Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe:
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
Public Notice Draft
-
July
2022
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
ii
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2
Land Ownership and Designation ...................................................................................................... 2
Governance and Management .......................................................................................................... 4
Key Water Information ...................................................................................................................... 4
Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6
Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................ 7
Nonpoint Source Issues and Concerns.......................................................................... 8
Forestry .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Hydromodification and Habitat Alteration ........................................................................................ 8
Roads and Highways ........................................................................................................................ 12
Urban Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Stormwater ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Septic Systems .................................................................................................................................... 12
Shoreland Development ..................................................................................................................... 12
Land Use Summary .................................................................................................... 14
Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Land Use/Land Cover ....................................................................................................................... 16
Topography, Geology, and Soils ....................................................................................................... 18
Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Wild Rice Lakes................................................................................................................................. 22
Groundwater .................................................................................................................................... 23
Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................................................... 26
Surface and Ground Water Quality ............................................................................ 26
Nonpoint Source Pollutants of Concern .......................................................................................... 26
Water Quality Goals ......................................................................................................................... 27
Data Collection Methods and Sources ............................................................................................. 28
Lake Sampling ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Stream Sampling ................................................................................................................................. 29
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 30
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
iii
Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102) ............................................................................................ 30
Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006) ................................................................................................. 40
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101) ........................................................................ 46
Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................... 57
Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Water Quality Goal Attainment ....................................................................................................... 57
Leech Lake Watershed ........................................................................................................................ 63
Big Fork Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 63
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed .................................................................................................... 63
Discussion ................................................................................................................. 64
Selection of NPS BMPs .............................................................................................. 66
Key Partners for BMP Selection ....................................................................................................... 66
Existing BMPs ................................................................................................................................... 68
Forestry ............................................................................................................................................... 68
Hydromodification and Habitat Alteration ......................................................................................... 69
Urban Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Future BMP Selection ...................................................................................................................... 69
Existing NPS Control Programs .................................................................................. 71
Available Programs for Controlling NPS Pollution ........................................................................... 71
Existing NPS Pollution Reduction Programs for the Leech Lake Reservation .................................. 75
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 76
References ................................................................................................................ 77
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... 79
Figures
Figure 1. Leech Lake Reservation boundaries. .............................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Land ownership and designations (fee, tax exempt, and trust) within the LLR. ........................... 3
Figure 3. LLBO governmental structure. ....................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. The Mississippi River at the restored Knutson Dam site. .............................................................. 5
Figure 5. Watershed boundaries within the Leech Lake Reservation. ......................................................... 6
Figure 6. Wetlands and hydromodifications within the Leech Lake Reservation....................................... 10
Figure 7. Shoreline erosion on Leech Lake (photo provided by Eric Krumm). ............................................ 11
Figure 8. Shoreland loss on an island in Leech Lake (photos provided by Eric Krumm). ............................ 11
Figure 9. Average monthly minimum, maximum, and average temperatures (°F) (2001-2021). .............. 15
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
iv
Figure 10. Average monthly rainfall and snowfall (in.) (2001-2021). ......................................................... 15
Figure 11. Average annual precipitation (in.) and average annual temperature (°F) (1990-2021). ........... 16
Figure 12. Land cover within the Leech Lake Reservation (MRLC 2019). ................................................... 17
Figure 13. Topography in the Leech Lake Reservation. .............................................................................. 19
Figure 14. Quaternary geology in the Leech Lake Reservation. ................................................................. 20
Figure 15. Soil characteristics in the Leech Lake Reservation..................................................................... 21
Figure 16. Managed wild rice beds within the Leech Lake Reservation. .................................................... 23
Figure 17. Pollution sensitivity of near surface materials within the Leech Lake Reservation. ................. 24
Figure 18. Daily average flow at two gages for water years 2008-2021..................................................... 25
Figure 19. Flow duration curves at two gages for water years 2008-2021. ............................................... 25
Figure 20. Dams impacting the Leech Lake Reservation. ........................................................................... 26
Figure 21. Lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102). ............................... 31
Figure 22. Summary of TP samples at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed. ....... 33
Figure 23. Summary of (shallow) samples chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech
Lake Watershed. ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 24. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 25. River/stream monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102). .................. 37
Figure 26. Lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006). .................................... 40
Figure 27. Summary of shallow TP at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed.............. 42
Figure 28. Summary of shallow chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 29. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed. .. 43
Figure 30. River/stream monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006). ...................... 44
Figure 31. Lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101). ........... 47
Figure 32. Summary of (shallow) total phosphorus at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi
Headwaters Watershed. ............................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 33. Summary of (shallow) chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi
Headwaters Watershed. ............................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 34. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters
Watershed................................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 35. River/stream monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101).
.................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Tables
Table 1. Section 319 Requirements for Nonpoint Source Assessments ....................................................... 1
Table 2. Land Cover in the Leech Lake Reservation (MRLC 2019) .............................................................. 17
Table 3. Pollutants of Concern for Nonpoint Source Categories ................................................................ 27
Table 4. Minnesota Eutrophication Standards for Lakes, Shallow Lakes, and Reservoirs in the Northern
Lakes and Forest Ecoregion (Minn. R. 7050.0222, subp. 4.) ....................................................................... 28
Table 5. River/Stream Standards for Aquatic Life and Aquatic Recreation for Use Slasses Found in the
Leech Lake Reservation (Minnesota R. 7050.0220 subp. 3a, 3h, subp. 5a, and 7050.0222, subp. 2) ........ 28
Table 6. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed ...................................................... 31
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
v
Table 7. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed in EQuIS ................................................ 34
Table 8. Summary of EQuIS Data for Lakes in the Leech Lake Watershed ................................................. 35
Table 9. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed ........................................ 37
Table 10. River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed in EQuIS ................................ 38
Table 11. Leech Lake Watershed River/Stream Locations Sampled by the LLBO....................................... 38
Table 12. Leech Lake Watershed Sample Sites from EQuIS Database ........................................................ 39
Table 13. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed ........................................................ 41
Table 14. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed in EQuIS ................................................... 41
Table 15. Summary of EQuIS Water Quality Data for Sand Lake ................................................................ 43
Table 16. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed .......................................... 45
Table 17. Big Fork Watershed Stream Sample Sites by LLBO ..................................................................... 45
Table 18. Big Fork Watershed Sample Sites from EQuIS Database ............................................................ 46
Table 19. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed ............................... 47
Table 20. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed in EQuIS .......................... 48
Table 21. Summary of EQuIS Chlorophyll-a, Secchi Disk Depth, and Total Phosphorus Data for Lakes in
the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 22. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed ................. 54
Table 23. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed River/Stream Sample Sites by LLBO ......................... 55
Table 24. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed River/Stream Sample Sites from EQuIS .................... 56
Table 25. Goal Attainment - Lakes .............................................................................................................. 58
Table 26. Goal Attainment – Rivers and Streams ....................................................................................... 60
Table 27. Partners, Mission, and Associated Role in the LLBO Best Management Practice (BMP) Selection
Process ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
Table 28. Best Management Practice Descriptions and Associated Priorities ........................................... 70
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP best management practice
CNF Chippewa National Forest
CWA Clean Water Act
DRM Division of Resources Management
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
EQuIS Environmental Quality Information System
HRFP Healthy Forests Reserve Program
HUC8 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
HUC12 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
ISTS individual sewage treatment system
LCCMR Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources
LLBO Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
LLR Leech Lake Reservation
mg/L milligrams per liter
MCT Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
MN DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MFRC Minnesota Forest Resources Council
MIAC Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MPN most probable number
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPS nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RTC Reservation Tribal Council
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
TAS Treatment as a State
TP total phosphorus
µg/L micrograms per liter
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
vii
WPDG Wetland Program Development Grant
WRAPS Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy
WQS water quality standards
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
1
Overview
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution delivers pollutants to surface waters from diffuse origins rather than
from one or more discernible point sources. NPS pollution is often the result of runoff from precipitation
and activities on the landscape, such as development and farming, as well as stressors, such as habitat
alteration, dams, or channelization. Eroding lake shores and streambanks, internal loading of nutrients
from lakes, atmospheric deposition, and septic system discharges are also examples of NPSs.
This NPS assessment report for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) analyzes NPS challenges and
opportunities for tribal waters on the LLBO’s Reservation lands. This report addresses the statutory
requirement for a NPS assessment report and will provide background information for development of
an approvable Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 NPS management program plan for these tribal
waters. In order to qualify for CWA Section 319 funding, a Tribe must meet four criteria (USEPA 2010):
1. Be a federally recognized Tribe
2. Complete an approved CWA Section 319(a) NPS assessment report
3. Complete an approved CWA Section 319(b) NPS management program
4. Be CWA Section 518(e) approved for Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State (“treatment as a
state” or TAS)
This assessment report will serve to summarize existing data, identify sources of NPS pollutants, and
serve as the basis for targeting reductions of NPS pollution on the LLBO lands. Through partnerships,
future program expansion, and the completion of a Section 319 NPS management plan, the LLBO will
focus on activities that will result in improved water quality.
This report addresses each of the Section 319 requirements for a NPS Assessment Report as summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1. Section 319 Requirements for Nonpoint Source Assessments
Section 319 Requirement
Section of Assessment
Document Addressing the
Section 319 Requirement
Section 319 (a)(1) - Opportunity for public comment. Section 2.5
Section 319(a)(1)(A) - Identification of those navigable waters within the
Reservation which, without additional action to control nonpoint sources of
pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water
quality standards or the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Section 5.6
Section 5.4 provides data
analysis
Section 319(a)(1)(B) - Identification of those categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, nonpoint sources which add significant
pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified under subparagraph
(A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting such water quality
standards or such goals and requirements.
Section 0
Section 319(a)(1)(C) - Description of the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying Best Management
Practices (BMPs).
Section 7
Section 319(a)(1)(D) - Identification and description of existing programs for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality
of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not limited to those
programs which are receiving Federal assistance under subsections (h) and (i).
Section 8
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
2
Introduction
The Leech Lake Reservation (LLR) is 869,320 acres in size and located in north central Minnesota (Figure
1). The LLR is located largely within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The LLR is located within the U.S.’s
Northern Lakes and Forested Ecoregion. The LLR includes land in Cass, Itasca, Beltrami, and Hubbard
counties of Minnesota. The Chippewa National Forest (CNF), managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
occupies significant portions of the LLR.
Figure 1. Leech Lake Reservation boundaries.
Land Ownership and Designation
The LLR was set aside under the Treaty of 1855 with the U.S. Government. In 1887, the Dawes Act (or
General Allotment Act) allotted 80 acres of land to each individual Band member and sold all remaining
land to anyone wishing to homestead. In addition to the LLBO, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT)
owns land within the Reservation boundaries. The MCT is a federally recognized tribal government
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
3
comprised of the Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs, and White Earth
Reservations (MCT 2022).
Current tribal ownership of lands on the LLR is 5% of the original tribal homeland. Land ownership and
designation within the boundaries of the LLR can be categorized as fee, tax exempt, or trust:
Fee: Parcels owned by the LLBO
Tax Exempt: Parcels designated as religious properties
Trust: Parcels that have the title held by the U.S. Department of Interior for the benefit of the
LLBO, MCT, or tribal member(s)
Figure 2. Land ownership and designations (fee, tax exempt, and trust) within the LLR.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
4
Governance and Management
The Leech Lake Reservation Tribal Council (RTC) is the governing body of the LLBO and is a member of
the MCT. The RTC consists of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Representatives for Districts 1, 2, and 3.
Nine administrative divisions report to the RTC, including Division of Resources Management (DRM).
The DRM began enforcement of a Conservation Code in 1976 and continues its dedication to the
protection of water, land, forest, fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural and cultural resources.
Responsibilities of the DRM include the enforcement of fish and game laws, management of invasive
species, regulation of logging practices, protection of wetlands and wild rice waters, monitoring and
assessment of water resources, land use permitting, and overall protection of environmental resources
for future generations (LLBO 2022a). The DRM departments and programs responsible for these
activities are identified on Figure 3.
Figure 3. LLBO governmental structure.
Key Water Information
The LLR contains an abundance of surface waters, including approximately 300,000 acres of lakes (over
270 of which are named lakes), 168,000 acres of wetlands, significant groundwater resources, and 260
miles of rivers and streams (including a portion of the Mississippi River). Figure is an example of the
Mississippi River at a restored U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dam site within the LLR.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
5
Figure 4. The Mississippi River at the restored Knutson Dam site.
Large lakes within the Reservation include Leech Lake (Minnesota’s third largest lake), Lake
Winnibigoshish, and Cass Lake. Hundreds of smaller lakes also provide important habitat and
recreational opportunities. The area is home to numerous high-quality fisheries, wild rice lakes, and
wetlands of great significance to tribal and non-tribal communities.
The LLR includes portions of three HUC8 watersheds: Leech Lake, Big Fork, and Mississippi Headwaters
(Figure 5). A summary of each HUC8 watershed is provided below (including land area outside the LLR).
Appendix A lists all rivers and lakes in the LLR, the lake acres or river miles for each, and identifies the
HUC12 in which they are located.
Leech Lake (HUC 07010102): The Leech Lake Watershed covers approximately 750,000 acres in
north-central Minnesota and includes portions of four Minnesota counties: Beltrami, Hubbard,
Itasca, and Cass. The greater watershed includes 273 lakes (including Leech Lake), a segment of the
Leech Lake River, and five other rivers. The watershed is home to half of Minnesota’s muskie habitat
and as much as one-quarter of the muskie habitat in the U.S.
Big Fork (HUC 09030006): The Big Fork Watershed is located in north-central Minnesota and is part
of the larger Lake of the Woods and Rainy River basin. The Big Fork Watershed covers 2,073 square
miles and is divided between Itasca (49%) and Koochiching counties (51%). The Big Fork River is the
second largest U.S. tributary, in terms of area, within the bi-national Lake of the Woods and Rainy
River system (MPCA 2017a).
Mississippi Headwaters (HUC 07010101): The Mississippi Headwaters Watershed is located in
north-central Minnesota includes portions of six Minnesota counties: Becker, Beltrami, Cass,
Clearwater, Hubbard, and Itasca. The watershed covers 1,961 square miles of the Upper Mississippi
River basin and includes the headwaters of the Mississippi River at Lake Itasca in Itasca State Park.
The Mississippi Headwaters Watershed has a wealth of surface water resources, with approximately
685 river miles and more than 1,000 lakes (a total acreage of 180,375) (MPCA 2018).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
6
Figure 5. Watershed boundaries within the Leech Lake Reservation.
Goals and Objectives
The LLBO seeks to control NPS pollutants by implementing practices and changing behavior through an
NPS management program. The LLBO is concerned with protecting and improving surface water quality
in the LLR to maintain the beneficial uses of tribal waters. Water quality in the LLR is essential to the
continued subsistence, cultural, and spiritual health of the LLBO members. The LLBO’s primary goal is to
expand the capabilities of their water quality program to address polluted runoff impacts, including
minimizing NPS pollution on the LLR. In addition, the LLBO wishes to assess and track the condition of
tribal waters and achieve attainment of water quality targets and standards within the LLR. The LLBO’s
primary objectives to achieve these goals are:
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
7
Identify waters that cannot be expected to attain or maintain nutrient, bacteria, and sediment
water quality goals without the control of NPS pollution; the state of MN water quality
standards have been adopted by the LLBO as interim water quality goals until such a time that
LLBO water quality standards are implemented
Identify and quantify sources of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment on Reservation lands and in
waters to better distinguish and address NPSs of pollutants
Address sources and causes of NPS pollutants in LLR waters
Continue and expand current monitoring and reevaluation as necessary
Expand staff capacity by hiring a lead/coordinator for the NPS Management Program
This NPS Assessment Report identifies the nature, extent, and effect of NPS pollution for tribal waters in
the LLR, as well as the sources of such pollution. The assessment evaluates water quality monitoring
data and information from various sources and categorizes NPS pollution sources for those individual
waters identified as needing control of NPS pollution. In addition, this report discusses how the LLBO will
identify best management practices (BMPs) needed to control NPS pollution on the Reservation and
describes existing tribal, state, federal, and other programs that could provide support for BMP
implementation.
Public Review Process
<Information on public review process will be added following public notice>
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
8
Nonpoint Source Issues and Concerns
There are many high-quality waters within the LLR, but some are located in areas with high potential for
degradation from activities on the landscape. Primary concerns for NPS pollution include:
1. Forestry
2. Hydromodification and habitat alteration
3. Roads and highways
4. Urban areas
Forestry
Approximately 32.4% of the land within the LLR is forested. Forest activities can be a source of sediment
and nutrients to receiving waters, through erosion resulting from road construction, heavy equipment
usage and soil compaction, and removal of vegetation. Tree harvesting can result in loss of shading to
waterbodies that degrades habitat, increases water temperature, and affects food sources (USEPA
2022a). Protection of forested areas also protects groundwater quality and quantity.
Specific areas of concern are seasonal ponds and wetlands that can suffer significant soil compaction
due to timber harvest. Soil compaction in these areas can disturb fragile wetland ecosystems, leading to
increased overland flows and greater erosional potential and sedimentation of waterbodies.
