

91 92

Appendix B – c

TSI Flyover – summer 2008 – AW Labs

THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE BY REQUEST – [email protected]

The next page is the sampler for the information provided – NOT our report


Appendix B: AW Lab Reports Report c: 2008 TSI FlyOver Assessments

RALALA has contracted with AW Labs of Brainerd to execute a “fly-over” to evaluate our lakes’ status. That report is likely to be completed by late September. The following is the description of that effort: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing a new method of determining the health of your lake with real time imaging, A.W. Research Laboratories, Inc. has developed a multispectral camera that measures the Trophic Status Index values for the entire lake. The camera’s capabilities are similar to combing approximately 870 manually collected samples per acre and mapping the results to one image in a timely manner. TSI Lake Mapping provides mapped TSI values (for approximately every 50 sq.ft.) that would historically be determined by measuring the secchi depth, total phosphorus concentration, chlorophyll a concentration, and placing the resulting values into the Carlson Trophic Status Index algorithms. Financially the TSI Lake Mapping is an affordable method of receiving the TSI values for the entire lake. To duplicate the camera’s abilities, 870 locations/ per acre would have to be manually sampled. The traditional method would cost approximately $34,800 ($40/sample). With the TSI Camera, the cost is $0.75 an acre (0.001 cents/sample). Your TSI report is delivered via our website so your entire organization can view the results. The service also includes a standard visible image and thermal image of your lake. By pinpointing problem areas immediately, you can put your efforts and budget toward remediation of the problems.

Visible TSI Thermal

TSI 38 48 50 68 70 87

Normal image of lake White areas indicate hot Black areas indicate cold

16326 Airport Road * Brainerd, MN 56401 * Phone (218) 829-7974 * Fax (218) 829-1316 * E-Mail awlab@ awlab.com

Appendix C

Summary of Watershed & Geology Topography

Appendix C: Watershed Description: Physical Characteristics and location of Roosevelt, Leavitt, and Lawrence Lakes oosevelt (#11‐0043), Leavitt (#11‐0037), Lawrence (#11‐0053) and Smokey Hollow (#18‐0220) akes are located in the southeast corner of Cass County around the City of Outing. RL

1

2

The table below summarizes some of the physical characteristics of the lakes within this chain. are h is equal or less than 15 feet dThe littoral

Lake Name

a is that whic

Su

eep.

Maximum Depth

rface Area (Acres)

Amount LittAcresperce

oral /(relative nt) ( f )eet

Avg. Water Clarity ( feet)

Roosevelt 1,510.56 3 90 (25.8%) 129 10.1 Leavitt 121.53 38 (31.3%) 60 6.0 Lawrence 224.9 87 (38.7%) 71 12.5 SmokeHollow

y 114.0 52 (45.6%) 25 3.0

Total 1970.99 567 (28.8%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Water Level: he DNR Division of Waters has very limited historic water level data for Roosevelt, Leavitt, and awrence Lakes, with summary statistics prese low. TL nted be Roosevelt Leavitt Lawrence Period of Record 6/7/ 61‐

5 19

/19/1992 8/5/ 980 1

# of readings 5 1 Highest Recorded Water Level

1,269.7 ft (May 19, 1992)

No data 1,269.16 (August 5, 1980)

Lowest Recorded Water Level

1,269.14 ft (Au 0) g. 5, 198

1 6 (Augu 980)

,269.1st 5, 1

Recorded range 0.56 feet 0 feetAverage WaterLevel

1 ,269.28 ft 1,269.16 ft

Ordinary High Water Level 1,269.9 ft 1,269.9 feet

No water level data were found for Smokey Hollow Lake. Wat ser hed Descriptions

ba ance of ing watershed maps:

The l Appendix F contains the follow1) Leavitt / Lawrence watershed (To Hwy 58 channel at Outing)

(This includes Morrison Lake)

2) Spire V3) Roosev

alley watershed (To North tip of North Roosevelt Lake) elt Lake (North and South) – the balance of the area (This includes Smokey Hollow, Little Emily and Papoose)

