These are the Final reports for the Itasca County Lake Assessment Reports project.
2016 Reports
*All draft reports are current as of 11/22/2017
Amen_31-0597-00
Comments: Protection focus. 89% protected lakeshed. No concerns.
Bluewater_31-0395-00
Comments: Protection focus. Tier 1 Cisco Refuge Lake. No concerns.
Boy_31-0623-00
Comments: Protection focus. Shoreline completely protected with public land. No concerns.
Burrows_31-0413-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Clearwater(Round)_31-0214-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Dunning_31-0221-00
Comments: Improving transparency trend. Protection focus. No concerns.
EastSmith_31-0616-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns. Most of shoreline is public land.
Guile_31-0569-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Gunn_31-0452-00
Comments: Protection focus. Most of shoreline is public land. Tier 2 Cisco Refuge Lake.
Hale_31-0361-00
Comments: No trends. Main concern would be stormwater runoff due to 1st and 2nd tier development.
Hale_31-0373-00
Comments: Improving secchi trend. Main concern would be stormwater runoff due to 1st and 2nd tier development and city.
Hart_31-0020-00
Comments: Stable. Protection focus.
JacktheHorse(S)_31-0657-02
Comments: Declining secchi trend. Not clear what could be causing this trend. The lake is only lightly developed and has a small, well-protected watershed.
LittleBowstring_31-0758-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
LittleDeadHorse_31-0621-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
LittleLong_31-0613-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
LittleTrout_31-0394-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
LittleWabana_31-0399-00
Comments: Improving transparency. Protection focus.
Maki_31-0759-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
McGuire_31-0078-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns. Could collect more phosphorus data.
Moose_31-0722-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Napoleon_31-0290-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Natures_31-0877-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Pickerel_31-0339-00
Comments: Declining trend, but can’t see evidence why. Well protected.
Prairie_31-0384-00
Comments: Large watershed and heavily developed, but no trend. Watch for future changes.
Scrapper_31-0345-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns. Entire shoreline is either public land or wetland.
SISEEBAKWET_31-0554-00
Comments: Improving transparency. Protection focus.
Snaptail_31-0255-00
Comments: Protection focus.
SouthSugar_31-0555-00
Comments: Protection focus.
ThreeIsland_31-0542-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Trestle_31-0127-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns. Not developed and ringed with wetlands.
Trout_31-0410-00
Comments: Well-protected by public land. Cisco Refuge Lake.
Wabana_31-0392-00
Comments: Protection focus. Improving secchi trend. Cisco Refuge Lake.
WhiteSwan_31-0260-00
Comments: Protection focus. Improving secchi trend.
2015 Reports
Balsam Lake 31-0259-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Bass 31-0576-00
Comments: Protection focus. No concerns.
Battle Lake 31-0197-00
Comments: Declining trend in transparency, but it is a shallow lake (max depth 15 feet). Lakeshed is well-protected and there is very little development, so the trend could be due to watershed nutrient sources or natural causes. No imminent water quality threats around the shoreline. Look upstream and along stream inlets for potential runoff, erosion and nutrient sources.
Beatrice Lake 31-0058-00
Comments: Declining trend in transparency in the long-term, but stable in the short-term (2004-2014). Lakeshed is well-protected and there is very little development, so the trend could be due to natural causes. No imminent water quality threats around the shoreline.
Beaver and Adele Lakes 31-0638-00 31-0642-00
Comments: Lakes located completely in Chippewa National Forest. Totally protected from development.
Bello Lake 31-0726-00
Comments: Well protected, good water quality, no concerns.
Buck Lake 31-0069-00
Comments: Well protected, no concerns.
Burnt Shanty 31-0424-00
Comments: Well protected, no concerns.
Caribou Lake 31-0620-00
Comments: Declining water quality since 2001. Large bare spot with a gravel pit to the west of the lake that has been growing since 1991. It should be inspected for runoff toward the lake.
Crum Lake 31-0171-00
Comments: No concerns. Need to collect data in the next few years as the data set stops in 1997.
Cut Foot Sioux Lake 31-0857-01
Comments: In Chippewa National Forest. Well protected, stable water quality.
Deer Lake 31-0334-00
Comments: Stable. Well-protected.
Deer Lake 31-0719-00
Comments: Improving transparency trend in the past decade. Oligotrophic lake.
Dixon Lake 31-0921-00
Comments: On the Impaired Waters List. High phosphorus and internal loading, but mostly protected lakeshed. Large watershed could be contributing nutrients? Clarity is improving.
Dora Lake 31-0882-00
Comments: Riverine system. Phosphorus is over the state standard, but it is not listed as Impaired. Stable, no concerns. Shallow Lake.
Eagle Lake 31-0454-00
Comments: No concerns.
Erskine Lake 31-0311-00
Comments: No concerns. Needs more data.
Fifth Chain Lake 31-0497-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable.
Five Island Lake 31-0183-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable.
Grave Lake 31-0624-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable.
Gum (Gunn) Lake 31-0492-00
Comments: Declining clarity, but no immediate threats. Could be natural loading from large watershed.
Horseshoe Lake 31-0696-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable.
Island Lake 31-0913-00
Comments: Internal loading fueling algae blooms. Water quality is stable though.
Jessie Lake 31-0786-00
Comments: TMDL completed in 2009. Showing an improving trend in clarity, which is good news. If further reductions in phosphorus are desired, internal loading will need to be dealt with by an alum treatment or oxygenating the hypolimnion.
Little Jessie Lake 31-0784-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable.
Loon Lake 31-0571-00
Comments: Stable. Watch future development. Encourage upland tree planting in large cleared parcels on the north shore.
North Star Lake 31-0653-00
Comments: No concerns. Stable. Is there a lake association?
Pokegama Lake 31-0532-00
Comments: Stable, good water quality. Stormwater from cities and development pose potential impact.
Rice Lake 31-0717-00
Comments: Stable. Watch future development due to proximity to Grand Rapids.
Round (Clear) 31-0209-00
Comments: Declining transparency, but is a very dynamic shallow lake. Cause of trend unknown. Is there a lake association?
Round Lake 31-0896-00
Comments: Impaired for nutrients, but seems like a natural impairment. Shallow Lake. Internal loading likely occurring.
Sand Lake 31-0438-00
Comments: Improving clarity and mostly public land. No concerns.
Sand Lake 31-0826-00
Comments: Stable clarity. Internal loading is likely in the large shallow northern basin. The lake likely has a quick residence time to flush it out.
Shallow Lake 31-0084-00
Comments: Fairly heavy development, but good water quality. No immediate concerns.
Swan Lake 31-0067-00
Comments: Heavy development, but transparency is improving. Sounds like there is a history of steel mining in the area. Transparency was low in 1970s and higher since 1990s. The improvement could be from when the mining stopped and the treatment of sewage from nearby towns.
Trout Lake 31-0216-00
Comments: The lake has improved greatly since past impacts of mining and waste water inputs. It is currently doing quite well. Main impacts include stormwater from Coleraine and future development pressure as the lake improves in water quality.
Turtle Lake 31-0725-00
Comments: Great water quality; improving transparency trend. Cisco refuge lake, and 2010 fisheries survey shows healthy Cisco population.
Winnibigoshish 11-0147-00
Comments: Well protected in Chippewa National Forest.