Camp Lake - Crow Wing County

Camp Lake
18-0018-00 CROW WING COUNTY
Lake Water Quality
Summary
Camp Lake is located 3 miles southwest of Garrison, MN, which is located
on the northwest shore of Mille Lacs Lake. This lake covers 520 acres
and is made of 3 distinct bays.
Camp Lake has two inlets and one outlet, which classify it as a drainage
lake (Figure 1). One inlet is located at the end of the west arm of the lake.
The second inlet receives water from Humbolt Lake, which has no inlets.
The outlet is located at the end of the east arm. Water flows north out of
the lake, joining the Seguchie Creek. It then flows into Holt Lake and
eventually into Mille Lacs Lake.
Water quality data have been collected on Camp Lake from 2004-2011 (Tables 2 & 3). These data
show that the lake is at the mesotrophic/eutrophic border (TSI 49-51), which is characteristic of clear
water throughout most of the summer and excellent recreational opportunities (page 9).
Camp Lake has an active facebook site where various topics are discussed, such as ice out dates, ice
conditions, wildlife activity, and meeting updates.
Table 1. Location data and physical characteristics for Camp Lake.
Location Data
Physical Characteristics
MN Lake ID:
18-0018-00
Surface area (acres):
520
County:
Crow Wing
Littoral area (acres):
206
Ecoregion:
Northern Lakes and Forests
% Littoral area:
40%
Major Drainage Basin:
Upper Mississippi River
Max depth (ft), (m):
42, 13
Latitude/Longitude:
46.23809814/-93.87419891
Inlets:
2
Invasive Species:
None as of 2011
Outlets:
1
Public Accesses:
1
Table 2. Data availability for Camp Lake.
Data Availability
Transparency data
Good data set through the Citizens Lake Monitoring
Program.
Chemical data
Good amount of phosphorus and chlorophyll a data, but
not enough for a trend analysis.
Inlet/Outlet data
No inlet or outlet data are available.
Recommendations
For recommendations refer to page 17.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
1 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Lake Map
Figure 1. Map of Camp Lake with 2010 aerial imagery and illustrations of sample site locations, inlets and
outlets, and public access points.
Table 3. Monitoring programs and associated monitoring sites. Monitoring programs include the Citizen Lake
Monitoring Program (CLMP), OCLM: Outdoor Corps Lake Monitoring (OCLM), and Minnesota Waters
Expanding Citizen Monitoring (MNWECM).
Lake Site
Depth (ft)
Monitoring Programs
201*Primary Site
202
203
20
20
40
CLMP: 2004-2011; MNWECM: 2007-2008
CLMP: 2007-2010
OCLM: 2005
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
2 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Water Quality Characteristics - Historical Means and Ranges
Table 4. Water quality means and ranges for primary sites.
Parameters
Total Phosphorus Mean (ug/L):
Total Phosphorus Min:
Total Phosphorus Max:
Number of Observations:
Primary
Site
201
202
203
18
13
23
12
20
11
25
5
Chlorophyll a Mean (ug/L):
Chlorophyll-a Min:
Chlorophyll-a Max:
Number of Observations:
10.3
6
18
12
7.8
3
11
5
Secchi Depth Mean (ft):
Secchi Depth Min:
Secchi Depth Max:
Number of Observations:
7.8
5.0
11.5
101
8.5
6.0
13.0
32
8.3
6.6
10.5
5
Figure 2. Camp Lake total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and transparency historical ranges. The arrow
represents the range and the black dot represents the historical mean (Primary Site 201). Figure adapted
after Moore and Thornton, [Ed.]. 1988. Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. (Doc. No. EPA 440/5-88-002)
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
3 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Transparency (Secchi Depth)
Transparency is how easily light can pass through a substance. In lakes it is how deep sunlight
penetrates through the water. Plants and algae need sunlight to grow, so they are only able to grow
in areas of lakes where the sun penetrates. Water transparency depends on the amount of particles
in the water. An increase in particulates results in a decrease in transparency. The transparency
varies year to year due to changes in weather, precipitation, lake use, flooding, temperature, lake
levels, etc.