Appendix C: Watershed Drainage / Watershed Basins

(1) Lawrence / Leavitt Lake

Outing, MN

3

Appendix C: Watershed Drainage / Watershed Basins (2) Spire Valley

Northernmost end of Lake Roosevelt

4

Appendix C: Watershed Drainage / Watershed Basins (3) Roosevelt Lake

Outing, MN

Outlet of Crooked Creek watershed

5

Appendix F: USGS Data for Soils

The Cass County Portion of the watershed: The Cass County Soil Survey Provided the following summary map and legend:

6

7

Crow Wing County portion of the watershed: The Crow Wing Soil Survey is being updated. No online map was located for the area. The following summary data for the Crow Wing County portion was acquired from the USDA interactive website. Brainerd sandy loam Map Area Description

• Elevation: 700 to 1,400 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 24 to 28 inches • Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F • Frost‐free period: 90 to 145 days

Map Unit Composition

• Brainerd and similar soils: 90 percent

Setting • Landform: Hillslopes on drumlins • Landform position (two‐dimensional): Summit, backslope • Down‐slope shape: Linear • Across‐slope shape: Linear • Parent material: Dense glacial till

Properties and qualities • Slope: 0 to 2 percent • Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: 41 to 60 inches to dense material • Drainage class: Moderately well drained • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low

(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 6 to 12 inches

Typical profile • 0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam • 6 to 11 inches: Sandy loam • 11 to 23 inches: Sandy loam • 23 to 41 inches: Sandy loam • 41 to 60 inches: Sandy loam

Appendix D

The MN DNR Aquatic Plant Survey is In the Support Folder 04

Appendix E

DNR Shoreland Area Fact Sheet

SHORELAND AREA FACT SHEET

The most effective method to positively influence lake water quality is to naturally treat waterflowing into a lake. As shoreland area owners, there are different options to providetreatment of the water entering a lake. This fact sheet outlines a number of alternatives tomaintain and potentially improve lake water quality. A landowner must check to see ifprojects require local, state, or federal permits.

One method of treating water entering a lake is to buffer the runoff water from the lawn. Abuffer area in and adjacent to the water can be planted into native vegetation, providing afilter for water running off the land and adding natural habitat in the water. The vegetationcan be attractive plants, landscaped to provide the protection. Swimming and boat areas canbe included in the plans. Benton County recently installed shoreland buffer/restorationplantings at both St Regis and Rose Anna Beach County parks on Little Rock Lake. Pleasefeel free to visit the parks to view these projects. Note that these areas were planted in2007 and will change substantially over time (See park locations and restoration plans on theCounty web site).

The following websites provide buffer and other information on shoreland-related subjects:http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ (main DNR website for the pages listed below)

/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/Yourlake15.pdf(“Your Lake” - general information)/lakescaping/index.htmlShoreland management, including shoreland restoration, native plant bufferzones, plant selection, etc./shorelandmgmt/apg/index.htmlGuide to aquatic plants./shorelandmgmt/guide/index.htmlShoreland management guide/restoreyourshore/index.htmlCD ROM disk available from the Minnesota Bookstore to restore shoreland.Minnesota’s Bookstore - tel. (651) 297-3000 Twin Cities metro ornationwide toll free (800) 657-3757 TTY: (651) 282-5077/assistance/backyard/shorelandmgmt/shallowlakes.pdfShallow Lakes informational sheet./shorelandmgmt/ecosystems/index.htmlLakeshore ecosystems./gardens/nativeplants/meadow.htmlWet meadow creation.

Another website for general information:http://www.extension.umn.edu/ruralliving/

Includes shoreland management recommendations.Includes rain garden information.“Your Septic System” information.Erosion management.Surface and ground water information.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/Yourlake15.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakescaping/index.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/shorelandmgmt/apg/index.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/shorelandmgmt/guide/index.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/restoreyourshore/index.html

http://www.minnesotasbookstore.com/

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/shorelandmgmt/shallowlakes.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/shorelandmgmt/ecosystems/index.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gardens/nativeplants/meadow.html

http://www.extension.umn.edu/ruralliving/

For further information contact Benton County Department of Development – www.co.benton.mn.us or Phone 320-968-5065.

Rain gardens are another option which treat water before entering the surface water. It is avisibly attractive garden of a periodically-wet plant area. The majority of water seeps intothe ground instead of a direct runoff to the surface water.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/raingardenmanual.pdf“How-To” manual for rain gardens.