Additionally, forest roads can disrupt hydrologic connectivity via undersized culvert design and
inadequate maintenance. This can impact aquatic organism passage and disrupt the ecosystem function
of connecting wetlands and stream miles. Culvert design is increasingly important in light of
precipitation changes resulting from climate change.
Hydromodification and Habitat Alteration
There are several sources of hydromodification and habitat alteration of concern within the LLR (Figure
6). Channelization of streams, drainage activities, development activities, and the presence of invasive
species can alter the way the water moves across the landscape and are often associated with increased
channel instability and sedimentation, disruption of aquatic habitat and fish passage, nutrient cycling,
impacts to wetland health, and loss of water storage.
Pipelines owned by Enbridge cut across the LLR along the Highway 2 corridor. Pipelines are considered
NPS concerns due to potential changes to hydrology from stream crossings and intersections with
riparian areas. Recent reconstruction on Enbridge’s Line 3 in 2021 was also a source of sedimentation
and erosion.
Two dams operated by the USACE have resulted in significant erosion on Lake Winnibigoshish and Leech
Lake. The LLBO does not have an inventory of erosion sites, but photographs in Figure 7 and Figure 8
illustrate these concerns. Undersized and inadequately maintained culverts that are in disrepair can also
alter hydrology and impact aquatic life.
Assessing wetland health and connectivity is a priority for the LLBO. Wetlands make up a significant
amount of the land use in the LLR and provide water storage, reduce impacts from flooding, support
wild rice, and provide habitat for fish, birds, and mammals (Harper 2022). The LLBO is concerned with
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
9
protecting and improving wetland quality. Specific concerns for wetlands are encroachment of
developed areas, impacts from roads in managed forests, road salt, and artificial channelization.
The LLBO is also concerned about the alteration of habitats due to aquatic invasive species including
purple loosestrife, Eurasian watermilfoil, zebra mussels, starry stonewort, mystery (banded) snails, and
faucet snails. In riparian areas, invasive plants such as shallow-rooted reed canary grass, can contribute
to erosion. Emerald ash borer is a threat to forests and wetlands with stands of black ash trees.
Management for many of these species results in the disruption of wetland habitats by staff having to
physically remove the plants and restore the areas with native species.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
10
Figure 6. Wetlands and hydromodifications within the Leech Lake Reservation.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
11
Figure 7. Shoreline erosion on Leech Lake (photo provided by Eric Krumm).
Figure 8. Shoreland loss on an island in Leech Lake (photos provided by Eric Krumm).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
12
Roads and Highways
A number of federal, state, and county roads pass through the LLR. U.S. Highway 2, as the only east-west
artery from Duluth to Grand Forks, is the key transportation corridor in the LLR. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation maintains and improves roadways, which can result in sediment runoff,
and manages roadways using chemical and salt treatment for managing ice, magnesium chloride for
dust suppression on gravel roads, and herbicide treatment of roadside vegetation. The LLBO is
concerned about runoff from these chemicals to nearby receiving waters, especially to wild rice lakes
and groundwater. Specific corridors of concern include:
Bowstring Lake - MN Highway 6 and County Road 35
Round Lake - MN Highway 46 and County Road 149
Urban Areas
The LLR is predominately rural with limited impervious surfaces. However, stormwater runoff from
parking lots and developed areas, failing septic systems, and increases in shoreland development are
sources of concern.
Stormwater
Stormwater transports pollutants downstream to lakes and rivers and can contain high levels of
sediment, nutrients, E. coli, and other pollutants. The cities of Cass Lake (population 663), Bena
(population 116), and Squaw Lake (population 106) have impervious areas and stormwater runoff that
are affecting the water quality of nearby waters. The city of Walker (population 938) is adjacent to Leech
Lake and is also a source of stormwater runoff. Parking lots and areas of development near waterbodies
represent additional sources of stormwater runoff.
The LLBO owns most of the land in Bena and requires a stormwater pollution prevention plan for
construction sites. There are no regulated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in the LLR.
Septic Systems
Individual Septic Treatment Systems (ISTS or septic systems) are used for wastewater treatment for
many developed properties within the LLR. Many of the systems are old and it is not uncommon for
them to be in failing status due to lack of maintenance. These systems can be a source of nutrients and
fecal bacteria (i.e., E. coli) to surface and groundwater, particularly when they are located within 200
feet of surface waters.
The DRM issues permits to install septic systems and conducts plan review and inspections of these
systems to ensure compliance with setbacks are followed. After systems are installed, there are no
routine inspections conducted. Inspections of possible failing systems are done on a complaint basis and
there is not currently a full-time septic inspector on staff. Counties within the LLR have the authority to
inspect non-tribal septic systems, but inspections are not done on a routine basis. There is currently no
system in place to track maintenance or potentially failing systems in the LLR.
Shoreland Development
The development of shoreland property is a primary concern for the LLBO. Shoreland development
often requires the installation of septic systems or other wastewater treatment infrastructure, the use
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
13
groundwater resources, the addition of lawns and impervious cover to previously forested areas, and
shoreline alteration, such as the addition of boat docks, beaches, and walls. Sediment, nutrients, and
fecal bacteria are concerns in these areas.
Additions of grass and lawns to previously forested lands may bring with them the use of fertilizer, along
with pesticides and herbicides to treat unwanted weeds and grasses. This is especially a problem for
lakes which support wild rice, as these grasses can also be harmed by herbicides (Harper 2022).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
14
Land Use Summary
The LLR includes many waterbodies, forested areas, and small communities, including the towns of Cass
Lake, Ball Club, Bena, Inger, Onigum, Mission, Pennington, Smokey Point, Sugar Point, Oak Point, and
Squaw Lake. Many areas support cultural resources that are significant to Ojibwe cultural practices,
including wild rice waters, habitats for rare and endangered species, and key species of fish.
The LLR has over 13,000 acres of natural wild rice (Manoomin) stands and a wide variety of habitat
types, plants, and wildlife, including a number of species that are recognized by federal or state agencies
and the Leech Lake Band as being rare and threatened. Manoomin is culturally significant to the LLBO
and plays an important role in the livelihoods of local communities.
The major forest types on the LLR are deciduous and northern coniferous forests. In areas that are
seldom subjected to wildfire, maple-basswood forest is the climax type. Other deciduous forest types
are aspen, aspen-birch, oak, lowland hardwood, and mixed hardwood-conifer. Conifer forest types
include balsam spruce, black spruce, and tamarack, often with a white-cedar component in lowland
areas, with red pine, white pine, and jack pine forests in upland areas (Buzay 2011).
There are over 50 species of fish found on the LLR with walleye, northern pike, largemouth bass, and
panfish the most popular for sport fishing. LLBO members also hold the lake whitefish, a species only
found in some of the larger deeper lakes, in high regard.
Climate
Climate data are available within the LLR boundaries. Leech Lake station (Station ID 214652; located at
latitude: 47°2467 °N, longitude: -94.2228 °W) provides daily, monthly, and annual climate data. The
period of record for the station begins in 1887 and is still active in 2022.
Based on these data, winter temperatures on the LLR often reach into the negatives and summer
temperatures typically range from 50 to 80 degrees (Figure 9). Average annual precipitation from 2001
through 2021 is approximately 25.5 inches per year. Average monthly inches of rainfall and snowfall
over the same period are provided in Figure 10. Accounting for some annual variation, average
precipitation and temperatures in the area have not changed significantly in recent decades (Figure 11).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
15
Figure 9. Average monthly minimum, maximum, and average temperatures (°F) (2001-2021).
Figure 10. Average monthly rainfall and snowfall (in.) (2001-2021).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
16
Figure 11. Average annual precipitation (in.) and average annual temperature (°F) (1990-2021).
Land Use/Land Cover
Open water (27.6%), wetlands (32.8%), and forested land (34.2%) make up much of the land cover in the
LLR (Figure 12, Table 2). Upland areas are predominately forested and consist of pine, spruce, balsam fir,
aspen, birch, oak, and maple. Plant communities are used in many ways, including a large timber and
wood product industry. This activity significantly impacts the LLR’s ecological and environmental
attributes.
Developed lands make up less than 3% of the LLR, however these data may not reflect ongoing
shoreland development. Agricultural lands cover less than 2% of the LLR, and primarily consist of
pasture and hay.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
17
Figure 12. Land cover within the Leech Lake Reservation (MRLC 2019).
Table 2. Land Cover in the Leech Lake Reservation (MRLC 2019)
Land Use Percent
Open Water 27.6%
Developed, Open Space 1.8%
Developed, Low Intensity 0.6%
Developed, Medium Intensity 0.2%
Developed, High Intensity 0.0%
Barren Land 0.0%
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
18
Land Use Percent
Deciduous Forest 17.6%
Evergreen Forest 5.8%
Mixed Forest 10.8%
Shrub/Scrub 0.7%
Grassland/Herbaceous 0.6%
Pasture/Hay 1.1%
Cultivated Crops 0.3%
Woody Wetlands 24.8%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 8.0%
Total 100.0%
Topography, Geology, and Soils
The topography of the LLR is primarily flat to moderately rolling, and is primarily the result of glaciation
processes, resulting in an assortment of morainal land-types, till plains, lacustrine plains, outwash and
sand plains, and windblown dunes.
Elevations range from 1597 feet above mean sea level to the lake level of approximately 1294 mean sea
level. The topography of the LLR is a result of the advance of glacial lobes. These glaciers formed glacial
moraines that melted and carried sand and gravel to form a sand cap. Over time, these glacial activities
have resulted a wide variety of soils in the LLR. The soil contains a mixture of glacial till, loamy and silty
loam, as well as some organic peat, clay till, and fine wet sand. The LLR is underlain by igneous and
metaphoric, undifferentiated, Precambrian bedrock. These formations are not considered aquifers
because they lack the primary porosity to hold significant quantities of water. The 200 to 400 feet of
sand, gravel, silt, clay, rocks, and organic material overlying this bedrock forms a 0-130 feet aquifer. This
aquifer flows toward Leech Lake from the northwest and the confining layer below this aquifer thins or
completely disappears in some places, allowing surface water to interact with the deeper buried
aquifers. Groundwater movement in the Upper Mississippi Headwaters portion of the LLR is from sites
of local recharge to surface waters. Regional flows are maintained during periods of no precipitation by
the continuing movement of the groundwater toward surface water bodies.
Figure 13 through Figure 15 provide a depiction of the elevation, geology, and soils.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
19
Figure 13. Topography in the Leech Lake Reservation.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
20
Figure 14. Quaternary geology in the Leech Lake Reservation.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
21
Figure 15. Soil characteristics in the Leech Lake Reservation.
Wetlands
Wetland resources are important to modern and traditional cultural practices of Ojibwe culture. A
number of swamp and wetland plants are harvested for medicinal, dietary, and other cultural uses. Key
species of terrestrial and aquatic animals and certain native fish species also depend upon wetland
resources. Wetlands make up a 32.8% of land use in the LLR (see Figure 6 and Figure 12). There are 8
types of wetlands found within the LLR boundaries:
Shallow open water
Shrub swamp
Wooded swamp
Seasonally flooded basin
Wet meadow
Shallow marsh
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
22
Deep marsh
Bogs
Wild Rice Lakes
Manoomin is particularly important to the LLBO and many other Tribes in the region. Wild rice is a staple
food in the diets of Band members and provides important benefits for the local economy. Recent
research has documented that wild rice provides food and shelter for many fish and wildlife species (MN
DNR 2008). Many waterbodies within the LLR contain wild rice, and it is of the utmost importance to the
LLBO that these waters are protected to ensure future sustainability of the harvest. The LLBO manages
some wild rice beds, as shown Figure .
Threats that affect local stands of natural wild rice within the LLR include changes in local hydrology due
to dams and channelization, water-based recreation, shoreland development, and industrial activities.
Although the impacts are to local stands, the cumulative effect of these threats can have broader
implications. Current trends in population growth and development pressure within and surrounding
the LLR indicate that anthropogenic impacts to wild rice habitat will only be compounded in the next
several decades (MN DNR 2008).
The productivity of wild rice stands within the LLR will depend in large part on its protection and
management by tribal, federal, and state natural resource agencies. The role of these agencies is
complicated by limitations of authority, jurisdictional challenges, and the annual variability of wild rice
crops due to weather and other factors. Additionally, the lack of information concerning the ecology of
wild rice, historical losses, and trends in abundance and distribution may threaten the future of wild rice
(MN DNR 2008), and consequently affect the future of the LLBO.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
23
Figure 16. Managed wild rice beds within the Leech Lake Reservation.
Groundwater
Both private wells and community drinking water supplies provide groundwater as drinking water to
residents in the LLR. The LLBO is responsible for enforcing the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and
safeguarding the quality of drinking water on the LLR (Buzay 2011). The Sanitation Department within
Public Works provides maintenance for seven community water systems: Ball Club, Bena, Inger,
Northside, Old Agency, Plantation and Oak Point. Based on consumer confidence reports from these
water supplies, there are no areas of concern from NPS pollution (LLBO 2022b).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
24
The Minnesota Natural Resources Atlas website provides data on the pollution sensitivity of uppermost
aquifers (Figure 17). There are areas of high pollution sensitivity (depicted in orange) in some parts of
the LLR especially around Lake Winnibigoshish (Minnesota Natural Resources Atlas 2022), however
these sensitive areas do not necessarily translate to sensitive drinking water supplies.
Figure 17. Pollution sensitivity of near surface materials within the Leech Lake Reservation.
Hydrology
The land in the LLR is primarily flat and the streams and rivers are not prone to flashy flows (Harper
2022). The U.S. Geological Survey maintains continuously recording flow gages upstream of the LLR
boundary on the Mississippi River near Bemidji, MN, (05250510) and at Willow Beach at Ball Club, MN
(05207600) downstream of Lake Winnibigoshish at the confluence of the Mississippi and Leech Lake
Rivers. Daily average flows and flow duration curves for the two gages for water years 2008 through
2021 are presented in Figure 18 and Figure 19, respectively.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
25
Typical Midwestern, free-flowing, unregulated rivers do not exhibit the bimodal form apparent in Figure
18. Daily average flows for the two gages on the Mississippi River are indicative of altered hydrology.
Similarly, flow duration curves for free-flowing Midwestern streams typically have steeper slopes in the
0% to 10% and 90% to 100% of time exceeded. The lack of steeper slopes is indicative of flow through a
natural lake or regulated reservoir.
Figure 18. Daily average flow at two gages for water years 2008-2021.
Figure 19. Flow duration curves at two gages for water years 2008-2021.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
26
There are two dams operated by
the USACE on Lake
Winnibigoshish and Leech Lake
within the LLR, and two
downstream of the Reservation
boundaries on the Mississippi
River (Pokegama and Big Sandy
Dams; Figure 20). Originally
constructed in the 1860s to
improve downstream navigation,
the dams at Lake Winnibigoshish
and Leech Lake have had minimal
impact on navigability. With locks
and dams now in place they are
not needed for this purpose. The
reservoirs created by these dams
keep water levels artificially high,
resulting in erosion issues and
causing problems with wild rice
growth (Harper 2022).
Socioeconomic Conditions
In 2021, 10,022 Band members were enrolled in the LLBO, of which approximately 45-50% live within
the LLR (Finn 2022). Within the LLR, tribal and non-tribal community members live in 25 townships,
several small towns, and three unorganized territories. The largest population center is the Community
surrounding Cass Lake which is divided into land managed by the LLBO and the City of Cass Lake.
According to 2020 census data, population density in the area is around 11 people per square mile and
approximately 11% of the area’s population identify as Native American (Manson et al. 2021).
Local economic drivers include tourism and harvest of natural resources. The LLBO owns and operates
three casino gaming enterprises. There are 40 wild rice-producing lakes supporting the LLBO’s wild rice
production, the largest natural production system on Reservation lands within the State of Minnesota.
The LLBO sells rice commercially if there is an excess supply after the amount required for sustenance of
enrolled Band members. The numerous lakes, rivers, streams, pristine wilderness areas, resorts, and
cabins bring tourism to the area which benefits tribal owned businesses.
Surface and Ground Water Quality
Nonpoint Source Pollutants of Concern
NPS pollutants of concern in the LLR include nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), sediment, and fecal
bacteria (i.e., E. coli). Table 3 includes a summary of pollutants by NPS category as determined by LLBO;
further descriptions of each NPS category are provided in Section 0.
Figure
20
.
Dams impacting the L
eech Lake Reservation
.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
27
Table 3. Pollutants of Concern for Nonpoint Source Categories
NPS Category
NPS Pollutant
Nutrients Sediment E. coli Other
Forestry X X
Hydromodification/Habitat
Alteration
X X
Roads and Highways
Chloride
a
Pesticides
b
Urban Areas
Stormwater
Septic Systems
Shoreland Development
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pesticides
b
a. Chloride data in the watershed are not collected near the waterbodies of concern noted in Section 3.3; however, a cursory
evaluation of all LLBO chloride monitoring data within the LLR (192 samples) results in a range of chloride concentrations
between 0.6 and 10.7 mg/L chloride, well below concentrations that would be considered impacted. Additional monitoring near
waterbodies of concern is needed.
b. The LLBO does not currently collect water quality data on pesticides.