The annual mean transparency ranges from 6.8 to 9.4 feet. The transparency throughout the lake
appears to be relatively uniform, with the best transparency occurring at the deepest spot (site 202).
The transparency was better than the long-term average from 2008-2010. Transparency monitoring
should be continued annually at sites 201 and 203 in order to track water quality changes.
Transparency: Annual Means
10
9
Secchi Depth (ft)
8
7
6
5
4
Site 201
3
2
Site 202
1
Site 201, Long‐term mean
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 3. Annual mean transparency compared to long-term mean transparency.
Camp Lake transparency ranges from 5 to 11.5 ft at the primary site (201). Figure 4 shows the
seasonal transparency dynamics. The maximum Secchi reading is usually obtained in early summer.
Camp Lake transparency is high in May and June, and then declines through August. In October, the
transparency improves after lake turnover. This transparency dynamic is typical of a northern
Minnesota lake. The dynamics have to do with algae and zooplankton population dynamics, and lake
turnover.
It is important for lake residents to understand the seasonal transparency dynamics in their lake so
that they are not worried about why their transparency is lower in August than it is in June. It is typical
for a lake to vary in transparency throughout the summer.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
4 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Seasonal Transparency Dynamics
14
2004
2005
12
2006
Secchi Depth (ft)
10
2007
8
2008
2009
6
2010
4
2011
2
pattern
Poly. (pattern)
0
26‐Feb
17‐Apr
6‐Jun
26‐Jul
14‐Sep
3‐Nov
23‐Dec
Figure 4. Seasonal transparency dynamics and year to year comparison (Primary Site 201). The black line
represents the pattern in the data.
User Perceptions
When volunteers collect secchi depth readings, they record their perceptions of the water based on
the physical appearance and the recreational suitability. These perceptions can be compared to
water quality parameters to see how the lake "user" would experience the lake at that time. Looking
at transparency data, as the secchi depth decreases the perception of the lake's physical appearance
rating decreases. Camp Lake was rated as being "crystal clear" 46% of the time from 2004-2010 at
sites 201 and 202 (Figure 5).
Physical Appearance Rating
6%
46%
48%
46%
Crystal clear water
48%
Not quite crystal clear – a little algae visible
6%
Definite algae – green, yellow, or brown color
apparent
0%
High algae levels with limited clarity and/or mild
odor apparent
0%
Severely high algae levels
Figure 5. Physical appearance rating, as rated by the volunteer monitor (2004-2010).
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
5 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
As the secchi depth decreases, the perception of recreational suitability of the lake decreases. Camp
Lake was rated as being "beautiful" 50% of the time from 2004-2010 at sites 201 and 202 (Figure 6).
12%
Recreational Suitability Rating
50%
50%
Beautiful, could not be better
38%
Very minor aesthetic problems; excellent for
swimming, boating
12%
Swimming and aesthetic enjoyment of the lake
slightly impaired because of algae levels
0%
Desire to swim and level of enjoyment of the lake
substantially reduced because of algae levels
0%
Swimming and aesthetic enjoyment of the lake
nearly impossible because of algae levels
38%
Figure 6. Recreational suitability rating, as rated by the volunteer monitor (2004-2010).
Total Phosphorus
Camp Lake is phosphorus
limited, which means that
algae and aquatic plant
growth is dependent upon
available phosphorus.
25
Total Phosphorus (ug/L)
Total phosphorus was
evaluated in Camp Lake in
2005, 2007-2008. The data
tend to increase somewhat
as the summer goes on
(Figure 7). The majority of
the data points fall into the
mesotrophic range.
30
Total Phosphorus
Eutrophic
20
15
Mesotrophic
10
2005
2007
5
Oligotrophic
Phosphorus should
continue to be monitored to
track any future changes in
water quality.
2008
0
Figure 7. Historical total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) for Camp Lake.