A properly operating septic system is essential to treat waste water flowing into the groundwater and eventually into the lake. Pumping the septic tank and maintaining the systemextends the investment and life of the septic system and helps protect water quality.

http://septic.umn.edu/homeowner/index.htmlSeptic system maintenance guide.

Minimize fertilizer use in shoreland areas. STATE LAW NOW REQUIRES that phosphorus-free fertilizer be used in shoreland areas. Phosphorus is one of the leading causes of algalblooms. Phosphorus is the middle number identifying fertilizer content.

ExamplesACCEPTABLE-(NO Phosphorus in mixture):|NOT ACCEPTABLE-(Phosphorus in mixture):N P K N P K N P K | N P K N P K N P K10-0-10, 17-0-17, 33-0-0 | 10-17-17, 10-20-20, 17-17-17

**FACT TO REMEMBER** –Delivered to water, ONE POUND of phosphorus can produceup to 500 POUNDS of vegetation and algae.

Further reading and information:http://www.shorelandmanagement.org/depth/citizen.pdfhttp://www.shorelandmanagement.org/depth/bmp.pdf

IDEAS FOR SHORELAND PROTECTION1. Plan and install a shoreland buffer strip with your neighbor(s)to make it more effective and reduce your lawn mowing areas atthe same time.2. Add a rain garden to your property to handle storm runoff.3. Consider creating an annual lake association contest ofShoreland Restoration/Environmental Improvement with differentcategories (most protection, most aesthetic/attractive, most creative,most native oriented, etc.) for restoration, rain gardens, or other waterquality improvements. Get donations from water-oriented or floral businesses for prizes.4. Work with your lake association to have a voluntary program of checking potential septicsystem problems with dye.5. Contact your local Soil and Water Conservation District for more information andassistance on water quality and erosion/sediment issues.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/raingardenmanual.pdf

http://septic.umn.edu/homeowner/index.html

Appendix F

Top 10 Shoreland Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Top 10 Shoreland Best Management Practices

1) Preserve or create a natural shoreline. Preserving or installing a shoreline landscape that is rich in native species allows water to soak in, rather than run off. Plants absorb nutrients that would otherwise flow into the lake, causing algae blooms and excessive aquatic vegetation growth. Vegetative buffers along shorelines also trap sediments that fill in wetlands and lakes. Natural shorelines are also more consistent with a beautiful “up-north” look.

2) Relax. Reduce your lawn. Keep your trees. The fertilizers and clippings from

traditional suburbanized lawns contribute to poor lake water quality. Once established, natural landscapes are less expensive and easier to maintain than traditional lawns. Keep native trees and vegetation, with their extensive root systems, helping stabilize the landscape, aiding in groundwater recharge and reducing runoff. If lawn is desired, use only phosphorus-free fertilizers and a lawn that is at least 30 feet from the lake.

3) Learn what you can or cannot do on or to the lake and lakeshore. Shoreline

areas provide important habitat for naïve waterfowl, shorebirds, and fish and are crucial for maintaining healthy populations. It is unlawful in Minnesota to knowingly alter shoreline, fish habitat or aquatic vegetation without a permit from the DNR. Upland permits are often required by the County or City – check local ordinances. It is also important to make yourself informed about all the rules that govern lake use.

4) Minimize rooftops and driveways. Roofs, sidewalks, paved driveways, and roads all increase the amount of water that runs off into our lakes – carrying fertilizers, household cleaners, paints, solvents, pesticides, and motor oil. Decrease the amount of hard surfaces on your property to allow water to soak into the landscape and keep pollutants out of lakes. Consider installing a rain garden or use more pervious materials or pavers for sidewalks, driveways, and patios.

5) Maintain you septic system. A well-maintained septic saves money, headaches and the environment. To keep your septic in good working order: 1) pump at least every three years (more if you use a garbage disposal); 2) conserve water; 3) properly dispose of harmful paints and household chemicals; 4) fix leaky faucets; and 5) consider service agreements with regular maintenance.

6) Keep native aquatic plants. Native aquatic plants are critical life support systems for our lakes. With their amazing filtering abilities, native aquatic plants such as cattails and bulrush are natural water purifiers, taking up nutrients and allowing sunlight to penetrate into the lake and create the base of the food chain. The rooted aquatic vegetation is also a veritable fish nursery, which provides critical refuge habitat for young fish.