For rivers and streams, this report focuses on the parameters that most impact aquatic life and
recreational uses in the LLR, including total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and E. coli. In
lakes, eutrophication is the primary cause of concern for aquatic recreation uses, and therefore TP,
chlorophyll-a, and Secchi disk transparency are evaluated. TP is the NPS pollutant of concern in lakes.
Water Quality Goals
Minnesota WQS were adopted as the interim tribal water quality goals by the Leech Lake RTC,
Resolution No. 01-120 on January 11, 2001. Although, it should be noted that on November 9, 2021, the
LLBO received approval of TAS for CWA 303(c) and is in the process of drafting WQS which will be used
to determine impairment status of the waters of the Reservation upon WQS approval by USEPA.
In lieu of final, approved beneficial use classes for LLR waters, this Assessment utilizes the following
beneficial use classes and designated uses as provided in Minnesota’s WQS in Minn. R. 7050.0140:
Class 1 – domestic consumption
Class 2 – aquatic life and recreation
Class 3 – industrial consumption
Class 4 – agriculture and wildlife
Class 5 – aesthetic enjoyment and navigation
Class 6 – other uses and protection of border waters
Class 7 – limited resource value waters
According to Minn. R. 7050.0140, all surface waters are protected for multiple beneficial uses, and WQS
are adopted into rule to protect each beneficial use. The narrative and numeric water quality criteria for
the individual use classes are listed in Minn. R. 7050.0221 through 7050.0227. Application of
Minnesota’s WQS to LLR waters includes use of Class 1 domestic consumption WQS and Class 2 aquatic
life and recreation WQS.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
28
Water quality goals for pollutants of concern in the LLR are provided in Table 4 and Table 5 for lakes and
streams, respectfully, as derived from Minnesota Rules 7050. The lake standard is three parts including
TP and two response variables: chlorophyll-a and Secchi depth. This Assessment for lakes first focuses
on identifying lakes with high total TP and then further assesses lakes against the response variables. In
the case of TSS in rivers and streams, the more restrictive standard for cold water aquatic life and
habitat is used to evaluate data against the goals.
Table 4. Minnesota Eutrophication Standards for Lakes, Shallow Lakes, and Reservoirs in the Northern Lakes
and Forest Ecoregion (Minn. R. 7050.0222, subp. 4.)
Total Phosphorus (ppb) Chlorophyll-a (ppb) Secchi Depth (m)
≤ 30 ≤ 9 ≥ 2.0 m
Table 5. River/Stream Standards for Aquatic Life and Aquatic Recreation for Use Slasses Found in the Leech
Lake Reservation (Minnesota R. 7050.0220 subp. 3a, 3h, subp. 5a, and 7050.0222, subp. 2)
Waterbody Designated Use
Aquatic Life Use
Aquatic
Recreation Use
Total Suspended
Solids
Total
Phosphorus
Nitrate as N E. coli
Domestic consumption -- -- 10 mg/L --
Cold water aquatic life and habitat,
also protected for drinking water
10 mg/L ≤ 50 µg/L
-- 126 organisms
per 100 ml
a
Cool and warm water aquatic life
and habitat, also protected for
drinking water
15 mg/L ≤ 50 µg/L
-- 126 organisms
per 100 ml
a
a. E. coli - Not to exceed 126 organisms per 100 milliliters as a geometric mean of not less than five samples representative of
conditions within any calendar month, nor shall more than 10% of all samples taken during any calendar month individually
exceed 1,260 organisms per 100 milliliters. The standard applies between April 1 and October 31.
Data Collection Methods and Sources
The LLBO began collecting water quality data in the mid-1990’s. Prior to 2007, most data on designated
lakes and rivers/streams were collected using surveys and monitoring conducted by other government
agencies and some lake associations (LLBO 2021). Since 2008, the LLBO have been conducting routine
monitoring on six lakes per year, and inlet and outlet streams of these lakes where available. A special
sampling project was required by USEPA for some stream sites between 2008 – 2017. All LLBO data has
been collected under USEPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
In addition to water sampling data from the LLBO program, the state of Minnesota and partners collect
water quality data in the LLR. These data are accessible online in the Environmental Quality Information
System (EQuIS).
The LLBO 2021 QAPP for Surface Water Monitoring has been approved for the period of March 1, 2021 –
March 31, 2023. Per this QAPP, the LLBO plans to survey 12 lakes (six lakes per year for two years)
within the LLR boundaries that have limited water quality data to date. Lakes are chosen based on
criteria that include geographical distribution across the three Districts and HUC8 watersheds within the
LLR, lack of data from other agency monitoring efforts, and access points.
Stream or river sites that flow in or out of the selected lakes will be sampled monthly May through
October as weather and safety permit.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
29
The main goals of the LLBO monitoring program (LLBO 2013) are to:
1) Collect water quality monitoring data (physical, chemical, and biological parameters) to track
even slight changes in water quality trends (selected lakes will be re-monitored)
2) Assess beneficial uses within the Reservation
3) Maintain and protect water quality for subsistence, cultural, and spiritual benefits to LLBO
members
4) Assess NPS pollution; data generated will be used to evaluate the quality of the water bodies
5) Track quality and quantity trends, identifying impacted waters and measuring success or failure
of water management programs and plans and/or land use alterations through surface water
monitoring
6) Assess trophic state indices and eutrophication (TP, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi disk transparency)
in LLBO lakes
7) Identify environmental status by examining data to determine condition of individual water
bodies in terms of their ability to meet established standards and criteria
8) Sample macroinvertebrates for Index of Biological Integrity assessments on selected rivers and
streams
Monitoring data collected by the LLBO is stored in Microsoft Excel databases and uploaded to the WQX
Portal (previously STORET) as provided by training through USEPA. LLBO DRM staff are responsible for
data entry into the database and managing the data in accordance with their approved QAPP. Data are
reviewed regularly and provided in an annual report.
Lake Sampling
Lake surveys are conducted monthly between May through October for each parameter at the deepest
point in the lake and a point in the shallow, littoral area. Grab, or integrated samples, are taken in the
epilimnion (dependent on lake depth) and vertical dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and
temperature profiles are also collected. Sampling geographic coordinates are uploaded into a handheld
Garmin GPS for navigation.
The sampling program for lakes includes the following parameters:
Conventional parameters: Dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductance and pH, vertical
profiles, Secchi disk transparency, turbidity, TSS.
Nutrient parameters: TP, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen
Additional water quality parameters: Orthophosphate as P, total volatile solids, total dissolved
solids, low level mercury, sulfate
Pathogens: E. coli
Biological parameters: Chlorophyll-a
Not all parameters are sampled at every lake.
Stream Sampling
The LLBO samples streams or rivers that flow in or out of the selected lakes on a monthly basis from
May through October as weather and safety permit. Selected inlets and outlets of lakes are spot
sampled in the field for dissolved oxygen, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and turbidity,
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
30
and bottles are taken for lab analysis of additional parameters. As funding permits, macroinvertebrate
sampling will be conducted in the future on lake inlets and outlets of the selected lakes that are
accessible, wadeable, and represent lotic conditions. Sampling geographic coordinates are uploaded
into a handheld Garmin GPS for navigation. The LLBO sampling program for rivers and streams includes
the following parameters:
Conventional parameters: Dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, Secchi disk tube
transparency, turbidity, TSS
Nutrient parameters: TP, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen
Additional water quality parameters: Orthophosphate as P, total volatile solids, total dissolved
solids, low level mercury, sulfate
Pathogens: E. coli
Biological parameters: Chlorophyll-a, aquatic macroinvertebrates
Not all parameters are sampled at every monitoring station. Aquatic macroinvertebrates have not yet
been samples but are part of the program and the LLBO intends to add this sampling work in the future.
Data Analysis
Data used in this assessment report have been provided by LLBO as well by the state of Minnesota
EQuIS database (2010-2020), a clearinghouse for state water quality data. These data are discussed by
major watershed (i.e., HUC8 watershed- see Figure 5) in the following subsections.
All data available in the LLBO’s databases are summarized below and include data collected between
1995 and 2019. EQuIS was queried for water quality data between 2010 and 2020 within the LLR.
Monitoring stations with less than 10 samples were excluded. Data reported in EQuIS as LLBO-collected
were also excluded. However, some EQuIS data collected by other organizations duplicates data
provided by LLBO.
Given the size and number of waterbodies in the LLR, this report provides results on the HUC8
watershed scale. Available water quality data for the LLBO pollutants of concern are summarized by
HUC8 watershed. Exceedances of the water quality goals are provided within graphs or denoted by red
text in summary tables. The LLBO will focus future monitoring and management activities in high priority
HUC12 watersheds, as described in the Management Plan.
Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102)
A portion of the LLR is within the Leech Lake Watershed. In the following two subsections, data provided
by LLBO and available in EQuIS are presented for lakes and rivers/streams.
Lakes
In the Leech Lake Watershed, LLBO collected water quality data at 31 lake monitoring stations, including
1 lake pipeline crossing monitoring station (Figure 21). Between 2008 and 2019, LLBO typically collected
2 to 6 samples at each monitored lake in a single year, with different lakes sampled in different years
(Table 6). LLBO reported TP and chlorophyll-a data for 27 lake monitoring stations. The Sucker Lake
Pipeline Crossing monitoring station was sampled most frequently, followed by monitoring stations on
Portage Lake (West Cass County) and Kego Lake.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
31
In addition to the data collected by LLBO for lakes, lake monitoring stations identified in EQuIS are
provided in Figure 21 and Table 7 and a summary of EQuIS data for lakes in the Leech Lake Watershed is
provided in Table 8.
Figure 21. Lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102).
Table 6. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed
Name
Maximum Depth
(feet)
a
Years Sampled
Number of Dates with:
Samples Depth Profiles
Aultman Lake 20 2016 1 1
Boxell Lake 27 2012 6 6
Cedar Lake (Cass) 35 2011 5 4
Craig Lake (Deeper Basin) 71 2019 6 6
Craig Lake
(Shallower Basin)
2019 6 6
Gijik Lake 50 2019 5 5
Grass Lake 10 2011 4 4
Haugen Lake -- 2014 3 2
Inguadona Lake 76 2017 3 4
Jack lake 80 2014 3 2
Kego Lake 58 2008, 2012, 2013 16 --
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
32
Name
Maximum Depth
(feet)
a
Years Sampled
Number of Dates with:
Samples Depth Profiles
Little Portage Lake 10 2017 3 3
Lomish Lake 15 2013 6 6
Long Lake 115 2009 3 3
Maple Lake 50 2011 4 5
Mud Lake (Cass) 8 2015 2 2
No Name Lake -- 2016 2 1
Pine Lake 25 2009 4 3
Portage Lake (CW1)(SW of
Lake Winnibigoshish)
55 2012, 2013 9 --
Portage Lake
(West Cass County)
65 2008, 2012, 2013 17 --
Rat Lake 35 2012 6 7
Silver Lake (Cass) 20 2015 4 2
Six Mile Lake 68 2012, 2013 8 1
Spring Lake 17 2019 6 5
Sucker Lake Xing -- 2011-2018 32 21
Tadpole Lake -- 2013 6 6
Three Island Lake 13 2009, 2010 7 6
Town Line Lake 9 2012, 2013 10 --
Wabegon Lake 15 2018 4 4
Welsh Lake 59 2017 4 4
Notes:
The numbers of samples collected (for laboratory analysis) and numbers of depth profiles present the number of unique
monitoring dates. Identical data were not collected on every monitoring date.
a. Feet below surface.
Results for LLBO samples for TP were less than the water quality goal at 19 of 27 stations (three of the
30 stations did not have TP samples) (Figure 22). Haugen Lake is the only lake with a median TP
concentration greater than the TP goal. Haugen Lake did not have chlorophyll-a concentrations greater
than the goal but did have one sample less than the Secchi disk depth goal (Figure 23, Figure 24).
Aultman, Grass, Kego, Lomish, Portage, Six Mile, and Twin lakes had at least one sample greater than
the TP goal.
E. coli data have been collected by LLBO in Boxell, Cedar, Grass, Maple, Rat, Sucker Xing, and Three
Island lakes. Three samples collected at the Sucker Lake Xing exceeded the E. coli goal with
concentrations of 228.2, 250, and 1,011.23 MPN/100 mL.
The EQuIS database was queried and results from 36 monitoring stations on 16 lakes were identified
(Table 8). Thirteen and Twin Lakes had exceedances of the TP goal. Twin Lake was the only site where
both datasets (i.e., LLBO and EQuIS) showed exceedances of the TP goal.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
33
Figure 22. Summary of TP samples at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed.
Figure 23. Summary of (shallow) samples chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake
Watershed.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
34
Figure 24. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed.
Table 7. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed in EQuIS
MPCA ID Name Years Sampled Entity
11-0143-00-201
Boy
2010-2018, 2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0143-00-202 2010-2018, 2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0143-00-205 2010-2018, 2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0120-01-201
Inguadona
(North Bay)
2010 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0120-01-203 2012-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0120-02-201
Inguadona
(South Bay)
2011-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0120-02-202 2010-2012
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0400-00-201 Jack 2010-2011 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0182-00-201 Kego 2012-2013 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0203-03-201
Leech
(Ah-Gwah-Chin)
2011-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0203-02-202
Leech (Kabekona
Bay)
2017-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0203-02-203
2010-2012,
2015-2018
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0203-01-101 Leech 2017-2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
35
11-0203-01-105 (Main Basin) 2017-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0203-01-204 2010-2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0203-01-209 2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0203-01-210 2017-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0203-04-204
Leech
(Shingobee Bay)
2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0142-02-201
Long
(Main Basin)
2010-2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0142-02-202 2010-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0142-02-204 2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0142-04-202
Long
(Southwest Bay)
2011-2020 RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
11-0142-04-203 2010-2015 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0313-00-201 Lower Sucker 2012-2013 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0181-00-201 Maple 2019-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0485-00-201 Moss 2013-2019
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids Surface
Water Assessment Grant
11-0292-00-201 Pine 2010-2011 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0490-00-201
Portage
2010-2019
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, Cass County
Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0204-00-202 2010-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, Cass County
Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0504-00-201
Steamboat
2010-2017
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, Cass County
Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0504-00-202 2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0504-00-203 2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
11-0488-00-201 Thirteen 2012-2013 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0177-00-201 Three Island 2010-2011 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0484-00-201 Twin 2012-2013 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
11-0493-00-201 Welch 2010-2011 Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
Notes
Only lake monitoring stations sampled in 2010 through 2021 for pertinent parameters with at least 10 samples are included.
Table 8. Summary of EQuIS Data for Lakes in the Leech Lake Watershed
Name Years Sampled
Chlorophyll-a Secchi disk depth Total Phosphorus
n
Range
(ug/L) n
Range
(Meter) n
Range
(ug/L)
Lakes (Except Leech Lake)
Boy 2010-2018, 2020 75 2 - 21 59 0.6 - 5.5 75 12 - 42
Inguadona 2010-2020 75 <1 - 15 195 1.8 - 6.6 75 7 - 34
Jack 2010-2011 10 2 - 4 10 4.0 - 5.8 10 7 - 12
Kego 2012-2013 10 2 - 14 7 3.2 - 6.6 10 13 - 22
Long 2010-2020 127 <1 - 7 371 3.4 - 9.4 127 7 - 29
Lower Sucker 2012-2013 10 4 - 28 8 1.2 - 5.3 10 18 - 37
Moss 2013-2014 10 1 - 3 6 0.9 - 4.8 10 9 - 28
Pine 2010-2011 10 3 - 10 10 2.7 - 4.9 10 11 - 23
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
36
Name Years Sampled
Chlorophyll-a Secchi disk depth Total Phosphorus
n
Range
(ug/L) n
Range
(Meter) n
Range
(ug/L)
Portage 2012-2013
a
18 1 - 24 250 1.5 - 4.9 19 12 - 34
Steamboat 2011
a
5 4 - 8 318 1.8 - 6.1 5 13 - 22
Thirteen 2012-2013 10 2 - 11 10 3.0 - 5.8 10 10 - 55
Three Island 2010-2011 10 2 - 12 10 3.4 - >4.0 10 13 - 18
Twin 2012-2013 10 1 - 4 10 0.9 - 2.1 10 12 - 173
Welch 2010-2011 10 5 - 13 10 2.1 - 3.7 10 16 - 27
Leech Lake
Ah-Gwah-Chin 2010-2020 -- -- 42 2.3 - 4.6 -- --
Kabekona Bay 2017-2020 20 1 - 8 54 2.0 - 5.0 20 1 - 20
Main basin 2017-2020
a
59 <1 - 10 307 1.1 - 8.4 60 6 - 26
Shingobee Bay 2010-2020 -- -- 116 1.8 - 6.1 -- --
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Data for multiple lake monitoring stations were aggregated for each lake.
Results were rounded to the nearest microgram per liter (chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus) or nearest one-tenth meter
(Secchi disk depth).
a. Secchi disk depth data are for 2010-2020.