The 2005 data is from site 203, and the 2007-2008 data is from site 201.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
6 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a
concentrations greater
than 10 ug/L are
perceived as a mild
algae bloom, while
concentrations greater
than 20 ug/L are
perceived as a nuisance.
25
Chlorophyll a
20
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
Chlorophyll a is the
pigment that makes
plants and algae green.
Chlorophyll a is tested in
lakes to determine the
algae concentration or
how "green" the water is.
2005
15
2007
2008
10
Minor Algae
Nuisance Algae
5
0
Chlorophyll a was
Figure 8. Chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/L) for Camp Lake. The 2005 data
evaluated in Camp Lake
is from site 203 and the 2007-2008 data is from site 201.
in 2005, 2007-2008.
Chlorophyll a concentrations reached 10 ug/L each year, indicating minor algae blooms (Figure 8).
Both sites were very similar in concentration. The algae increases toward the end of the summer,
which corresponds with higher phosphorus (Figure 7) and lower transparency readings (Figure 4).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen dissolved in
lake water. Oxygen is necessary for all living organisms to
survive except for some bacteria. Living organisms breathe
in oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Dissolved oxygen
levels of <5 mg/L are typically avoided by game fisheries.
Camp Lake is a relatively deep lake, with a maximum depth
of 42 ft. Dissolved oxygen profiles from 2005 indicate that
stratification occurs in the summer. The thermocline appears
to be at approximately 4-5 meters (13-16 feet). Benthic
phosphorus samples have not been collected on Camp Lake.
Figure 9 illustrates stratification in the summer of 2002 at site
205. This is a representative DO profile for Camp Lake.
Figure 9. Dissolved oxygen and temperature
profile for Camp Lake in 2005 at site 203.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
7 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Trophic State Index
Phosphorus (nutrients), chlorophyll a (algae concentration)
and Secchi depth (transparency) are related. As
phosphorus increases, there is more food available for
algae, resulting in increased algal concentrations. When
algal concentrations increase, the water becomes less
transparent and the Secchi depth decreases.
The results from these three measurements cover different
units and ranges and thus cannot be directly compared to
each other or averaged. In order to standardize these
three measurements to make them directly comparable,
we convert them to a trophic state index (TSI).
The mean TSI for Camp Lake falls on the border between
mesotrophic and eutrophic (49-51) (Figure 10). There is
good agreement between the TSI for phosphorus, and
transparency, indicating that these variables are strongly
related (Table 5). The chlorophyll a TSI is
higher than expected, which could be due
Camp Lake
to loss of rooted vegetation or algae –
zooplankton dynamics.
Lakes on the mesotrophic/eutrophic border (TSI 49-51)
are characteristic of “greenish” water throughout the
summer (Table 6). The bottom of the deep areas of the
lake becomes anoxic (no oxygen) during the summer,
which is inhospitable to game fish.
Table 5. Trophic State Index for site 201
Trophic State Index Site 201
TSI Total Phosphorus 45
TSI Chlorophyll-a
53
TSI Secchi
47
TSI Mean
48
Trophic State:
Mesotrophic/
Eutrophic
Numbers represent the mean TSI for each
parameter.
100
Hypereutrophic
70
Eutrophic
50
Mesotrophic
40
Oligotrophic
0
Figure 10. Trophic state index chart with
corresponding trophic status.
Table 6. Trophic state index attributes and their corresponding fisheries and recreation characteristics.
TSI
Attributes
Fisheries & Recreation
<30
Oligotrophy: Clear water, oxygen throughout
Trout fisheries dominate
the year at the bottom of the lake, very deep
cold water.
30-40
Bottom of shallower lakes may become anoxic
Trout fisheries in deep lakes only. Walleye,
(no oxygen).
Cisco present.
40-50
Mesotrophy: Water moderately clear most of
No oxygen at the bottom of the lake results in
the summer. May be "greener" in late summer.
loss of trout. Walleye may predominate.