7) Manage your pet and livestock waste. Controlling pet and livestock waste not only makes you a courteous neighbor, it also improves the quality of our waters. Dispose of such wastes far from the water’s edge to help ensure that bacteria, phosphorus and nitrogen from these wastes don’t end up in our lakes.

8) Be considerate of other lake users. Consider some of the many different ways we use our lakes: jet skiing, boating, tubing, water-skiing, fishing, hunting, canoeing, wildlife watching and swimming. Follow local watercraft rules and noise ordinances to help ensure a positive experience for everyone who uses Minnesota’s lakes for recreation.

9) Encourage and support land conservation. The donation or purchase of conservation easements in one of the most const-effective ways to protect sensitive shorelines from development. Lakeshore owners and users can help in these efforts by maintaining records of changes to shoreline; keeping a watchful eye out for upcoming land sales or transfers; and encouraging donations (land or financial) to conservation easement programs, projects, committees or land trusts.

10) Show up. Speak up. Decisions are made by those who show up and speak up. Join your lake association or COLA. Give money, time, input, serve, or write a check to support local efforts.

Source: North Central Lakes Project

Appendix G

Lake Leavitt – Shoreland Properties Profile

12-024-4400

04-019-4104

04-019-2402

04-019-3301

04-019-1300

04-019-4103

04-019-3108

12-467-2521

Leavitt Lake Parcels withConservation Potential

Identified parcels are Private ownership

Lake perimeter = 19,465 feetTotal identified parcels = 8Total Parcel Front Footage = 5,719 feetPercent of identified shoreland = 29%

4 parcels >400 FF and 5 Acres or more2 parcels <400 FF and 5 Acres or more2 parcels >400 FF and less than 5 Acres

±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500

Feet

Legend5 acres 400 feet or more5 acres 399 feet or less<5 acres 400 feet or more

Land OwnershipPrivate Tax ForfeitedState

Wetland TypesType 1- Seasonally floodedType 2- Fresh meadowType 3- Shallow marshType 4- Deep marshType 5- Open waterType 6- Shrub swampType 7- Wooded swampType 8- BogHydric Soils

John SnyderLLAFW

September 19, 2008

Lake contours are 5 foot intervals.Maximum contour depth is 15 feet.

Appendix H

Lake Lawrence – Shoreland Properties Profile

12-467-1020

12-467-2470

12-467-1010

12-467-1040

12-026-1005

12-026-1001

12-026-1004

12-467-0940

12-467-0955

12-4

67-1

138

12-035-2401

12-467-0950

12-467-0945

12-467-0920

12-4

67-1

420

12-487-0060

12-487-0092

12-035-2210

12-470-0060

12-470-0121




Lake contours are 5 foot intervals.Maximum contour depth is 15 feet.

Lawrence LakeParcels with

Conservation Potential

Legend5 acres 400 feet or more5 acres 399 feet or more<5 acres 400 feet or more

Land OwnershipPrivate Tax ForfeitedState

Wetland TypesType 1- Seasonally floodedType 2- Fresh meadowType 3- Shallow marshType 4- Deep marshType 5- Open waterType 6- Shrub swampType 7- Wooded swampType 8- BogHydric Soils