Rivers/Streams
In the Leech Lake Watershed, LLBO has collected water quality data at 26 river/stream monitoring
stations, including three pipe crossing monitoring stations (Figure 25). Between 1995 and 2019, LLBO
sampled several rivers and streams at varying frequencies (Table 9). The Leech River and Boy River were
sampled most frequently, followed by the Steamboat River, Sucker Creek, Portage Creek, Kabekona
River, and Shingobee River.
The EQuIS database was queried and pertinent results from an additional three river/stream monitoring
stations were identified (Figure 25): Leech Lake (S000-180 and S001-925) and Boy River (S007-293). As
previously discussed, data in EQuIS that were reported as collected by LLBO were excluded since LLBO
provided their own data. Several organizations and MPCA collected data at these monitoring stations. In
EQuIS, data reported for these stations identify several organizations that collected samples (Table 10).
However, stations S000-180 and S007-293 are located at LLBO monitoring stations. Some data
presented herein may be reported in both the LLBO-provided dataset and EQuIS database.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
37
Note: Station S000-180 is located at LLBO’s Leech Lake River at Federal Dam monitoring station, and station S007-293 is located at LLBO’s Boy
River at CSAH-8 monitoring station.
Figure 25. River/stream monitoring stations in the Leech Lake Watershed (HUC 07010102).
Table 9. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed
Name Years Sampled
Bear Brook 2012
Boy River at CSAH-8 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Boy River at MN HWY 200 2012
Boy River at Sioux Camp Road 2010-2012
Boy River at Tobique Road 2012
Cedar Creek 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Crooked Creek 2012
Inguadona Lake Inlet 2017
Kabekona River 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Lake May Creek 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Leech River at Federal Dam 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Necktie River at CSAH-45 1995-1997
Nushka Creek Xing 2011-2013, 2015, 2018
Portage Creek 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
38
Name Years Sampled
Portage Creek Xing 2011-2018
Shingobee River 1995-1997, 2006-2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Six Mile Brook 2012
Six Mile Brook Xing 2011-2017
Snake Creek 2012
Spring Lake Outlet 2019
Steamboat River 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Sucker Creek 1995-1997, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Unnamed Creek (at FS2666) 2014
Unnamed flowage (Silver Lk outflow) 2015
Welsh Lake Inlet 2017
Whipholt Creek 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015-2017
Table 10. River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Leech Lake Watershed in EQuIS
MPCA ID Name Years Sampled Entity
S000-180
Leech Lake River
2012-2013 Cass
a
, Otter
b
S001-925 2010-2019 Cass
a
, MPCA
c, d
S007-293 Boy River 2012-2013 Cass
a
, MPCA
e
Notes
Only stream monitoring stations sampled in 2010 through 2021 for pertinent parameters with at least 10 samples are included.
a. Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream Monitoring
b. Headwaters Science Center, Otter Tail Surface Water Assessment Grant
c. Major Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network
d. Upper Mississippi Information Access Initiative
e. Biological Monitoring Program
The LLBO sampled 26 river and stream sites (Table 11). Most of the sites had record of high TP, TSS, and
E. coli concentrations. All samples were well below the goals for nitrogen. The streams that had
exceedances of at least three parameters include Cedar Creek, Kabekona River, Lake May Creek, Nushka
Creek Xing, Portage Creek, Portage Creek Xing, Shingobee River, Six Mile Brook Xing, Sucker Creek, and
Whipholt Creek.
The EQuIS database has three sampling sites (Table 12). Results indicated that one site, Leech Lake
(S001-925), had some exceedances for TP but no sites had multiple parameters in exceedance.
Table 11. Leech Lake Watershed River/Stream Locations Sampled by the LLBO
River/Stream
Sampling Locations
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total Phosphorus Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Bear Brook 5 4 - 40 8 <0.01 - 0.05 8 26 - 73 9 <1 - 55
Boy River at CSAH-8 16 <1 - 190 46 <0.0035 - 0.40 56 5 - 31 47 <1 - 12
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
39
River/Stream
Sampling Locations
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total Phosphorus Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Boy River at MN HWY
200
-- -- 1 <0.03 1 27 1 4
Boy River at Sioux
Camp Road
-- -- 35 <0.03 - 0.033 35 <3 - 230 43 <1 - 10
Boy River at Tobique
Road
-- -- 10 <0.03 10 <3 - 36 10 2 - 10
Cedar Creek 14 1 - 525 24 <0.0057 - 0.06 23 23 - 208 23 <1 - 69
Crooked Creek 5 2 - 201 7 <0.01 - 0.04 7 22 - 47 7 <1 - 8
Inguadona Lake Inlet -- -- 2 <0.0057 2 16 - 18 1 7.2
Kabekona River 16 1 - 299 31 <0.0035 - 0.05 42 5 - 67 31 <1 - 24
Lake May Creek 17 1 - 344 32 <0.0059 - 0.06 32 20 - 204 32 2 - 56
Leech River at Federal
Dam
17 <1 - 63 45 <0.0035 - 0.32 56 2 - 105 46 <1 - 46
Necktie River at
CSAH-45
-- -- -- -- 8 17 - 48 -- --
Nushka Creek Xing 4 <1 - 179 12 <0.01 - 0.20 12 45 - 360 12 3 - 35
Portage Creek 17 3 - 136 35 <0.0035 - 0.31 45 11 - 520 36 <1 - 74
Portage Creek Xing 11 2 - 272 28 <0.0057 - 0.10 28 20 - 242 29 <1 - 60
Shingobee River 16 <1 - 328 30 <0.0057 - 0.08 39 11 - 310 30 <1 - 62
Six Mile Brook Xing 10 <1 - 378 20 <0.0035 - 0.07 20 10 - 254 20 <1 - 58
Six-Mile Brook 6 1 - 29 8 <0.01 - 0.02 7 18 - 104 10 1 - 30
Snake Creek 5 3 - 54 7 <0.01 - 0.05 7 43 - 342 7 3 - 36
Spring Lake Outlet -- -- 6 <0.03 - 0.043 6 18 - 37 7 <1 - 2
Steamboat River 17 <1 - 142 34 <0.0035 - 0.05 45 11 - 130 33 <1 - 8
Sucker Creek 18 <1 - 228 35 <0.0035 - 0.1 46 3 - 150 34 1 - 22
Unnamed Creek (at
FS2666)
-- -- 2 <0.01 2 25 - 34 2 2
Unnamed flowage
(Silver Lk outflow)
-- -- 3 <0.01 3 29 - 100 3 2 - 12
Welsh Lake Inlet -- -- 3 <0.0057 4 26 - 37 4 1 - 3
Whipholt Creek 17 <1 - 184 33 <0.0035 - 0.09 36 8 - 250 33 1 - 36
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Table 12. Leech Lake Watershed Sample Sites from EQuIS Database
EQuIS River/Stream
Sites
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Boy River (S007-293) 15 1 - 10 12 <0.03 - <0.05 12 15 - 25 12 <1 - 5
Leech Lake (S000-
180)
15 1 - 47 10 <0.03 10 20 - 30 10 <1 - 10
Leech Lake (S001-
925)
15 <1 - 38 239 <0.03 - 0.286 185 6 - 56 245 <1 - 9
Notes
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
40
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006)
Lakes
LLBO collected water quality data at 14 lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed (Figure 26).
Between 2009 and 2018, LLBO typically collected two to five samples at each monitored lake in a single
year, with different lakes sampled in different years (Table 13).
EQuIS database was queried and pertinent results from six lake monitoring stations were evaluated
(Figure 26 and Table 14). Four lakes monitoring stations only had Secchi depth data collected through
citizen monitoring: Bowstring, Little Jessie, and two monitoring locations at Natures. Water quality
samples were collected at Little Whitefish and Sand Lake.
Figure 26. Lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
41
Table 13. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed
Name
Maximum Depth
(feet)
a
Years Sampled
Number of
Samples
Number of
Depth Profiles
Dunbar Lake 30 2009 2 2
Little Sand Lake 19 2015 4 1
Little Whitefish Lake 15 2012 6 6
Minni-Car-Car Lake 9 2018 5 5
Natures Lake 8 2008 6 --
Portage Lake (Itasca) 60 2014 2 2
Rice Lake (Itasca) 5 2014 2 1
Round Lake 24 2009 3 3
Rush Island Lake 29 2009, 2010 7 6
Sand Lake 70 2015 5 2
Stone Axe Lake 25 2016 1 1
Taylor Lake 20 2017 4 4
Wilson Lake Basin #1 -- 2018 4 4
Wilson Lake Basin #2 -- 2018 4 4
Notes
The numbers of samples collected (for laboratory analysis) and numbers of depth profiles present the number of unique
monitoring dates. Identical data were not collected on every monitoring date.
a. Feet below surface.
Table 14. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed in EQuIS
MPCA ID Name Years Sampled Entity
31-0813-00-201 Bowstring 2018-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
31-0784-00-202 Little Jessie 2010-2013 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
31-0836-00-202 Little Whitefish 2020 Leech Lake Surface Water
31-0877-00-202
Nature’s
2010-2017 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
31-0877-00-203 2010-2017 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
31-0826-00-202 Sand 2016-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
Notes
Only lake monitoring stations sampled in 2010 through 2021 for pertinent parameters with at least 10 samples are included.
c. RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring Program
The LLBO sampled 14 lake sites in this watershed. Three lakes had median exceedances of the total
phosphorus goal: Dunbar, Natures, and Round lakes. The highest total phosphorus concentrations were
reported for Round Lake (Figure 27). Round Lake also has data showing high concentrations of
chlorophyll-a and both Dunbar and Round lakes have low Secchi disk depth measurements (Figure 28,
Figure 29). Rush Island and Taylor lakes have at least one sample that is higher than the TP goal. E. coli
data have also been collected by LLBO in Little Whitefish and Rush Island lakes. No samples exceeded
the E. coli goal.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
42
The EQuIS database had samples at six lakes with most of the data being Secchi disk depth. Sand Lake
had the most data and is summarized in Table 15; Little Whitefish Lake had five historical sample dates.
Phosphorus concentrations did not exceed the goal in either of these lakes.
Figure 27. Summary of shallow TP at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
43
Figure 28. Summary of shallow chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed.
Figure 29. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed.
Table 15. Summary of EQuIS Water Quality Data for Sand Lake
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
44
Parameter Years Sampled
Number of
Samples
Range of
Results
Unit of
Measure
Field
Secchi disk depth 2010-2020 176 1.5 - 7.9 meter
Laboratory
Chlorophyll-a 2016-2020 22 <1 - 5.78 ug/L
Total phosphorus 2016-2020 22 15 - 24 ug/L
Note: ug/L = microgram per liter.
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Rivers and Streams
LLBO and several entities collected water quality data at river/stream monitoring stations in the Big Fork
Watershed (Figure 30). LLBO collected water quality data at 15 river/stream monitoring stations.
Between 2009 and 2017, LLBO sampled several rivers and streams at a similar frequency as the lakes
(Table 16); however, LLBO sampled more frequently in the following rivers and streams: Bowstring
River, Dunbar Creek, Dunbar River, and Popple River.
EQuIS database was queried and pertinent results from one river/stream monitoring station: S006-212
on the Bowstring River. Several organizations with Surface Water Assessment Grants (SWAGs) and
MPCA collected data at monitoring station S006-212.
Figure 30. River/stream monitoring stations in the Big Fork Watershed (HUC 09030006).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
45
Table 16. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Big Fork Watershed
Name Years Sampled
Bowstring River (channel btwn LS & S) 2015
Bowstring River (LS outflow) 2015
Bowstring River (Rice Lake inflow) 2014
Bowstring River (Rice Lake outflow) 2014, 2015
Bowstring River (Sand Lake inflow) --
Bowstring River at Inger Bridge (CSAH-35) 2009, 2010, 2015
Dunbar Creek 2009, 2010
Dunbar River 2009, 2010
Grouse Creek 2009, 2010
Popple River 2009, 2010
Portage Lake Inflow (Itasca) 2014
Portage Lake Outflow (Itasca) 2014
Stone Axe Lake Outlet 2016
Taylor Lake Inlet 2017
Taylor Lake Outlet 2017
The LLBO sampled 13 river and stream sites (Table 17). Three sites had samples which exceeded three
parameters: Dunbar Creek, Dunbar River, and Popple River. The EQuIS dataset had one sampling site on
the Bowstring River which had exceedances for two parameters (Table 18).
Table 17. Big Fork Watershed Stream Sample Sites by LLBO
LLBO River/Stream
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total
Phosphorus
Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Bowstring River
(channel btwn LS & S)
-- -- 3
<0.01 -
0.02
3 17 - 19 3 <1 - 2
Bowstring River
(LS outflow)
-- -- 4
<0.01 -
0.02
4 <2 - 24 4 <1 - 3
Bowstring River
(Rice Lake inflow)
-- -- 3 <0.01 3 23 - 94 3 3
Bowstring River
(Rice Lake outflow)
-- -- 2
<0.01 -
0.01
2 26 - 28 2 <1 - 2
Bowstring River at Inger
Bridge (CSAH-35)
6 6 - 29 11
<0.01 -
0.01
1
1
2 - 46 11 <1 - 20
Dunbar Creek 8 <1 - 479 6
<0.01 -
0.11
6 32 - 145 6 2 - 85
Dunbar River 8 2 - 472 6
<0.01 -
0.17
6 32 - 121 6 3 - 20
Grouse Creek 7 1 - 35 4
<0.01 -
0.10
4 19 - 41 4 <1 - 33
Popple River 8 <1 - 961 5
<0.01 -
<0.02
5 27 - 91 5 <1 - 24
Portage Lake Inflow -- -- 2
<0.01 -
0.01
1 27 1 3
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
46
LLBO River/Stream
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total
Phosphorus
Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Portage Lake Outflow -- -- 1 0.01 2 14 - 19 2 1
Taylor Lake Inlet -- -- 4
<0.0057 -
0.013
4 41 - 150 4 4 - 43
Taylor Lake Outlet -- -- 1 0.021 1 24 1 4
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Table 18. Big Fork Watershed Sample Sites from EQuIS Database
EQuIS River/Stream
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Bowstring River
(S006-212)
25 3 - 921 12 <0.03 -
<0.05
17 21 - 70 17 1 - 8
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101)
Lakes
LLBO collected water quality data at 34 lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters
Watershed (Figure 31). Between 2009 and 2019, LLBO typically collected two to six samples at each
monitored lake in a single year, with different lakes sampled in different years (Table 19); however, eight
lakes were sampled 10 or more times.
MPCA’s EQuIS database was queried and pertinent results from 31 lake monitoring stations on 23 lakes
were identified (Table 20). Chlorophyll-a and TP concentrations and Secchi disk depths are aggregated
and summarized by lake.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
47
Figure 31. Lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101).
Table 19. LLBO Lake Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
Name
Maximum Depth
(feet)
a
Years Sampled
Number of
Samples
Number of
Depth Profiles
Big Lake (West Bay) 35 2014 1 1
Big Rice Lake 13 2009 3 2
Buck Lake 53 2009, 2010 5 5
Burns Lake 7 2012 4 4
Cass Lake 120 2013, 2014 10 --
Cut Foot Sioux Lake 78 2013, 2014 10 --
Dixon Lake 29 2013 8 5
Flora Lake 16 2016 2 2
Grandpa Lake -- 2014 3 2
Kenogama Lake 5 2012, 2013, 2014 12 6
Kitchi Lake 57 2009, 2013, 2014 19 3
Little Cut Foot Sioux Lake 20 2013, 2014 10 --
Little Lost Lake 24 2013 4 4
Little White Oak Lake -- 2008 4 --
Lost Lake (Beltrami) 30 2009, 2010 7 5
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
48
Name
Maximum Depth
(feet)
a
Years Sampled
Number of
Samples
Number of
Depth Profiles
Lower Pigeon Lake 20 2011, 2013, 2014 14 3
Minisogama Lake 7 2018 5 5
Mission Lake 20 2016 5 3
Moose Lake 71 2018 4 4
Morph Lake -- 2019 5 6
Moss Lake 22 2013, 2014 11 1
Ose Lake -- 2015 3 2
Pigeon Dam Lake 9.5 2011 4 4
Pike Bay 95 2011 2 --
Pimushe Lake 40 2017 3 4
Popple Lake 3 2011 3 3
Silver Lake (Beltrami) 35 2013 5 6
Sioux Lake 30 2019 6 6
Stocking Lake 9 2017 3 3
Sugar Lake 15 2013, 2014 9 --
Swenson Lake 76 2015 4 4
Upper Pigeon Lake 15 2013, 2014 10 1
White Oak 4 2008 6 --
Wilderness Lake 25 2013 2 2
Notes
The numbers of samples collected (for laboratory analysis) and numbers of depth profiles present the number of unique
monitoring dates. Identical data were not collected on every monitoring date.
a. Feet below surface.