50-60
Eutrophy: Algae and aquatic plant problems
Warm-water fisheries only. Bass may
possible. "Green" water most of the year.
dominate.
60-70
Blue-green algae dominate, algal scums and
Dense algae and aquatic plants. Low water
aquatic plant problems.
clarity may discourage swimming and boating.
70-80
Hypereutrophy: Dense algae and aquatic
Water is not suitable for recreation.
plants.
>80
Algal scums, few aquatic plants
Rough fish (carp) dominate; summer fish kills
possible
Source: Carlson, R.E. 1997. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
8 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Trend Analysis
For detecting trends, a minimum of 8-10 years of data with 4 or more readings per season are
recommended. Minimum confidence accepted by the MPCA is 90%. This means that there is a 90%
chance that the data are showing a true trend and a 10% chance that the trend is a random result of
the data. Only short-term trends can be determined with just a few years of data, because there can
be different wet years and dry years, water levels, weather, etc, that affect the water quality naturally.
There is not enough historical data to perform trend analysis for total phosphorus or chlorophyll a on
Camp Lake (Table 7). Sites 201 had 8 years of transparency data, which was enough data to perform
a long-term trend analysis. The data was analyzed using the Mann Kendall Trend Analysis.
Table 7. Trend analysis for site 201.
Lake Site
Parameter
Date Range
Trend
201*primary
Transparency
2004-2011
No trend
201*primary
Total Phosphorus
2007-2008
Insufficient data
201*primary
Chlorophyll a
2007-2008
Insufficient data
Transparency Trend for Camp Lake
14
Secchi Depth (ft)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 11. Transparency (ft) trend for site 201.
Camp Lake shows no detectable trend in transparency. This means the transparency is stable
(Figure 11). Transparency monitoring should continue at both sites so that this trend can be tracked
in future years.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
9 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Ecoregion Comparisons
Minnesota is divided into 7 ecoregions based on land
use, vegetation, precipitation and geology (Figure
12). The MPCA has developed a way to determine
the "average range" of water quality expected for
lakes in each ecoregion. From 1985-1988, the MPCA
evaluated the lake water quality for reference lakes.
These reference lakes are not considered pristine,
but are considered to have little human impact and
therefore are representative of the typical lakes within
the ecoregion. The "average range" refers to the 25th
- 75th percentile range for data within each ecoregion.
For the purpose of this graphical representation, the
means of the reference lake data sets were used.
Figure 12. Minnesota Ecoregions.
30
0
50
25
5
20
10
40
30
20
10
Secchi depth (ft)
60
Chlorophyll-a (ug/L, ppb)
Total Phosphorus (ug/L, ppb)
Camp Lake is in the Northern
Lakes and Forests Ecoregion.
The mean total phosphorus and
transparency (secchi depth) are
within the expected ecoregion
ranges (Figure 13). The
chlorophyll a mean is above the
expected range.
15
10
5
0
Camp
15
20
25
crystal
clear
0
NLF Ecoregion
increased
algae
NLF Ecoregion
Camp
30
NLF
Ecoregion
Camp
Figures 13a-c. Camp Lake ranges compared to Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion ranges. The Camp Lake
total phosphorus and chlorophyll a ranges are from 12 data points collected in May-September of 2007-2008.
The Camp Lake secchi depth range is from 101 data points collected in May-September from 2004-2011.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
10 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Lakeshed Data and Interpretations
Lakeshed
Understanding a lakeshed requires an understanding of basic hydrology. A watershed is defined as
all land and water surface area that contribute excess water to a defined point. The MN DNR has
delineated three basic scales of watersheds (from large to small): 1) basins, 2) major watersheds, and
3) minor watersheds.
The Rum River Major Watershed is one of the watersheds that make up the Upper Mississippi River
Basin, which drains south to the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 14). This major watershed is made up of 101
minor watersheds. Camp Lake is located in minor watershed 21059 (Figure 15).
Figure 14. Rum River Major Watershed.