±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet

John SnyderLLAWF

August 4, 2008

Appendix I

Lake Roosevelt – Shoreland Properties Profile

12-023-2100

12-023-3205

12-034-1405

12-0

33-4

311

12-033-4308

12-033-4313

12-458-0100

12-014-3200

12-023-4311

12-422-0011

12-419-0400

12-034-1412

12-023-3201

12-023-4314

12-419-0510

12-502-0202

12-023-2301

12-023-430812-023-430612-023-4315

12-461-0170

12-461-0140

12-473-0073

12-502-0218

12-461-0122

12-473-014012-473-0160 12-473-0150

12-419-0550

12-473-0130

12-473-0170

12-461-0110

12-419-0500

207656

99653

99589

99674

207658

207678

207654

207662

99641

99590

99798207655

Roosevelt LakeParcels withConservation

Potential




Legend5 acres 400 feet or more

5 acres 399 feet or less

<5 acres 400 feet or more

Wetland TypesType 1- Seasonally flooded

Type 2- Fresh meadow

Type 3- Shallow marsh

Type 4- Deep marsh

Type 5- Open water

Type 6- Shrub swamp

Type 7- Wooded swamp

Type 8- Bog

John SnyderLLAWF

August 11, 2008

±0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000

Feet

1

Appendix J – Glossary and Technical Terminology and Abbreviations Aerobic: Aquatic life or chemical processes that require the presence of oxygen. Algal bloom: An unusual or excessive abundance of algae. Alkalinity: Capacity of a lake to neutralize acid. Anoxic: The absence of oxygen in a water column or lake; can occur near the bottom of eutrophic lakes in the summer or under the ice in the winter. Benthic: The bottom zone of a lake, or bottom-dwelling life forms. Best Management Practices: A practice determined by a state agency or other authority as the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing pollution. Bioaccumulation: Build-up of toxic substances in fish (or other living organism) flesh. Toxic effects may be passed on to humans eating the fish. Biological Oxygen Demand: The amount of oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in sample of water. Used as a measure of the degree of water pollution. Buffer Zone: Undisturbed vegetation that can serve as to slow down and/or retain surface water runoff, and assimilate nutrients. Chlorophyll a: The green pigment in plants that is essential to photosynthesis. Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Program: A program created by the legislature in 1990 to protect and improve ground water and surface water in Minnesota by providing financial and technical assistance to local units of government interested in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Conservation Easement: A perpetual conservation easement is a legally binding condition placed on a deed to restrict the types of development that can occur on the subject property. Cultural eutrophication: Accelerated “aging” of a lake as a result of human activities. Epilimnion: Deeper lakes form three distinct layers of water during summertime weather. The epilimnion is the upper layer and is characterized by warmer and lighter water. Eutrophication: The aging process by which lakes are fertilized with nutrients. Eutrophic Lake: A nutrient-rich lake – usually shallow, “green” and with limited oxygen in the bottom layer of water. Exotic Species: Any non-native species that can cause displacement of or otherwise threaten native communities.

2

Fall Turnover: In the autumn as surface water loses temperature they are “turned under” (sink to lower depths) by winds and changes in water density until the lake has a relatively uniform distribution of temperature. Feedlot: A lot or building or a group of lots or buildings used for the confined feeding, breeding or holding of animals. This definition includes areas specifically designed for confinement in which manure may accumulate or any area where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained. Lots used to feed and raise poultry are considered to be feedlots. Pastures are not animal feedlots. Groundwater: water found beneath the soil surface (literally between the soil particles); groundwater is often a primary source of recharge to lakes. Hardwater: Describes a lake with relatively high levels of dissolved minerals such as calcium and magnesium. Hypolimnion: The bottom layer of lake water during the summer months. The water in the hypolimnion is denser and much colder than the water in the upper two layers. Impervious Surface: Pavement, asphalt, roofing materials or other surfaces through which water cannot drain. The presence of impervious surfaces can increase the rates and speed of runoff from an area, and prevents groundwater recharge. Internal Loading: Nutrients or pollutants entering a body of water from its sediments. Lake Management: The process of study, assessment of problems, and decisions affecting the maintenance of lakes as thriving ecosystems. Littoral zone: The shallow areas (less than 15 feet in depth) around a lake’s shoreline, usually dominated by aquatic plants. These plants produce oxygen and provide food, shelter and reproduction areas for fish & animal life. Local Unit of Government: A unit of government at the township, city or county level. Mesotrophic Lake: A lake that is midway in nutrient concentrations (between a eutrophic and oligotrophic lake). Characterized by periodic problems with algae blooms or problem aquatic vegetation. Native Species: An animal or plant species that is naturally present and reproducing. Nonpoint source: Polluted runoff – nutrients or pollution sources not discharged from a single point. Common examples include runoff from feedlots, fertilized lawns, and agricultural fields. Nutrient: A substance that provides food or nourishment, such as usable proteins, vitamins, minerals or carbohydrates. Fertilizers, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, are the most common nutrients that contribute to lake eutrophication and nonpoint source pollution. Oligotrophic Lake: A relatively nutrient-poor lake, characterized by outstanding water clarity and high levels of oxygen in the deeper waters.