Table 20. Lake Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed in EQuIS
MPCA ID Name Years Sampled Entity
04-0038-00-202
Andrusia
2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0038-00-203 2010-2019
RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
04-0049-00-203
Big
2010-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0049-00-204 2014-2020
RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
04-0042-00-201 Buck 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0001-00-201 Burns 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0030-00-210
Cass
2010-2019 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0030-00-211 2010-2011 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0030-00-212 2010-2011 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0030-00-214 2012-2014 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0030-00-215 2013-2014
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant
31-0857-01-202
Cut Foot Sioux
(Main Basin)
2010-2019 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
31-0857-01-203 2013-2014
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
49
MPCA ID Name Years Sampled Entity
31-0921-00-201 Dixon 2010-2016 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
04-0036-00-201 Drewery 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0051-00-201 Flora 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0007-00-203 Kitchi 2013-2020
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
31-0852-00-202
Little Cut Foot
Sioux
2013-2014
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant
11-0505-00-202 Little Wolf 2010-2011
Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream
Monitoring
31-0893-00-202 Lower Pigeon 2013-2014
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant
04-0011-00-101 Moose 2014-2020
RMB Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
04-0032-00-203 Pimushe 2013-2019
Clean Water Legacy Surface Water
Monitoring, RMB Environmental Laboratory
Monitoring Program
04-0014-00-201 Popple 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0005-00-201 Schram 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
04-0039-00-201
Silver (Beltrami
County)
2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
11-0202-00-201
Silver (Cass
County)
2010-2011
Cass County Citizens Lake and Stream
Monitoring
04-0085-00-201 Swenson 2010-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
04-0041-00-201 Ten 2011-2012
Beltrami County High Priority Water Quality
Monitoring
31-0908-00-201 Upper Pigeon 2013-2014
Itasca County Mississippi River Grand Rapids
Surface Water Assessment Grant
04-0079-00-201
Wolf
2011-2020
Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, RMB
Environmental Laboratory Monitoring
Program
04-0079-00-205 2018-2020 Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
Notes - Only lake monitoring stations sampled in 2010 through 2021 for pertinent parameters with at least 10 samples are
included.
The LLBO sampled 34 lakes with 19 having exceedances of the total phosphorus goal (Figure 32). Those
with median samples in exceedance of the water quality goal included: Dixon, Kenogama, Little Cut Foot
Sioux, Lower Pigeon, Pigeon Dam, Pike Bay, Upper Pigeon, White Oak, and Wilderness. Of these, Dixon,
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
50
Kenogama, Little Cut Foot Sioux, Lower Pigeon, Upper Pigeon also had median concentrations of
chlorophyll-a above the goal or median Secchi depths less than the goal (Figure 33, Figure 34). LLBO has
no monitoring station on Lake Winnibigoshish and thus, no laboratory or field data. Prior to 2009,
sampling by Minnesota did occur on Lake Winnibigoshish, however these data are not included in this
assessment.
E. coli data have been collected by LLBO in Buck, Burns, Kenogama, Popple, Mission, Lower Pigeon, and
Pigeon Dam lakes. No samples exceeded the E. coli goal.
The EQuIS database has sample data for 22 lakes. The total phosphorus goal was exceeded at seven:
Andrusia, Burns, Little Cut Foot Sioux, Lower Pigeon, Moose, Pimushe, and Upper Pigeon (Table 21).
Both datasets indicated an exceedance in Little Cut Foot Sioux, Lower Pigeon, and Upper Pigeon. There
are no samples for Lake Winnibigoshish in the EQuIS database after 2009.
Figure 32. Summary of (shallow) total phosphorus at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi
Headwaters Watershed.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
51
Figure 33. Summary of (shallow) chlorophyll-a at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi
Headwaters Watershed.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
52
Figure 34. Summary of Secchi disk depth at LLBO lake monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters
Watershed.
Table 21. Summary of EQuIS Chlorophyll-a, Secchi Disk Depth, and Total Phosphorus Data for Lakes in the
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
Name
Years
Sampled
Chlorophyll-a Secchi Disk Depth Total Phosphorus
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(Meter)
n
Range
(ug/L)
Andrusia 2010-2019
a
49 1 – 13 174 1.4 - 5.8 49 13 - 188
Big 2014-2020
a
32 2 – 9 194 1.7 - 7.6 32 7 - 29
Buck 2011-2012 10 2 – 7 10 1.2 - 4.9 10 9 - 22
Burns 2011-2012 10 5 – 20 10 0.6 - >1.8 10 32 - 121
Cass 2013-2014
a
10 2 – 9 190 1.5-5.9 10 12 - 22
Cut Foot Sioux 2013-2014
a
10 4 – 18 151 1.3 - 6.1 10 18 - 47
Dixon 2010-2016 -- -- 43 0.8 - 3.7 -- --
Drewery 2011-2012 10 1 – 6 10 >0.9 - >1.2 10 11 - 22
Flora 2011-2012 10 4 – 6 10 >0.9 - >1.8 10 18 - 27
Kitchi 2013-2020 41 2 – 53 41 0.9 - 4.0 42 13 - 50
Little Cut Foot Sioux 2013-2014 10 3 – 30 9 0.7 - 2.6 10 31 - 120
Little Wolf 2010-2011 10 3 – 61 10 0.9 - >4.9 10 15 - 59
Lower Pigeon 2013-2014 10 3 – 56 10 0.8 - 5.5 10 21 - 114
Moose 2014-2020 28 1 – 7 17 1.8 - 5.2 28 10 - 51
Pimushe 2013-2019 39 2 – 29 35 1.5 - 5.1 35 15 - 51
Popple 2011-2012 10 1 – 5 10 >1.2 10 10 - 24
Schram 2011-2012 10 1 – 8 10 >0.9 - >1.5 10 14 - 26
Silver (Beltrami County) 2011-2012 10 1 – 6 10 4.0 - 7.0 10 4 - 20
Silver (Cass County) 2011-2012 10 2 – 11 10 2.1 - 5.2 10 13 - 29
Swenson 2010-2020 47 1 – 8 49 4.9 - 9.8 47 5 - 16
Ten 2011-2012 10 1 – 10 10 >0.9 - >1.2 10 5 - 22
Upper Pigeon 2013-2014 10 2 – 47 10 0.6 - 4.9 10 28 - 139
Wolf 2011-2020 47 1 – 21 102 1.5 - 6.4 47 14 - 42
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Data for multiple lake monitoring stations were aggregated for each lake.
Results were rounded to the nearest microgram per liter (chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus) or nearest one-tenth meter
(Secchi disk depth).
a. Secchi disk dept data are for 2010-2020.
Rivers/Streams
LLBO collected water quality data 38 river/stream monitoring stations, including five river/stream pipe
crossing monitoring stations, within the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (Figure 35, Table 22).
Between 2009 and 2019, LLBO sampled several rivers and streams at a similar frequency as the lakes. Of
these sites, LLBO sampled the Mississippi River, Third River, and Turtle River frequently, and LLBO
sampled the five river/stream pipe crossings most frequently.
EQuIS database was queried and pertinent results from eight river/stream monitoring station were
identified (Figure 35). Several organizations and MPCA collected data at these monitoring stations.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
53
Figure 35. River/stream monitoring stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07010101).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
54
Table 22. LLBO River/Stream Monitoring Stations in the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
Name Years sampled
Ball Club River 2011
Ball Club River Xing 2011-2018
Basswood Creek Xing 2011-2014, 2016-2018
Castle Creek 2009
Cut Foot Sioux Creek 2009
Deer River Substation Xing 2011-2018
Farley Creek 2009
First River 2011
Fishermans Brook 2011
Island Lake Creek 2009, 2018
Kitchi Creek 2011
Lydick Brook 2011
Mississippi Inlet-Cass Lake (Mission Bridge) 2009
Mississippi Outlet-Cass Lake (Knutson Dam) 2009
Mississippi Outlet-Lake Winnie (Winnie Dam) 2009
Mississippi River at Ball Club Xing 2011, 2013-2018
Mississippi River at Forest Road 2171 2013
Morph Lake Outlet 2019
Otter Creek 2013
Pigeon River 2009
Pike Bay Channel 2009
Pike Bay Channel Xing 2011-2018
Pimushe Lake Inlet 2017
Raven Creek 2009
Simpson Creek 2009
Sioux Lake Outlet 2019
Stony Point Brook 2011
Sugar Creek 2009
Third River (at 3rd River Road) 2009, 2013
Third River (at CH33) 2013
Turtle River 2009
Turtle River near Sugar Bush 2013
Turtle River North 2013
Two Mile Creek 2011
Unnamed Creek (at FS2224) 2013
Unnamed flowage (at CH20) 2014
Unnamed flowage (at FS3629) 2014
Unnamed flowage (Ose Lk outflow) 2015
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
55
Of the 38 sites sampled by LLBO, four sites (Ball Club River, Basswood Creek Crossing, Deer River
Substation Crossing, Pike Bay Channel Crossing) had exceedances for three of four parameters. (Table
23). The EQuIS dataset (Table 24) includes summary information for eight sites. The Third River site is
the only one that has exceedances for three parameters. Third River is the only river for which both
datasets show multiple exceedances.
Table 23. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed River/Stream Sample Sites by LLBO
LLBO river/stream
sites
E. coli
Inorganic nitrogen
(nitrate + nitrite)
Total phosphorus Total suspended
solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Ball Club River 5 2 - 137 4 0.02 - 0.05 4 15 - 66 4 2 - 12
Ball Club River Xing 8 1 - 21 28 <0.0035 -
0.31
28 14 - 120 27 <1 - 17
Basswood Creek Xing 9 8 - 285 15 <0.0057 -
0.10
15 26 - 288 15 1 - 39
Castle Creek -- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.20 3 9 - 167 3 4 - 6
Cut Foot Sioux Creek -- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.10 3 37 - 55 3 3 - 5
Deer River Substation
Xing
12 10 - 361 30 <0.0047 -
0.23
30 27 - 690 30 <1 - 30
Farley Creek -- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.10 3 136 - 180 3 3 - 8
First River 5 2 - 121 3 0.05 3 46 - 84 3 2 - 6
Fishermans Brook 5 14 - 102 3 0.05 3 40 - 60 3 2 - 3
Island Lake Creek -- -- 6 <0.0085 -
0.40
6 18 - 441 6 <1 - 9
Kitchi Creek 5 63 - 457 3 0.05 3 51 - 85 3 <2 - 3
Lydick Brook 5 5 - 47 3 0.05 3 50 - 111 3 <1 - 4
Mississippi Inlet-Cass
Lake (Mission Bridge)
-- -- 1 <0.01 2 16 - 36 2 2 - 6
Mississippi Outlet-
Cass Lake (Knutson
Dam)
-- -- 2 <0.01 2 13 - 15 2 1 - 2
Mississippi Outlet-
Lake Winnie (Winnie
Dam)
-- -- 3 <0.01 3 22 - 28 3 1 - 3
Mississippi River at
Ball Club Xing
7 <1 - 44 22 <0.0035 -
0.73
22 9 - 65 22 <1 - 37
Mississippi River at
Forest Road 2171
-- -- 44 <0.1 – 1 44 13 - 56 44 <1 - 7
Morph Lake Outlet -- -- 7 <0.03 -
0.045
7 20 - 64 6 1 - 2
Otter Creek -- -- 2 0.01 - 0.02 2 30 - 73 2 2 - 30
Pigeon River -- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.1 3 24 - 56 3 <1 - 4
Pike Bay Channel -- -- 1 <0.01 1 21 1 2
Pike Bay Channel Xing 15 3 - 222 39 <0.0047 -
0.38
39 7 - 189 39 1 - 39
Pimushe Lake Inlet -- -- 1 0.019 1 24 1 1
Raven Creek -- -- 1 0.1 1 32 1 2
Simpson Creek -- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.10 3 20 - 47 3 <1 - 26
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
56
LLBO river/stream
sites
E. coli
Inorganic nitrogen
(nitrate + nitrite)
Total phosphorus Total suspended
solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Sioux Lake Outlet -- -- 4 <0.03 -
0.048
4 13 - 42 3 1 - 3
Stony Point Brook 2 12 - 57 1 0.05 1 206 1 8
Sugar Creek -- -- 1 0.05 2 128 - 169 2 10 - 12
Third River (at 3rd
River Road)
-- -- 15 <0.01 - <1 15 29 - 82 15 <1 - 19
Third River (at CH33) -- -- 2 <0.01 - 0.06 2 43 - 50 2 2 - 9
Turtle River -- -- 2 <0.01 3 20 - 41 3 2 - 7
Turtle River near
Sugar Bush
-- -- 12 <0.1 - <1 12 11 - 36 12 <1 - 27
Turtle River North -- -- 11 <0.1 - <1 11 19 - 41 11 <1 - 10
Two Mile Creek 5 3 - 602 3 0.05 3 104 - 190 3 <2 - 6
Unnamed Creek (at
FS2224)
-- -- 1 0.05 1 23 1 2
Unnamed flowage (at
CH20)
-- -- 3 <0.01 - 0.01 3 24 - 137 3 <1 - 6
Unnamed flowage (at
FS3629)
-- -- 1 <0.01 1 19 1 1
Unnamed flowage
(Ose Lk outflow)
-- -- 2 <0.01 2 24 - 44 2 <1 - 3
Notes
n is the number of samples
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Table 24. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed River/Stream Sample Sites from EQuIS
EQuIS River/Stream
Sites
E. coli
Inorganic Nitrogen
(Nitrate + Nitrite)
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended
Solids
n
Range
(MPN/100mL)
n
Range
(mg/L)
n
Range
(ug/L)
n
Range
(mg/L)
Deer River (S006-934) -- -- -- -- 5 13 - 17 4 1 - 2
Deer River (S007-620) 15 12 - 613 11 <0.05 -
0.94
11 31 - 70 11 <1 - 6
Mississippi River
(S000-154)
-- -- 8 <0.05 8 18 - 58 8 <1 - 6
Mississippi River
(S002-034)
-- -- 97 <0.03 -
1.16
97 11 - 37 97 <1 - 9
Mississippi River
(S002-283)
15 1 - 194 11 <0.05 -
<1.00
11 12 - 56 11 <1 - 7
North Turtle River
(S003-921)
15 16 - 219 11 <0.05 -
<1.00
11 19 - 41 11 <1 - 10
Third River (S002-
290)
15 1 - 250 10 <0.10 -
<1.00
10 29 - 77 10 <1 - 19
Turtle River (S007-
621)
15 6 - 41 11 <0.05 -
<1.00
11 11 - 36 11 <1 - 27
Notes
n is the number of samples
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
57
Red indicates exceedance of the water quality goal.
Groundwater
Groundwater protection for quantity and quality is considered in the Watershed Restoration and
Protection Strategies (WRAPS) for the Mississippi River Headwaters (MPCA 2018) and the Leech Lake
Watershed (MPCA 2017b). Based on these reports, overall groundwater quality is good. However, a
decline in water levels was noted in both WRAPS reports over the past 20 years from Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) monitoring wells (MPCA 2017b, 2018).
Data Gaps
Due to the high volume of water bodies in the LLR, it is not feasible to sample all of them on a routine
basis. As the LLBO carries out its monitoring strategy through the Section 106 Program, they have been
able to sample six lakes and corresponding inlets and outlets per year. They will continue to carry out
this monitoring and will also rely on data from outside sources such as the MPCA and special studies and
projects with local partners.
The extent of pesticide and chloride contamination is also unknown. Enhanced monitoring for these
parameters is needed to focus activities to address these NPS pollutants. Specifically, chloride
monitoring is needed near Bowstring Lake and Round Lake (Big Fork).
In addition to the need for more water quality data, there is also a need to gather better information
about key pollution sources, such as failing septic systems and culverts in poor condition. Inspections,
windshield surveys, and field data collection will inform these sources. These items will be addressed in
the associated NPS Management Plan.
Water Quality Goal Attainment
The water quality in many of the LLR water bodies is in good to very good condition. Protection of these
waters is of great importance. Some lakes and rivers are exhibiting exceedances of water quality goals
for TP, TSS, and E. coli. Reducing the pollutants and conditions causing these exceedances is also
important. In the NPS Management Plan, the LLBO will provide more information about subwatersheds
for initial focus which will prioritize protection and restoration. In LLBO’s best professional judgement,
some of the exceedances of standards are linked to natural background sources and therefore are less
of a focus. The state of Minnesota has not yet adopted shallow lake standards for this ecoregion which
may also change how shallow lakes are classified.
The following classification is used to sort the LLR water bodies into three categories of water quality
goal attainment:
Impacted – River/stream sites that had at least three pollutants with data in exceedance of the
goal are considered Impacted by NPS pollution. Lakes with phosphorus concentrations higher
than the WQS are also considered impacted.
Threatened – Lakes with total phosphorus less than the goal but having high chlorophyll-a or
low Secchi disk depths also are included in this category. Rivers and streams that had one to two
pollutants with data in exceedance of the goal are considered Threatened by NPS pollution.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
58
Protection – Water bodies (lakes and rivers/streams) without any data that exceeded goals are
identified for Protection activities.
Table 25 and Table summarize the water quality goal attainment status of lakes and rivers/streams,
respectively, in the LLR. Data from both the LLBO and EQuIS datasets were included.