The MN DNR also has evaluated
catchments for each individual lake
with greater than 100 acres surface
area. These lakesheds (catchments)
are the “building blocks” for the larger
scale watersheds. Camp Lake falls
within the lakeshed 2105902 (Figure
16). Though very useful for displaying
the land and water that contribute
directly to a lake, lakesheds are not
always true watersheds because they
may not show the water flowing into a
lake from upstream streams or rivers.
While some lakes may have only one
or two upstream lakesheds draining
into them, others may be connected to
a large number of lakesheds, reflecting
a larger drainage area via stream or
river networks. For further discussion
of Camp Lake’s full watershed,
containing all the upstream lakesheds,
see page 16. The data interpretation of
the Camp Lake lakeshed includes only
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
Figure 15. Minor Watershed 21059.
Figure 16. The Camp (2105902) Lakeshed.
11 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
the immediate lakeshed, as this area is the land surface that flows directly into Camp Lake.
The lakeshed vitals table identifies where to focus organizational and management efforts for each
lake (Table 8). Criteria were developed using limnological concepts to determine the effect to lake
water quality.
KEY
Possibly detrimental to the lake
Warrants attention
Beneficial to the lake
Table 8. Camp Lake lakeshed vitals table.
Lakeshed Vitals
Lake Area
Littoral Zone Area
Lake Max Depth
Lake Mean Depth
Water Residence Time
Miles of Stream
Inlets
Outlets
Major Watershed
Minor Watershed
Lakeshed
Ecoregion
Total Lakeshed to Lake Area Ratio (total
lakeshed includes lake area)
Standard Watershed to Lake Basin Ratio
(standard watershed includes lake areas)
Rating
520 acres
206 acres
42
NA
NA
1.2
2
1
21 – Rum River
21059
2105902
Northern Lakes and Forest
descriptive
descriptive
descriptive
NA
NA
descriptive
descriptive
descriptive
descriptive
descriptive
10:1
10:1
Sewage Management
27.6%
None
None
1
9.2
2.9
0.4:1
General Development
20.5
None
County Forest Management:
http://www.co.crowwing.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=261
None
Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment
Systems (Inspection and assessment required for all
Lake Management Plan
Lake Vegetation Survey/Plan
None
None
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
12 of 18
Wetland Coverage
Aquatic Invasive Species
Public Drainage Ditches
Public Lake Accesses
Miles of Shoreline
Shoreline Development Index
Public Land to Private Land Ratio
Development Classification
Miles of Road
Municipalities in lakeshed
Forestry Practices
Feedlots
descriptive
descriptive
permits and property transfers within the Shoreland
Protection Zone)
2011 Camp Lake
Land Cover / Land Use
The activities that occur on the
land within the lakeshed can
greatly impact a lake. Land use
planning helps ensure the use of
land resources in an organized
fashion so that the needs of the
present and future generations can
be best addressed. The basic
purpose of land use planning is to
ensure that each area of land will
be used in a manner that provides
maximum social benefits without
degradation of the land resource.
Changes in land use, and
ultimately land cover, impact the
hydrology of a lakeshed. Land
cover is also directly related to the
lands ability to absorb and store
water rather than cause it to flow
overland (gathering nutrients and
sediment as it moves) towards the
lowest point, typically the lake.
Impervious intensity describes the
lands inability to absorb water, the
Figure 17. Camp Lake lakeshed (2105902) land cover
higher the % impervious intensity
(http://land.umn.edu).
the more area that water cannot
penetrate in to the soils.
Monitoring the changes in land use can assist in future planning procedures to address the needs of
future generations.
Phosphorus export, which is the main cause of lake eutrophication, depends on the type of land cover
occurring in the lakeshed. Figure 17 depicts the land cover in Camp Lake’s lakeshed.