3

Nutrient: A substance that provides food or nourishment, such as usable proteins, vitamins, minerals or carbohydrates. Fertilizers, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, are the most common nutrients that contribute to lake eutrophication and non-point source pollution. pH: The scale by which the relative acidity or basic nature of waters are accessed, Photosynthesis: The process by which green plants produce oxygen from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. Phytoplankton: Algae – the base of the lake’s food chain, it also produces oxygen. Point Sources: Specific sources of nutrient or pollution discharge to a water body, i.e., a stormwater discharge pipe. Riparian: The natural ecosystem or community associated with river or lake shoreline. Secchi Disc: A device measuring the depth of light penetration in water. Sedimentation: The addition of soils to lakes, which can accelerate the “aging” process by destroying fisheries habitat, introducing soil-bound nutrients, and filling in the lake. Spring turnover: After ice melts in the spring, warming surface water sinks to mix with deeper, colder water. At this time of year all water is the same temperature. Thermocline: During summertime deeper lakes stratify by temperature to form three discrete layers; the middle layer of lake water in known as the thermocline. Trophic Status: The level of growth or productivity of a lake as measured by phosphorus, content, algae abundance, and depth of light penetration. Watershed: The surrounding land area that drains into a lake, river, or river system. Zooplankton: Microscopic animals.

4

Common Biological or Chemical Abbreviations BOD Biological Oxygen Demand °C degree(s) Celsius cfs cubic feet per second (a common measure of rate of flow) cfu colony forming units (a common measure of bacterial concentrations) chl a Chlorophyll a cm centimeter COD Chemical Oxygen Demand Cond conductivity DO dissolved oxygen FC fecal coliform (bacteria) ft feet IR infrared l liter m meter mg milligram ml milliliter NH3-N nitrogen as ammonia NO2-NO3 nitrate-nitrogen NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units, standard measure of turbidity OP Ortho-phosphorus ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million SD Standard Deviation (statistical variance) TDS total dissolved solids TN total nitrogen TP total phosphorus TSI trophic status index TSI (C) trophic status index (based on chlorophyll a) TSI (P) trophic status index (based on total phosphorus) TSI (S) trophic status index (based on secchi disc transparency) TSS total suspended solids µg/l micrograms per liter µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter, the standard measure of conductivity UV Ultraviolet

5

Guide to common acronyms State and Federal Agencies BWSR Board of Soil & Water COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRP Conservation Reserve Program - A federal government conservation program DNR Department of Natural Resources DOJ United States Department of Justice DOT Department of Transportation DTED Department of Trade and Economic Development EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EQB MN Environmental Quality Board LCCMR Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources MDH Minnesota Department of Health MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency OEA MN Office of Environmental Assistance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration RIM Reinvest In Minnesota - a State of Minnesota Conservation Program SCS Soil Conservation Service SWCD Soil & Water Conservation District USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service Regional, watershed, community development, trade and advocacy groups ACCL Association of Cass County Lakes AMC Association of Minnesota Counties APA American Planning Association COLA Coalition of Lake Associations IF Initiative Foundation LARA Crow Wing County Lakes & Rivers Alliance LMC League of Minnesota Cities MAT Minnesota Association of Townships MLA Minnesota Lakes Association MSBA Minnesota School Board Association MCIT Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust Mid-MnMA Mid-Minnesota Association of Builders MLA Minnesota Lakes Association MnSCU Minnesota State Colleges and Universities RCM Rivers Council of Minnesota TIF Tax Increment Financing

6

Codes and Regulations 110B The Minnesota law that regulates non-metro county water plans ADA American Disabilities Act B & B Bed and Breakfast BOA Board of Adjustment Chapter 70/80 Individual Sewage Treatment Standards CIC Plat Common Interest Community Plat Class V Class Five “Injection” well; any well which receives discharge CSAH County State Aid Highway CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act EAW Environmental Assessment Worksheet EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOA Equal Opportunity Act FOIA Freedom of Information Act GD General Development (lake) GLAR Greater Lakes Area Association of Realtors IAQ Indoor Air Quality ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment System LMP Lake Management Plan LQG Large Quantity Generator (of hazardous waste) MAP Minnesota Assistance Program OHW Ordinary High Water PUD Planned Unit Development RD Recreational Development (lake) ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way SBC State Building Code SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SF Square feet SIZ Shoreland Impact Zone SQG Small Quantity Generator (of hazardous waste) SWMP Stormwater Management Plan UBC Universal Building Code