Table 25. Goal Attainment - Lakes
Name Goal Attainment
Leech Lake Watershed
Aultman Lake Impacted
Boxell Lake Threatened
Boy Lake Impacted
Cedar Lake (Cass) Threatened
Craig Lake (Deeper Basin) Threatened
Craig Lake (Shallower Basin) Threatened
Gijik Lake Threatened
Grass Lake Impacted
Haugen Lake Impacted
Inguadona Lake Impacted
Jack Lake Protection
Kego Lake Impacted
Little Portage Lake Threatened
Leech Lake (Kabekona Bay) Protection
Leech Lake (Main Basin) Threatened
Lomish Lake Impacted
Long Lake Protection
Lower Sucker Lake Impacted
Maple Lake Protection
Moss Lake Threatened
Mud Lake (Cass) Threatened
No Name Lake Threatened
Pine Lake Threatened
Portage Lake (SW of Lake Winnibigoshish) Impacted
Portage Lake (West Cass County) Threatened
Rat Lake Protection
Silver Lake (Cass) Protection
Six Mile Lake Impacted
Spring Lake Threatened
Steamboat Lake Threatened
Sucker Lake Xing Impacted
Tadpole Lake Threatened
Thirteen Lake Impacted
Three Island Lake Threatened
Town Line Lake --
Twin Lake Impacted
Wabegon Lake Threatened
Welsh Lake Threatened
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
59
Name Goal Attainment
Big Fork Watershed
Bowstring Lake Impacted
a
Dunbar Lake Impacted
Little Jessie Lake Protection
Little Sand Lake Threatened
Little Whitefish Lake Threatened
Minni-Car-Car Lake Threatened
Natures Lake Impacted
Portage Lake (Itasca) Protection
Rice Lake (Itasca) Protection
Round Lake Impacted
Rush Island Lake Threatened
Sand Lake Threatened
Stone Axe Lake Protection
Taylor Lake Threatened
Wilson Lake Basin #1 Protection
Wilson Lake Basin #2 Protection
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
Lake Andrusia Impacted
Big Lake (West Bay) Threatened
Big Rice Lake Impacted
Buck Lake Impacted
Burns Lake Impacted
Cass Lake Threatened
Cut Foot Sioux Lake Impacted
Dixon Lake Impacted
Drewery Lake Threatened
Flora Lake Threatened
Grandpa Lake Impacted
Kenogama Lake Impacted
Kitchi Lake Impacted
Little Cut Foot Sioux Lake Impacted
Little Lost Lake Threatened
Little White Oak Lake Impacted
Little Wolf Lake Impacted
Lost Lake (Beltrami) Threatened
Lower Pigeon Lake Impacted
Minisogama Lake Threatened
Mission Lake Threatened
Moose Lake Impacted
Morph Lake Threatened
Moss Lake Protection
Ose Lake (outside LLR boundary) Protection
Pigeon Dam Lake Impacted
Pike Bay Impacted
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
60
Name Goal Attainment
Pimushe Lake Impacted
Popple Lake Threatened
Schram Lake Threatened
Silver Lake (Beltrami) Threatened
Silver Lake (Cass County) Threatened
Sioux Lake Impacted
Stocking Lake Threatened
Sugar Lake Impacted
Swenson Lake Protection
Ten Lake Threatened
Upper Pigeon Lake Impacted
White Oak Lake Impacted
Wilderness Lake Impacted
Wolf Lake Impacted
Bowstring Lake does not have monitoring data from the time period used in this report. It has been added to this list as an
Impacted lake based on the best professional judgement of the LLBO staff.
Table 26. Goal Attainment – Rivers and Streams
Name Goal Attainment
Leech Lake Watershed
LLBO river/stream site
Bear Brook Threatened
Boy River at CSAH-8 Threatened
Boy River at MN HWY 200 Protection
Boy River at Sioux Camp Road Threatened
Boy River at Tobique Road Protection
Cedar Creek Impacted
Crooked Creek Threatened
Inguadona Lake Inlet Protection
Kabekona River Impacted
Lake May Creek Impacted
Leech River at Federal Dam Threatened
Necktie River at CSAH-45 Protection
Nushka Creek Xing Impacted
Portage Creek Impacted
Portage Creek Xing Impacted
Shingobee River Impacted
Six Mile Brook Xing Impacted
Six-Mile Brook Threatened
Snake Creek Threatened
Spring Lake Outlet Protection
Steamboat River Threatened
Sucker Creek Impacted
Unnamed Creek (at FS2666) Protection
Unnamed flowage (Silver Lk outflow) Threatened
Welsh Lake Inlet Protection
Whipholt Creek Impacted
EQuIS river/stream site
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
61
Boy River (S007-293) Protection
Leech Lake (S000-180) Protection
Leech Lake (S001-925) Threatened
Big Fork Watershed
LLBO river/stream site
Bowstring River (channel btwn LS & S) Protection
Bowstring River (LS outflow) Protection
Bowstring River (Rice Lake inflow) Threatened
Bowstring River (Rice Lake outflow) Protection
Bowstring River at Inger Bridge (CSAH-35) Threatened
Dunbar Creek Impacted
Dunbar River Impacted
Grouse Creek Threatened
Popple River Impacted
Portage Lake Inflow Protection
Portage Lake Outflow Protection
Taylor Lake Inlet Threatened
Taylor Lake Outlet Protection
EQuIS river/stream site
Bowstring River (S006-212) Threatened
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
LLBO river/stream site
Ball Club River Impacted
Ball Club River Xing Threatened
Basswood Creek Xing Impacted
Castle Creek Threatened
Cut Foot Sioux Creek Threatened
Deer River Substation Xing Impacted
Farley Creek Threatened
First River Threatened
Fishermans Brook Threatened
Island Lake Creek Threatened
Kitchi Creek Threatened
Lydick Brook Threatened
Mississippi Inlet-Cass Lake (Mission Bridge) Protection
Mississippi Outlet-Cass Lake (Knutson Dam) Protection
Mississippi Outlet-Lake Winnie (Winnie Dam) Protection
Mississippi River at Ball Club Xing Threatened
Mississippi River at Forest Road 2171 Threatened
Morph Lake Outlet Threatened
Otter Creek Threatened
Pigeon River Threatened
Pike Bay Channel Protection
Pike Bay Channel Xing Impacted
Pimushe Lake Inlet Protection
Raven Creek Protection
Simpson Creek Threatened
Sioux Lake Outlet Protection
Stony Point Brook Threatened
Sugar Creek Threatened
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
62
Third River (at 3rd River Road) Threatened
Third River (at CH33) Threatened
Turtle River Protection
Turtle River near Sugar Bush Threatened
Turtle River North Threatened
Two Mile Creek Threatened
Unnamed Creek (at FS2224) Protection
Unnamed flowage (at CH20) Threatened
Unnamed flowage (at FS3629) Protection
Unnamed flowage
(Ose Lk outflow)
Protection
EQuIS river/stream site
Deer River (S006-934) Protection
Deer River (S007-620) Threatened
Mississippi River (S000-154) Threatened
Mississippi River (S002-034) Protection
Mississippi River (S002-283) Threatened
North Turtle River (S003-921) Threatened
Third River (S002-290) Impacted
Turtle River (S007-621) Threatened
The State of Minnesota also monitors and assesses waters throughout the state and develops WRAPS
that include the assessment results and recommending implementation strategies. These assessments
have been conducted for the three HUC8 watersheds that are part of the LLR. Representatives from the
LLBO participated in development of these reports calling attention to the natural background
conditions and the importance of wild rice in these watersheds.
Minnesota’s list of impaired waters includes several water bodies partially or wholly within the LLBO
(Table ) based on data available to the MPCA at the time of listing. Aquatic consumption impairments
(i.e., due to mercury) are currently addressed on a statewide scale by the MPCA and are not addressed
in this Assessment Report. Aquatic life impairments (e.g., due to dissolved oxygen, fish bioassessments)
are found in both the Big Fork and Leech Lake watersheds. Bowstring River and Popple River have been
further categorized by the MPCA as impacted due to natural conditions, and the Leech Lake River
impairment is not due to a pollutant.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
63
Table 14. Minnesota's Proposed 2022 List of Impaired Waters within the LLR
Water body name HUC8 watershed Affected designated use Pollutant or stressor
Bowstring River Big Fork Aquatic Life Dissolved oxygen
Popple River Big Fork Aquatic Life Fish bioassessments
Boy Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
INGUADONA (N. BAY) Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
LEECH (KABEKONA BAY) Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
LEECH (MAIN BASIN) Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
LEECH (SHINGOBEE BAY) Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
Leech Lake River Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
Leech Lake River Leech Lake Aquatic Life Dissolved oxygen
Steamboat Leech Lake Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue
Leech Lake Watershed
The Leech Lake Watershed WRAPS noted that this watershed has some of the “most pristine and high-
quality lakes and streams, highly valued for recreational use and noted for their exceptional resource
value” (MPCA 2017b). The report identifies declining water quality in Inguadona Lake, critical areas of
Boy River between the city of Longville and Inguadona Lake, and Leech Lake (as well as adjacent high
value lakes) as priorities. Inguadona Lake is only partially in the LLR.
Big Fork Watershed
The Big Fork Watershed has the smallest amount of land area in the LLR with most of the watershed
north and east of the LLR. The Big Fork Watershed WRAPS report notes “the condition of the lakes and
streams are good to very good, even though there were a few impairments found. The most widespread
impairment found in both lakes and rivers is due to high mercury levels, limiting the human
consumption of fish. The remaining impairments throughout the watershed consisted of low dissolved
oxygen, fish and macroinvertebrate, and nutrient impairments. Many of the aquatic life impairments are
the result of natural conditions within the Big Fork Watershed.” Two lakes within the LLR are identified
as impaired for nutrients/aquatic recreation – Bowstring Lake and Round Lake. There are several stream
segments impaired for aquatic life due to natural background conditions including Popple River and
Bowstring River (on the edge of the LLR boundary) (MPCA 2017a). None of these waters were listed as
high priorities in the WRAPS report.
Mississippi Headwaters Watershed
The Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed WRAPS found that “In general, lakes in the [watershed]
have good water quality, with only 15 of the 122 assessed lakes failing to meet water quality standards”
(MPCA 2018). Most of these lakes are not within the LLR boundaries. Fisherman’s Brook, located wholly
located within the LLR, did not meet aquatic life standards based on fish or macroinvertebrate
communities. Two of the largest lakes located within the LLR, Cass Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, are
noted in the WRAPS as priorities for protection.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
64
Discussion
For each HUC8 watershed in the LLR, a summary of the pollutants of concern (see Section 5), stressors
or causes of NPS pollution (see Section 0), and NPS category focus areas are provided. NPS category
focus areas were selected based on review of available information and best professional judgement. All
pollutants of concern and stressors are applicable across the watershed in the LLR unless specified.
Additional studies are needed to refine this information to a water body or HUC12 watershed scale,
which will be completed as part of future LLBO NPS Program activities.
Recent WRAPS reports conducted for the three HUC8s which are partially in the LLR note the high
quality of many of the water bodies with protection of these waters from NPS pollution as a focus. The
data also indicates that some waterbodies do have samples exceeding water quality goals and as such
may need additional sampling to confirm and better define the status. As noted in Section 5.6, natural
background plays a role in some exceedances, such as Popple and Bowstring rivers in the Big Fork
Watershed.
Leech Lake
Pollutants of concern:
o Phosphorus in lakes and streams
o Sediment in rivers and streams
o E. coli in lakes and streams
Stressors of concern:
o Effects of forestry activities including loss of shading, soil compaction, wetland impacts,
and increased runoff and pollutant loading
o Non-compliant septic systems adjacent to lakes
o Shoreline erosion a result of reservoir management in Leech Lake
o Pipeline crossings
o Wetland loss and forest conversion resulting from development
o Fish passage and hydrologic connectivity resulting from poor culvert placement
NPS category focus areas
o Forestry
o Hydromodification and habitat alteration
o Roads and highways
o Urban areas
Big Fork
Pollutants of concern:
o Phosphorus in lakes and streams
o Sediment in rivers and streams
o E. coli in streams
o Chlorides in Bowstring Lake and Round Lake
o Herbicides near Bowstring Lake and Round Lake
Stressors of concern:
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
65
o Effects of forestry activities including loss of shading, soil compaction, wetland impacts,
and increased runoff and pollutant loading
o Non-compliant septic systems adjacent to lakes
o Wetland loss and forest conversion resulting from development
o Fish passage and hydrologic connectivity resulting from poor culvert placement
o Stormwater runoff from the community of Squaw Lake
NPS category focus areas
o Forestry
o Hydromodification and habitat alteration
o Roads and highways
o Urban areas
Mississippi Headwaters
Pollutants of concern:
o Phosphorus in lakes and streams
o Sediment in rivers and streams
o E. coli in streams
Stressors of concern:
o Effects of forestry activities including loss of shading, soil compaction, wetland impacts,
and increased runoff and pollutant loading
o Non-compliant septic systems adjacent to lakes
o Shoreline erosion a result of reservoir management in Lake Winnibigoshish
o Pipeline crossings
o Wetland loss and forest conversion resulting from development
o Fish passage and hydrologic connectivity resulting from poor culvert placement
o Stormwater runoff from cities of Cass Lake and Bena
o Mississippi River influent stormwater runoff from the City of Bemidji located to the
northwest of the LLR.
NPS category focus areas
o Forestry
o Hydromodification and habitat alteration
o Roads and highways
o Urban areas
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
66
Selection of NPS BMPs
This section discusses the LLBO’s process for selecting BMPs to address the NPS issues and concerns
discussed in this Assessment. It provides an overview of the core participants that will participate in
LLBO’s BMP selection process and the approaches for public participation and governmental
coordination. In addition, this section identifies existing BMPs.
From 2012 to 2021, LLBO participated in the development of the Leech Lake River Comprehensive
Watershed Management Plan and the Mississippi Headwaters Comprehensive Watershed Management
Plan as part of the state of Minnesota’s One Watershed, One Plan approach. Development of these
plans provides guidance for NPS management approaches and can inform BMP selection in the LLR.
Key Partners for BMP Selection
The LLBO intends to lead the effort of BMP selection on the LLR in collaboration with core participants
and partners. The nature of this collaboration may depend on the NPS category, the type of BMP, and
the geographic location targeted for implementation. Key partners include local, state, and federal
agencies that could provide technical assistance and consultation, aid in education and outreach efforts,
implement demonstration projects, or provide financial assistance to promote implementation. Table 27
presents the core participants, the mission of these agencies and organizations, and associated roles in
BMP selection and implementation. The process for BMP selection and the role of core participants is
described in detail below.
Table 27. Partners, Mission, and Associated Role in the LLBO Best Management Practice (BMP) Selection
Process
Partner Mission Role in BMP Selection
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Tribal Council Representing the Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe
Provide funding and oversight,
adopt/pass ordinances and laws,
government relations
General Administrative
Division (Legal,
Communications, Human
Resources)
Providing administrative support for the
LLBO
Partner in BMP selection involving
new or revised ordinances
Reservation Services Division
(Public Works, Engineering,
Well & Septic)
Coordinating construction, facilities
management, and other public services
Partner in BMP selection, where
applicable
Roads & Construction
Division (Roads
Maintenance)
Maintenance and construction of roads
and other infrastructure
Partner in BMP selection,
particularly for roads and highways
activities
Tribal Development
(Information Management)
Capital improvement, infrastructure,
and grant writing services
Partner in BMP selection where
applicable
Division of Resources
Management (DRM;
Environmental, Plants, Land,
Fisheries, Wildlife,
Conservation Enforcement,
Forestry, Cultural Resources)
Protecting and sustainably managing
the resources found on the Reservation
Lead role in BMP selection, siting,
and coordination between programs
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
67
Partner Mission Role in BMP Selection
Health Services
(Environmental Health)
Improving environmental conditions
and the quality of life for Leech Lake
Reservation Band members
Partner in BMP selection,
particularly for septic system
activities
Leech Lake Tribal College Providing access to quality higher
education grounded in Anishinaabe
values
Partner in BMP selection,
particularly for practices related to
nonpoint source education
Local Indian Councils Providing local support and assistance
to community members
Partner in BMP selection,
particularly for practices related to
nonpoint source education
Non-Tribal Partners
Cities and townships (i.e.,
City of Cass Lake)
Local environmental, land, health, and
road management departments serving
communities within the LLR boundaries
Coordinate on septic inventory and
maintenance, partner in BMP
selection as needed
County Soil and Water
Conservation Districts
(SWCDs)
Promote conservation and sustainable
resource management
Technical/financial assistance,
partner in BMP selection as needed
County Health, Highway, and
Land Departments
County-level staff coordinating public
health, infrastructure, and maintenance
activities
Coordinate on septic inventory and
maintenance; partner in BMP
selection as needed
Forest land managers Land managers and timber harvesting
entities on private forest lands
Partner in BMP selection as needed
Lake associations Local organizations protecting and
advocating for water bodies
Partner in BMP selection as needed
Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources
Implementing state soil and water
conservation programs through
statewide partnerships
Partner in BMP selection as needed,
particularly for hydromodification
and habitat alteration NPS concerns
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MN DNR)
Protect and sustainably manage the
resources found on the Reservation
Technical/financial assistance, BMP
education
Minnesota Department of
Health
Protecting, maintaining, and improving
the health of all Minnesotans
Technical/financial assistance
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
Provide safe and effective
transportation infrastructure
Technical assistance, partner in BMP
selection as needed, particularly for
roadside pesticide spraying and
salt/deicer use, culvert projects
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA)
Monitors environmental quality, offers
technical and financial assistance, and
enforces environmental regulations in
Minnesota
Technical/financial assistance
University of Minnesota
Extension
Public education Partner in BMP selection as needed,
particularly for forestry NPS
concerns
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region 5
Administers the Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Management program
Technical/financial assistance,
providing oversight and guidance
Bureau of Indian Affairs Maintain government to government
relationships with Tribes
Technical assistance
Indian Health Service Providing federal health services to
American Indians and Alaskan Natives
Technical assistance
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
68
Partner Mission Role in BMP Selection
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)
Dam and reservoir management Partner in BMP selection as needed,
particularly for hydromodification
and habitat alteration NPS concerns
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS)
Provides assistance to Bands for
development and implementation of
programs that benefit fish and wildlife
resources and their habitat
Technical/financial assistance,
partner in BMP selection as needed,
particularly for fish and wildlife
habitat protection
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Managing national forest lands
(Chippewa National Forest)
Existing MOU
a
Partner in BMP selection as needed,
particularly for forestry activities,
culverts on forestry roads
U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS)
Providing technical and financial
assistance to improve conservation on
managed lands
Technical/financial assistance, BMP
education
Environmental nonprofits
and foundations (i.e., The
Nature Conservancy)
Various conservation efforts and
funding programs provided at national,
state, and local level
Technical/financial assistance
a. An October 14, 2019, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) and the U.S.