The University of Minnesota has online records of land cover statistics from years 1990 and 2000
(http://land.umn.edu). Although this data is 12 years old, it is the only data set that is comparable over
a decade’s time. Table 9 describes Camp Lake’s lakeshed land cover statistics and percent change
from 1990 to 2000. Due to the many factors that influence demographics, one cannot determine with
certainty the projected statistics over the next 10, 20, 30+ years, but one can see the transition within
the lakeshed from agriculture, grass/shrub/wetland, and water acreages to forest and urban acreages.
The largest change in percentage is the decrease in agriculture cover (35%); however, in acreage,
forest cover has increased the most (320 acres). In addition, the impervious intensity has increased,
which has implications for storm water runoff into the lake. The increase in impervious intensity is
consistent with the increase in urban acreage.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
13 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Table 9. Camp Lake’s lakeshed land cover statistics and % change from 1990 to 2000 (http://land.umn.edu).
1990
2000
% Change
1990 to 2000
Land Cover
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
550
8.76
356
5.67
35.3% Decrease
Agriculture
1079
17.19
1095
17.44
1.5% Increase
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
3691
58.79
4011
63.89
8.7% Increase
Forest
726
11.56
579
9.22
20.2% Decrease
Water
234
3.73
236
3.76
0.9% Increase
Urban
Impervious Intensity %
0
1-10
11-25
26-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
Total Area
Total Impervious Area
(Percent Impervious Area
Excludes Water Area)
6163
46
38
21
10
2
1
98.12
0.73
0.6
0.33
0.16
0.03
0.02
6137
50
48
23
9
8
5
0
0.03
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.4% Decrease
8.7% Increase
26.3% Increase
9.5% Increase
10% Decrease
300% Increase
400% Increase
6278
22
0.4
6728
33
0.58
50% Increase
Demographics
Camp Lake is classified as a general development lake. General
Development Lakes usually have more than 225 acres of water per
mile of shoreline and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more
than 15 feet deep.
The Minnesota Department of Administration Geographic and
Demographic Analysis Division extrapolated future population in 5-year
increments out to 2035. Compared to Crow Wing County as a whole,
Roosevelt Township has a higher extrapolated growth projection
(Figure 18).
Figure 18.
Population growth
projection for
Roosevelt
Township and
Crow Wing
County. (source:
http://www.demog
raphy.state.mn.us/
resource.html?Id=
19332)
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
14 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Camp Lake Lakeshed Water Quality Protection Strategy
Each lakeshed has a different makeup of public and private lands. Looking in more detail at the
makeup of these lands can give insight on where to focus protection efforts. The protected lands
(easements, wetlands, public land) are the future water quality infrastructure for the lake. Developed
land and agriculture have the highest phosphorus runoff coefficients, so this land should be minimized
for water quality protection.
The majority of the land within Camp Lake’s lakeshed is made up of private forested uplands (Table
10). Forest cover is estimated at 42% for the entire lakeshed (47% if open water areas are excluded).
This land can be the focus of development and protection efforts in the lakeshed.
Table 10. Land ownership, land use/land cover, estimated phosphorus loading, and ideas for protection and
restoration in Camp lakeshed (Sources: Crow Wing County parcel data, National Wetlands Inventory, and the
2006 National Land Cover Dataset).
10%
Private (63%)
Land Use (%)
Public (27%)
Developed
Agriculture
Forested
Uplands
Other
Wetlands
Open
Water
County
State
Federal
2.9%
7.2%
26%
9%
17.9%
10%
26.2%
0.7%
0%
0.45 – 1.5
0.26 – 0.9
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
82 – 275
118 – 408
147
99
147
3.6
0
Cropland
Focus of
development and
protection
efforts
State
Forest
National
Forest
Runoff
Coefficient
Lbs of
phosphorus/acre/
year
Estimated
Phosphorus
Loading
Acerage x runoff
coefficient
Description
Potential
Phase 3
Discussion
Items
Focused on
Shoreland
Shoreline
restoration
Restore
wetlands;
CRP
Open,
pasture,
grassland,
shrubland
Forest
stewardship
planning, 3rd
party
certification,
SFIA, local
woodland
cooperatives
Protected
Protected by
Wetland
Conservation
Act
County
Tax Forfeit
Lands
DNR Fisheries approach for lake protection and restoration
Credit: Peter Jacobson and Michael Duval, Minnesota DNR Fisheries
In an effort to prioritize protection and restoration efforts of fishery lakes, the MN DNR has developed
a ranking system by separating lakes into two categories, those needing protection and those needing
restoration. Modeling by the DNR Fisheries Research Unit suggests that total phosphorus
concentrations increase significantly over natural concentrations in lakes that have watershed with
disturbance greater than 25%. Therefore, lakes with watersheds that have less than 25% disturbance
need protection and lakes with more than 25% disturbance need restoration (Table 11). Watershed
disturbance was defined as having urban, agricultural and mining land uses. Watershed protection is
defined as publicly owned land or conservation easement.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
15 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Table 11. Suggested approaches for watershed protection and restoration of DNR-managed fish lakes in
Minnesota.
Watershed
Watershed
Management
Comments
Protected
Disturbance
Type
(%)
(%)
Vigilance
Sufficiently protected -- Water quality supports healthy and
diverse native fish communities. Keep public lands protected.
< 75%
Protection
Excellent candidates for protection -- Water quality can be
maintained in a range that supports healthy and diverse native
fish communities. Disturbed lands should be limited to less than
25%.
n/a
Full Restoration
Realistic chance for full restoration of water quality and improve
quality of fish communities. Disturbed land percentage should
be reduced and BMPs implemented.
Partial Restoration
Restoration will be very expensive and probably will not achieve
water quality conditions necessary to sustain healthy fish
communities. Restoration opportunities must be critically
evaluated to assure feasible positive outcomes.
> 75%
< 25%
25-60%
> 60%
n/a
The next step was to prioritize lakes within each of these management categories. DNR Fisheries
identified high value fishery lakes, such as cisco refuge lakes. Ciscos (Coregonus artedi) can be an
early indicator of eutrophication in a lake because they require cold hypolimnetic temperatures and
high dissolved oxygen levels. These watersheds with low disturbance and high value fishery lakes are
excellent candidates for priority protection measures, especially those that are related to forestry and
minimizing the effects of landscape disturbance. Forest stewardship planning, harvest coordination to
reduce hydrology impacts and forest conservation easements are some potential tools that can
protect these high value resources for the long term.
Camp Lake is classified with having 35.8% of the watershed protected and 11.1% of the watershed
disturbed (Figure 19). Therefore, Camp Lake should have a protection focus. Goals for the lake
should be to limit any increase in disturbed land use.
Figure 20 displays the area that contributes water to the lakeshed of interest; however, this particular
lakeshed is a headwaters catchment. No additional lakesheds should drain into this area. The area
highlighted in light green has the potential to contribute water to Camp Lake, whether through direct
overland flow or through a creek or river.
Percent of the Watershed Protected
75%
0%
100%
Camp Lake
(35.8%)
Percent of the Watershed with Disturbed Land Cover
0%
25%
100%
Camp Lake
(11.1%)
Figure 19. Camp Lake lakeshed’s percentage of
watershed protected and disturbed.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
16 of 18
Figure 20. The area that could contribute water to the
Camp Lake. Color-coded based on management
focus (Table 11).
2011 Camp Lake
Camp, Status of the Fishery (as of 07/10/2006)
Only one walleye was captured in 2006. It weighed 5.7 lbs. and was 25.2" long. They have not
been stocked since 1980.
The northern pike catch rate was average (5.1/gill net). Average size was 23.0" and 2.9 lbs., with
30% measuring 24" or larger.
Largemouth bass were captured at the rate of 24.8/hr run time during spring electrofishing.
Average length was 10.1" and 33% were 12" or larger. Largemouth bass were captured in average
numbers in both gill nets and trap nets.
The black crappie catch rate was above average in gill nets (3.6/gill net), with an average length of
7.2". The catch rate was average in trap nets (2.0/trap net), with an average length of 7.9". When
both net types were combined, 46% of the fish were 8" or larger.