Forest Service “provides a framework for cooperation for natural resource management, economic development and
employment, training, and education, maintaining Ojibwe cultural life-ways, and regulatory jurisdiction on National Forest
System and trust lands within the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation and the 1855 Ceded Territory” (LLBO 2019a). This
MOU outlines a process for collaboration between the two entities which focuses maintaining “desired vegetative conditions”.
The LLBO work with the Chippewa National Forest to select and implement BMPs to ensure that seasonal ponds and seasonal
wetlands do not suffer from significant soil compaction associated with timber harvest. They also work to ensure that roads are
allowing hydrologic connectivity via appropriate culvert designs which allow for aquatic organism passage and proper
ecosystem function of connecting wetlands and streams.
Existing BMPs
Within the LLR, BMPs that address NPS categories of concern are already in place in some areas. This
section provides a summary of existing BMPs addressing various NPS concerns. A comprehensive
inventory of existing BMPs within the LLR has not been compiled to date.
Forestry
Approximately 34.2% of land in the LLR is forested. BMPs are applied during forest management
activities to protect water quality and other forest resources. The Forest Management Guidelines have
been prepared by the Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) with the cooperation of the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) and individual Bands. The MFRC includes a representative for
the Tribes appointed by the MIAC.
The MFRC guidelines are applicable to forest roads, timber harvesting, site preparation, pesticide use,
reforestation, timber stand improvement, fire management, forest recreation management, and other
forest-based activities. The guidelines are followed by diverse land managers conducting activities
within the Reservation boundary. The USFS has BMPs that address similar considerations and provide
mitigations and protections that are applicable to the CNF (LLBO undated).
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
69
Hydromodification and Habitat Alteration
The LLBO DRM has developed a Wetland Program Plan (LLBO 2017). This plan noted there is limited
information on wetland health within the LLR. The plan discusses the need for gathering better
information though locating, delineating, identifying, assessing status, and monitoring wetlands,
especially those with critical cultural importance. Along with this data collection, the plan discusses
potential for wetland restorations. Some of the main causes for wetland degradation and loss include
fragmentation, drainage, agricultural runoff, conversion, development, and invasive species. Restoration
efforts are carried out to restore both cultural resources and wetland functional benefits.
Urban Areas
Stormwater
The LLBO has adopted MPCA rules for stormwater pollution resulting from land development. Projects
with a total surface of five acres or greater must have a stormwater control plan. Developments with
one acre or more of impervious surface must also have a stormwater control plan. Additionally, there
are requirements regarding filtration or settling capacity at stormwater outfalls to protect wetlands and
public waters, limits on the percent of impervious surfaces by lot area, and requirements for following
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice standards or other applicable standards for
constructed facilities. The LLBO DRM oversees and permits these projects.
Septic Systems
The LLBO’s DRM has also been working with USEPA Region 5 to inventory and track the maintenance
and compliance of ISTS, or individual sewage treatment (septic) systems, in the LLR. The LLBO has
inspected over 200 lakeshore septic systems and found there are significant compliance issues on many
systems. The LLBO suspects this is also the case of non-Indian-owned lakeshore lots. However, at this
time, the counties have the delegated authority for land management that is not tribally owned and the
ability to inspect those systems; the surrounding counties have informed that LLBO they do not
currently have the resources to take on a comprehensive inventory and inspection of ISTS.
Shoreland Development
The LLBO has adopted shoreland ordinances that are overseen by the DRM. These regulations cover
zoning provisions, land and vegetation alterations, structural sizes, setbacks, roads, and parking areas,
and recreational and vehicle uses. Any building or construction projects and any type of ground
disturbing activities require a Permit. The DRM has carried out shoreline restoration projects with
landowners in the past.
Future BMP Selection
LLBO has developed a list of potential BMP Categories (Table 28) to address sources of NPS pollution.
This list is based on current tribal staff capacity and implementation resulting from existing partnerships
with county Soil and Water Conservation Districts, The Nature Conservancy, and the USFS. The various
departments and programs within the LLBO’s DRM will give input on BMP selection and LLBO will
leverage existing planning efforts and reach out to specific non-tribal entities as needed.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
70
Table 28. Best Management Practice Descriptions and Associated Priorities
BMP Description by NPS Category
Priority
High Medium Low
Forestry
Forest stewardship planning on private land X
Invasive species education for landowners X
Erosion and sediment control - road construction and maintenance X
Riparian zone protection and management for timber harvesting X
Stream and wetland crossings management X
Hydromodification/Habitat Alteration
Inventory and prioritize eroding streambanks and lakeshore X
Review dam management impacts X
Culvert inventory and assessment (fish passage, blockages, sizing) X
Culvert replacement X
Wetland inventory and assessment X
Wetland enhancement X
Roads and Highways
Road deicing chemical/salt usage X
Pesticide use reduction along roads and highways X
Urban Areas
Parking lot and road runoff control X
Vegetative cover on disturbed land X
Education for residents on rain gardens, rain barrels, and drainage
management
X
City of Cass Lake Stormwater BMPs (working with the City to implement) X
Identify and inventory antiquated septic systems X
Identify high risk areas to prioritize septic system replacements X
Septic education for homeowners via pamphlets/folders X
Loans/grants for septic system replacement X
Shoreland restoration on lakes and streams X
Education for riparian and shoreline landowners X
Shoreline easements and acquisitions especially on wild rice lakes X
Preservation of shoreline buffer vegetation during development X
Other
Education and cleaning stations at boat landings X
Removal and restoration of sensitive shoreland X
The LLBO is seeking TAS approval through the Section 319 Program to increase their staff capacity to
more proactively manage the NPS pollution challenges. As previously mentioned, the LLBO participated
in the development of two Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans, which provide guidance for
BMP selection. In addition, regional, state, and federal guidance exists to help select BMPs. Examples
include the MPCA’s Minnesota Stormwater Manual that provides detailed information on various
stormwater-related BMPs and the NRCS’s Minnesota-specific Field Office Technical Guide and the Forest
Service Manual.
Additional input and discussions with tribal departments and programs, and non-tribal area partners will
refine existing goals.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
71
The LLBO will undertake the following process for evaluating and selecting BMPs to address NPS
pollution. The steps include:
Review monitoring data, recent watershed planning work, and other resources and use best
professional judgement to determine which HUC12 watersheds will be areas of initial focus.
Consult with tribal partners regarding prioritization list, key NPS pollutants, relative magnitude
of pollutants in each subwatershed, and opportunities for implementation.
Identify applicable BMPs appropriate for the type and source of NPS pollution, with the
technical assistance and consultation of partners.
Narrow and rank the list of applicable BMPs using evaluation factors of estimated performance
and feasibility.
Identify BMPs that have the potential for collaborative, coordinated implementation with key
partners.
Present BMP options approved by RTC to LLBO members and public for comment.
Pursue funding for approved suite of BMPs with tribal council, tribal member, and public
support.
Existing NPS Control Programs
The LLBO does not currently have a coordinated NPS control program in place. Departments and
programs within the DRM carry out a range of NPS control activities. The development of this
Assessment Report and the associated Management Plan are important steps toward creating an overall
NPS Program and filling this gap.
The LLBO NPS program will enlist the support of internal and external programs, resources, and entities
listed in this section to develop and build its NPS management program. Under this approach, the LLBO
DRM will use the Assessment Report and Management Program Plan as a guide for organizing available
resources to address the NPS challenges identified in this document. The approach involves a
coordinated, cooperative effort led by DRM staff and supported by other tribal and non-tribal resources.
Available Programs for Controlling NPS Pollution
A wide range of local, state, and federal programs exist that could support the LLBO as they address NPS
pollution on the LLR. For some of the funds the LLBO can apply directly, while some opportunities will
require additional partnership with non-tribal governmental units. Entities that have programs and may
provide technical assistance are summarized in Table 27. Additional information on potential
partnerships and opportunities for collaboration are further provided in the Management Plan.
USEPA
CWA Section 106: Section 106 of the CWA authorizes USEPA to provide financial assistance to states,
eligible interstate agencies, and eligible Tribes. USEPA provides this financial assistance in the form of
water pollution control (Section 106) grants. Section 106 grants provide funding to build and sustain
effective water quality programs that ensure the health of our nation’s water bodies.
(https://www.epa.gov/water-pollution-control-section-106-grants/learn-about-water-pollution-control-
section-106-grant)
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
72
CWA Section 319: Under Section 319, states, territories, and Tribes receive grant money to support a
wide variety of activities including training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring
to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. Tribal governments with
approved TAS for 319 can receive a non-competitive grant of $50,000 annually.
(https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories)
CWA Section 319 NPS Competitive CWA Grants: USEPA's National NPS Program solicits applications via a
national competition from §319-eligible Tribes and intertribal consortia to implement on-the-ground
projects to manage NPS pollution. Competitive §319 grants may be used to develop and/or implement
watershed-based plans and other on-the-ground projects that will result in significant steps towards
solving NPS impairments on a watershed-wide basis. Tribal applicants may request up to $100,000 in
federal §319 funds through this competition. (https://www.epa.gov/nps/current-tribal-ss319-grant-
information#:~:text=Competitive%20%C2%A7319%20grants%20may,319%20funds%20through%20this
%20competition.)
CWA Section 104(b)(3) Wetlands Program Development Grants: Wetland Program Development Grants
(WPDGs) provide eligible applicants an opportunity to conduct projects that promote the coordination
and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies
relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. WPDGs
assist state, tribal, local government agencies and interstate/intertribal entities in building programs to
protect, manage and restore wetlands. The 2021 grant round funded projects between $75,000 and
$220,000. (https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetland-program-development-grants-and-epa-wetlands-
grant-coordinators)
CWA Tribal Set-Aside Program, Wastewater Infrastructure: The purpose of the Clean Water Act Indian
Set-Aside Program is to provide funding for wastewater infrastructure to federally recognized tribal
governments and Alaska Native Villages. Funds may be used for planning, design and construction of
wastewater collection and treatment systems. The program is administered by the USEPA in
cooperation with the Indian Health Service. Project components eligible for funding include:
• Project planning, design, and Preliminary Engineering Report
• Infrastructure construction and major sewer rehabilitation
• Wastewater treatment facilities (conventional or alternative)
• Correction of combined sewer overflows
• Collector sewer pipelines
• On-site wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic systems)
• Follow-up and as-built drawings of funded wastewater projects
• Operator training on new infrastructure equipment for first year
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/cwisa_fs_oct-2018.pdf
Environmental Education Grants: Under the Environmental Education Grants Program, USEPA seeks
grant applications from eligible applicants to support environmental education projects that promote
environmental awareness and stewardship and help provide communities with the skills to take
responsible actions to protect the environment. Any local education agency, college or university, state
education or environmental agency, nonprofit organization as described in Section 501(C)(3) of the
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
73
Internal Revenue Code, or noncommercial educational broadcasting entity as defined and licensed by
Federal Communications, may submit an application. This grant program provides financial support for
projects that design, demonstrate, and/or disseminate environmental education practices, methods, or
techniques. In the 2021 request for applications the award range was $50,000 to $100,000.
(https://www.epa.gov/education/grants#:~:text=This%20grant%20program%20provides%20financial,su
pporting%20more%20than%203%2C800%20grants.)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grants
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North American Wetlands Conservation Act: The U.S. Standard
Grants Program is a competitive, matching grants program that supports public-private partnerships
carrying out projects in the United States that further the goals of the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement
of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetland-associated migratory birds.
(https://www.fws.gov/service/north-american-wetlands-conservation-act-nawca-grants-us-standard)
USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grants: Tribal Wildlife Grants are used to provide technical and financial
assistance to Tribes for the development and implementation of programs that benefit fish and wildlife
resources and their habitat. Activities may include but are not limited to planning for wildlife and habitat
conservation, fish and wildlife conservation and management actions, fish and wildlife related
laboratory and field research, natural history studies, habitat mapping, field surveys and population
monitoring, habitat preservation, and public education that is relevant to the project.
(https://fws.gov/nativeamerican/grants.html)
NRCS Grants
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to
agricultural producers and non-industrial forest managers to address natural resource concerns and
deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface
water, increased soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife
habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.
(https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/)
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HRFP): The HFRP helps landowners restore, enhance, and protect
forestland resources on private lands through easements and financial assistance. HRFP aids the
recovery of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, improves plant and
animal biodiversity and enhances carbon sequestration. HFRP provides landowners with 10-year
restoration agreements and 30-year or permanent easements for specific conservation actions. For
acreage owned by an American Indian Tribe, there is an additional enrollment option of a 30-year
contract. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/forests/)
Minnesota Grants
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources – Clean Water Funds: Provides watershed-based
implementation funding through the Clean Water Funds (competitive and non-competitive) to local
governments that have a current state approved and locally adopted Comprehensive Watershed
Management Plan authorized under Minnesota statutes §103B.101, Subd. 14 or §103B.801 and have
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
74
entered into an implementation agreement with other members of the planning partnership. If a local
government within the geographic area of the plan has not adopted the plan, these funds can still be
spent on implementation in that area by another eligible local government.
(https://bwsr.state.mn.us/grants)
Minnesota Department of Agriculture/Region 5 Development Commission – Low interest loans (rate of
3% up to 5 years) will be provided to qualified property owners in some counties to upgrade an existing
non-conforming septic system. Region 5 Development Commission will be the administrator of the
loans.
(http://www.co.cass.mn.us/government/county_directory/environmental_services/septic_systems_info
rmation/low_interest_septic_loans.php)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program: The
Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant Program funds conservation projects that restore, enhance or
protect forests, wetlands, prairies and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota. Funding for this
grant program is provided through the Outdoor Heritage Fund. The MN DNR manages this reimbursable
program to provide competitive matching grants from $5,000 to $400,000 to local, regional, state, and
national nonprofit organizations, including government entities.
(https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/cpl/index.html)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Department of Revenue – Sustainable Forest Incentive
Act (SFIA): Provides annual incentive payments to encourage private landowners to keep wooded areas
undeveloped. An approved woodland management plan is required.
(https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/foreststewardship/plan-writers.html).
(https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/foreststewardship/sfia/index.html)
Minnesota Department of Health: Provides Source Water Protection Grants which are used across the
state to seal unused wells, install alternate emergency power systems, conduct community outreach
and many other source water protection-related activities. Public water suppliers are eligible for
different grants based on their customer base and if they have a source water protection plan.
(https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/swp/grants.html#GrantCategories)
Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR): The LCCMR solicits proposals for
funding from the Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund program on a biennial basis. This funding
opportunity is available to anyone with innovative ideas for environment and natural resources projects
that could provide multiple ecological and other public benefits. Proposals can be submitted according
to the procedures outlined on LCCMR’s website.
(https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/funding_process/process_main.html)
Public Facilities Authority: Provides loans and grants through the Small Community Wastewater
Treatment program to help small unsewered communities with technical assistance and construction
funding to replace non-complying ISTS. (https://mn.gov/deed/pfa/funds-
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
75
programs/smallcommunitywastewatertreatmentprogram.jsp#:~:text=The%20Small%20Community%20
Wastewater%20Treatment,publicly%20owned%2C%20operated%20and%20maintained.)
Existing NPS Pollution Reduction Programs for the Leech Lake Reservation
Existing NPS pollution reduction activities are currently focused on monitoring and data collection. The
LLBO currently receives CWA Section 106 funding to help support its DRM. The LLBO have also received
SWAGs from the MPCA. The LLBO is also working on a Wetlands Program Development Grant from
USEPA.