The bluegill catch rate was average (21.9/trap net). Average length was 5.8" and 18% of the fish
were 7" or larger.
The yellow perch catch rate was average (2.8/gill net). Average length was 5.8" and none of the
fish were 8" or larger. These small perch make great forage for fish such as northern pike and
walleye.
Other fish species captured included black bullhead, bowfin, brown bullhead, golden shiner, hybrid
sunfish, pumpkinseed, rock bass, white sucker, and yellow bullhead.
See the link below for specific information on gillnet surveys, stocking information, and fish
consumption guidelines. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showreport.html?downum=18001800
Key Findings / Recommendations
Monitoring Recommendations
Transparency monitoring at sites 201 and 202 should be continued annually. It is important to
continue transparency monitoring weekly or at least bimonthly every year to enable year-to-year
comparisons and trend analyses. Phosphorus and chlorophyll a monitoring should continue at site
201, as the budget allows, to track future water quality trends.
Overall Conclusions
Overall, Camp Lake has fairly good water quality, and is in good shape for lakeshed protection. It
is a mesotrophic/eutrophic lake (TSI=48) with no detectable trend in transparency. Twenty-seven
percent (27%) of the lakeshed is in public ownership, and 36% of the lakeshed is protected, while
11% of the lakeshed is disturbed (Figure 19).
Camp Lake is at an advantage in that it is a headwaters catchment, which means that no other
lakesheds flow into it. This means the land practices around the lake are the main impact to the
lake’s water quality.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
17 of 18
2011 Camp Lake
Priority Impacts to the Lake
The main impact to Camp Lake is the surrounding development and any future development.
Camp Lake has a lot of wetlands and public land in the lakeshed, which are protected from
development. Most of the northeast bay is public land and designated wetland. It appears that the
west side of the lake is subdivided into parcels already, though many are undeveloped.
The first tier lots seem to be very large in size. The urban and impervious acreage did not seem to
change much from 1990-2000.
Subdividing the large lots into smaller lots and adding second tier development could significantly
change the drainage around Camp Lake. Roosevelt Township is expected to grow approximately
20% in the next 10 years (Figure 18), so this area may increase in development pressure. There
are also subdivided parcels and development infrastructure along County Rd 138 to the east of
Camp Lake. This area in the township (and watershed) has a strong potential to be developed.
Best Management Practices Recommendations
The management focus for Camp Lake should be to protect the water quality and the lakeshed.
Restoration efforts should be focused on managing and/or decreasing the impact caused by
additional subdivision of first tier lots, second tier development, and impervious surface area.
Project ideas include protecting land with conservation easements, enforcing county shoreline
ordinances, smart development, shoreline restoration, rain gardens, and septic system
maintenance.
County-wide Recommendation
In order to better manage the impact of septic systems on lake water quality, it is recommended
that the county implement a lake-wide septic inspection program. In a program such as this, the
county would focus on one to three lakes a year, pull septic system records on those lakes, and
require old systems to be inspected. This program can rotate through the county doing a few lakes
each year.
Organizational contacts and reference sites
Camp Lake
DNR Fisheries Office
Regional Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency Office
Crow Wing Soil and Water
Conservation District
Crow Wing County Environmental
Services Department
Visit on Facebook
1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401
218-828-2550
[email protected]
7678 College Road, Suite 105, Baxter, MN 56425
218-828-2492, 800-657-3864
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/pyri3df
Crow Wing County Land Services Building
322 Laurel St. Suite 13, Brainerd, MN 56401
218-828-6197
http://www.co.crow-wing.mn.us/swcd/
Crow Wing County Land Services Building
322 Laurel St. Suite 14, Brainerd, MN 56401
218-824-1125
http://www.co.crow-wing.mn.us/index.aspx?nid=211
Funding
This project was funded in part by the Board of Water & Soil Resources and the Initiative
Foundation, a regional foundation.
RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
18 of 18
2011 Camp Lake