The LLBO is working with the USEPA to establish an NPS Management Program funded under Section
319 of the CWA. This assessment report and the associated NPS Management Program Plan will help to
fulfill requirements for funding. The funding will be used to implement the Tribe’s NPS Management
Program. Once this program is in place, the LLBO will have the ability to better coordinate these various
ongoing programs to meet the goals of the NPS Management Program.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
76
Conclusions
There is an extensive amount of water bodies and wetlands in the LLR. Through the work of the LLBO,
local, state, and federal partners, some data has been gathered but there is still much to assess. Many of
these waterbodies are in good to pristine condition and strategies that protect these waters will be a
focus of the Management Plan. The NPS pollution issues affecting the LLR, as described in Sections 6 and
7 of this report, include E. coli, nutrients (phosphorous), and sediment. The MPCA’s data indicates a
limited number of lakes and stream reaches qualify as impaired though many are due to natural
background sources. All waterbodies are contaminated with mercury across the state. While chloride
and petrochemicals have not been well documented through monitoring, they are also pollutants of
concern based on observations and land use. LLBO data indicates a mix of conditions (Section 5.6) that
influence goal attainment for waters identified as threatened or impacted, or in need of protection.
The LLR has a significant number of high-quality waters which meet the criteria for their designated
uses, and which should be carefully protected. Water quality protection measures should continue
identification of high-quality waters and associated threats, develop public outreach to raise awareness
around the significance of these resources, and adopt protection activities as needed. Protection
activities may include preservation or expansion of vegetated riparian buffers, setbacks for septic
systems and other activities, and a range of other practices which can address NPS pollution.
The next step is development of the NPS Management Program Plan that details the activities the LLBO
will take with non-tribal partners to protect its valuable water resources from further NPS pollution. The
plan will build from the information contained in this NPS Assessment Report and will ensure that LLBO
waters support a healthy aquatic ecosystem for current and future community use.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
77
References
Buzay, D., R. Pardello, B. Liukkonen, and D. Newman. 2011. Stewardship Guide for Leech Lake Lands.
University of Minnesota Extension, St Paul, MN.
Finn, R. 2022. Personal communication. March 1, 2022.
FitzGerald, M., Z. Gutknecht, and C. Mathisrud. 2021. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed
Comprehensive Plan.
Harper, J. 2022. Personal communications. January 28, 2022.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). Undated. DRAFT Integrated Forest Resource Management Plan for
the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2013. Leech Lake Water Quality Program Clean Water Act Section
106 Monitoring Strategy. USEPA Grant #I97537111-1.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2017. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Wetland Program.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2019. Memorandum of Understanding Between the USDA Forest
Service Chippewa National Forest and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2021. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Surface Water Monitoring
Program. USEPA Grant Number: I-975371101.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2022a. Department of Resource Management. Available online at
https://www.llojibwe.org/drm/index.html.
LLBO (Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe). 2022b. Department of Public Works - Sanitation. Available online at
https://www.llojibwe.org/rs/sanitation.html.
Manson, S., J. Schroeder, D. Van Riper, T. Kugler, and S. Ruggles. 2021. IPUMS National Historical
Geographic Information System: Version 16.0. 2020 Census Data. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.
MCT (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe). 2022. Available online at https://www.mnchippewaTribe.org/.
MN DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2008. Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota. A Wild
Rice Study document submitted to the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources February 15, 2008. Saint Paul, MN. USA
Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas. 2022. Available online at https://mnatlas.org/gis-tool/.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2017a. Big Fork Watershed, Watershed Restoration and
Protection Strategy. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, wq-ws4-37a, St. Paul, Minnesota.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2017b. Leech Lake Watershed, Watershed Restoration and
Protection Strategy. Prepared by RESPEC for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, wq-ws4-31a, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
78
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2018. Mississippi River Headwaters Watershed Restoration
and Protection Strategy. Prepared by RESPEC for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, wq-ws4-50a, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2019. National Land Cover Database (NLCD
2011). Retrieved from: http://www.mrlc.gov.
Blackburn, J. and S. Tracy. 2019. Leech Lake River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.
Prepared for the Leech Lake River Comprehensive Watershed Management Partnership.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Handbook for Developing and Managing Tribal
Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. (EPA 841-B-10-001).
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch –
4503(T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. Types of Nonpoint Source Pollution. Available
online at https://www.epa.gov/nps/types-nonpoint-source-pollution.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
79
Appendix A
Table A1. Rivers, Streams, and Lakes in the Leech Lake Reservation Portion of the Leech Lake Watershed
Rivers/Streams
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name River Name
River/Stream Miles
Within LLR
70101020407 Boy Lake
Boy River
Unnamed
0.01
2.97
70101020408 Boy River
Boy River
Unnamed
1.99
3.14
70101020502 Crooked Lake
Crooked Creek
Unnamed
1.74
10.74
70101020601 Drumbeater Lake-Leech River
Drumbeater Creek
Leech Lake River
Unnamed
1.66
6.66
6.12
70101020403 Inguadona Lake-Boy River
Boy River
Unnamed
0.02
3.29
70101020501 Kabekona Bay Unnamed 1.43
70101020204 Kabekona River Unnamed 2.04
70101020507 Leech Lake
Crooked Creek
Leech Lake River
Nolan Creek
Portage Creek
Shingobee River
Sucker Creek
Unnamed
Whipholt Creek
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
41.67
3.41
70101020604 Leech River
Leech Lake River
Peggy Brook
Sixmile Brook
Snake Creek
Unnamed
7.60
0.63
2.81
1.63
2.71
70101020404 Long Lake-Boy River
Boy River
Unnamed
5.32
2.21
70101020506 Portage Creek
Portage Creek
Unnamed
2.85
7.22
70101020602 Sixmile Brook
Sixmile Brook
Unnamed
7.18
11.52
70101020105 Steamboat River
Necktie River
Steamboat River
Unnamed
0.18
6.39
17.15
70101020504 Sucker Creek
Sucker Creek
Unnamed
3.90
22.91
70101020505 Urem Bay
Nolan Creek
Unnamed
4.16
1.98
70101020305 Woman Lake Unnamed 0.08
Lakes
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name Lake Name
Lake Acres
Within LLR
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
80
70101020407 Boy Lake
Boy
County
Crown
Lomish
Portage
Rabbit
Town Line
Unnamed
3,133.47
14.02
8.74
305.15
137.19
30.82
697.67
89.41
70101020408 Boy River
Leech
Unnamed
5.45
0.11
70101020502 Crooked Lake
Camp
Crooked
Experiment
Faherty
Hessie
Little Moss
Little Twin
Thirteen
Twin
Unnamed
Welch
32.46
581.83
13.68
19.79
36.17
83.26
111.90
554.52
168.76
7.26
196.06
70101020601 Drumbeater Lake-Leech River
Drumbeater
Unnamed
398.03
10.38
70101020403 Inguadona Lake-Boy River
Bullhead
Cedar
Ford
Gijik
Inguadona (N. Bay)
Unnamed
37.90
8.54
8.30
86.05
9.83
4.25
70101020501 Kabekona Bay
Leech (Kabekona Bay)
Unnamed
484.23
2.71
70101020204 Kabekona River
Leech (Kabekona Bay)
Unnamed
0.09
24.94
70101020507 Leech Lake
Aultman
Blackduck
Blot
Bobolink
Camp
Cedar
Conklin
Current
Deep
Emery
Gooseberry
Gould
Haugen
Haynes
Hole-In-Bog
Horseshoe
Iverson
Jack
23.85
45.20
34.66
40.28
58.47
135.16
20.93
11.48
24.07
6.52
20.85
97.74
41.23
33.06
75.96
127.36
74.52
141.97
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
81
Lauer
Leech
Leech (Shingobee Bay)
Life Raft
Lost
Mad Dog
Mud
Pine
Pollywog
Rat
Rice
Shell
Spearns
Three Island
Unnamed
Wabegon
Wawa
21.21
97,779.84
231.27
42.43
25.06
23.85
180.34
260.50
17.78
87.30
92.06
16.35
23.84
287.90
918.01
42.49
72.45
70101020604 Leech River
Mud
Unnamed
1,065.01
14.56
70101020404 Long Lake-Boy River
Boy
Football
Johnson
Kego
Long
Long (Main Basin)
Long (North of Main)
Long (South of Main)
Long (South West Bay)
Lundeen
Maple
Tadpole
Unnamed
0.03
13.76
10.54
121.39
1,007.41
674.05
22.41
25.66
285.28
74.22
76.36
18.18
135.07
70101020303 Man Lake Unnamed 0.47
70101020506 Portage Creek
Little Portage
Portage
Unnamed
68.91
1,538.62
59.35
70101020602 Sixmile Brook
Blacksmith
Chub
Demro
Nushka
Rice
Six Mile
Unnamed
7.62
56.40
7.27
78.24
57.76
1,323.03
71.64
70101020105 Steamboat River
Portage
Spring
Steamboat
Steamboat Bay
Swamp
Unnamed
360.65
45.92
1,607.48
66.63
600.34
218.22
70101020504 Sucker Creek
Foot
Grass
8.97
113.76
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
82
Lower Sucker
Middle Sucker
Tank
Unnamed
Upper Sucker
591.84
286.07
9.64
27.19
112.96
70101020505 Urem Bay
Bag
Big Hanson
Hanson
Little Turtle
Nomad
Spring
Spruce
Tanglewood
Turtle
Unnamed
20.21
17.99
33.87
23.57
15.17
3.17
22.92
9.40
74.83
171.82
70101020305 Woman Lake
Boxell
Craig
Gollum Pond
Hazel
Nellie
Silver
Unnamed
65.82
43.18
4.25
0.52
26.37
121.25
109.36
Note: Unnamed represents the sum of all unnamed waterbodies in its respective HUC 12.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
83
Table A2. Rivers, Streams, and Lakes in the Leech Lake Reservation Portion of the Big Fork Watershed
Rivers/Streams
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name River Name
River/Stream Miles
Within LLR
90300060105 Bowstring Lake
Grouse Creek
Unnamed
0.01
12.21
90300060107 Bowstring River
Big Fork River
Unnamed
0.49
1.66
90300060202 Dunbar River
Dunbar River
Unnamed
6.14
7.80
90300060104 Grouse Creek
Grouse Creek
Unnamed
4.71
1.28
90300060103 Headwaters Bowstring River
Big Fork River
Bowstring River
Jessie Brook
6.19
0.65
0.05
90300060304 Hinken Creek Unnamed 2.96
90300060201 Island Lake-Popple River
Popple River
Unnamed
7.04
1.95
90300060102 Jessie Lake Jessie Brook 0.30
90300060205 Popple River Unnamed 2.12
90300060203 Round Lake
Popple River
Unnamed
0.06
1.94
90300060106 Sand Lake
Big Fork River
Dinner Creek
Unnamed
2.34
3.09
9.23
Lakes
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name Lake Name
Lake Acres
Within LLR
90300060105 Bowstring Lake
Bowstring
Taylor
Unnamed
9,525.12
10.25
2.81
90300060107 Bowstring River
Little Sand
Little Whitefish
Rice
Stone Axe
Unnamed
353.36
151.66
646.82
49.48
3.75
90300060202 Dunbar River
Dunbar
Lower Twin
Unnamed
267.72
21.98
15.68
90300060104 Grouse Creek
Bowstring
Unnamed
0.16
2.45
90300060103 Headwaters Bowstring River Bowstring 0.21
90300060304 Hinken Creek
Ames
Cole
Four Towns
Unnamed
Whitefish
9.95
11.22
49.20
17.35
0.21
90300060201 Island Lake-Popple River
Round
Unnamed
0.40
14.26
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
84
90300060102 Jessie Lake Unnamed 6.32
90300060205 Popple River
Natures
Unnamed
1,752.42
16.71
90300060203 Round Lake
Alice
Landing
Roosevelt
Round
Unnamed
Virgin
40.62
18.81
5.32
2,859.80
40.04
60.54
90300060106 Sand Lake
Bass
Beaver
Bird's Eye
Bowstring
Cedar
Jerry
Minni-Car-Car
Mushgee
Portage
Raspberry
Rush Island
Sand
Unnamed
Wilson
92.75
28.61
80.08
0.02
177.93
5.90
25.81
142.36
714.56
6.41
296.78
3,579.30
70.44
21.91
Note: Unnamed represents the sum of all unnamed waterbodies in its respective HUC 12.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
85
Table A3. Rivers, Streams, and Lakes in the Leech Lake Reservation Portion of the Mississippi Headwaters
Watershed
Rivers/Streams
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name River Name
River/Stream Miles
Within LLR
70101010902 Ball Club Lake
Ball Club River
Fisherman's Brook
Unnamed
2.88
6.64
16.14
70101010505 Big Lake Unnamed 2.69
70101010508 Cass Lake
Mississippi River
Unnamed
0.51
3.01
70101010701 Cass Lake Outlet-Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Unnamed
10.88
4.78
70101010703 Cut Foot Sioux Lake
First River
Simpson Creek
Twomile Creek
Unnamed
7.33
3.34
1.99
12.81
70101010803 Deer River Unnamed 5.21
70101010410 Kitchi Creek Unnamed 12.11
70101010506 Lake Andrusia-Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Unnamed
1.90
1.04
70101010704 Lake Winnibigoshish
Island Lake Creek
Mississippi River
Stony Point Brook
Third River
Unnamed
2.81
0.02
2.01
0.35
13.16
70101010901
Little Winnibigoshish Lake-
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Unnamed
15.86
22.96
70101010409 North Turtle River Unnamed 0.49
70101010702 Pigeon River
Farley Creek
Pigeon River
Unnamed
5.81
5.69
3.06
70101010507 Pike Bay Unnamed 5.60
70101010604 Third River
Third River
Unnamed
3.23
3.87
70101010411 Turtle River Unnamed 14.41
70101010903 White Oak Lake-Mississippi River
Ball Club River
Leech Lake River
Mississippi River
Unnamed
3.13
0.02
13.47
44.40
70101010504 Wolf Lake-Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Unnamed
0.02
4.58
Lakes
HUC12 ID HUC12 Name Lake Name
Lake Acres
Within LLR
70101010902 Ball Club Lake
Ball Club
Little Ball Club
Tuttle
Unnamed
4,335.29
184.52
49.37
51.14
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
86
70101010505 Big Lake
Big
Flora
Jessie
Preacher
Ten
Unnamed
3,597.96
190.57
49.73
17.07
162.63
34.24
70101010508 Cass Lake
Blue Sky
Buck
Bullhead
Cass
Drewery
Little Lost
Lost
Luck
McDonald
Mission
Schram
Silver
Stony Point Pond
Strawberry
Unnamed
Windigo
33.84
360.04
20.75
15,958.08
155.71
45.21
129.61
21.35
43.09
26.71
129.71
131.75
0.75
36.51
64.11
195.05
70101010701 Cass Lake Outlet-Mississippi River
Cass
Lydick
Mark
Minny
Unnamed
Winnibigoshish
0.02
67.92
13.90
7.98
60.04
0.08
70101010703 Cut Foot Sioux Lake
Amik
Cut Foot Sioux
Cut Foot Sioux (East Bay)
Cut Foot Sioux (Main Bay)
Deer
Dry Creek
Egg
Greeley
Little Cut Foot Sioux
Sunken
Tibbett
Two Mile
Unnamed
Winnibigoshish
14.62
2,771.06
395.31
2,375.75
193.01
69.29
100.69
23.10
619.10
45.06
10.21
29.08
104.28
57.41
70101010803 Deer River Unnamed 1.23
70101010410 Kitchi Creek
Burns
Rice
Tower
Unnamed
114.59
34.82
15.12
107.35
70101010506 Lake Andrusia-Mississippi River
Andrusia
Stocking
Swenson
Unnamed
1,595.52
80.69
168.47
28.67
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
87
70101010704 Lake Winnibigoshish
Bog
Goodwin
Harry
Kenogama
Minisogama
Rabbits
Raven
School House
Sugar
Tamarack
Ten
Unnamed
Winnibigoshish
34.86
39.36
10.35
559.72
119.63
126.22
93.80
58.55
1,509.04
54.33
36.51
167.22
56,317.30
70101010901
Little Winnibigoshish Lake-
Mississippi River
Goche
Little Winnibigoshish
Unnamed
5.69
1,001.62
138.18
70101010909 Mississippi River Unnamed 0.24
70101010409 North Turtle River
Little Pimushe
Pimushe
Unnamed
19.54
263.43
16.88
70101010702 Pigeon River
Biauswah
Farley
Hale
Lost
Lower Pigeon
Middle Pigeon
Mosomo
One Loaf
Pigeon Dam
Pigeon Flowage
Simpson
Unnamed
Upper Pigeon
Wart
Wilderness
139.09
36.29
24.71
30.19
313.72
204.70
48.09
13.68
463.84
49.02
34.88
121.32
114.23
11.46
21.94
70101010507 Pike Bay
Moss
Ojibway Pond
Pike Bay
Ten Section
Unnamed
188.05
1.76
4,756.41
28.30
60.11
70101010604 Third River
Dixon
Sioux
Unnamed
261.16
71.07
30.37
70101010411 Turtle River
Big Rice
Cass
Kitchi
Little Rice
Moose
Popple
Pug Hole
Unnamed
642.47
0.24
1,864.98
123.08
317.20
141.43
79.01
21.25
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, 07/2022
Public Notice Draft
88
70101010903 White Oak Lake-Mississippi River
Little White Oak
Unnamed
White Oak
515.51
185.59
654.70
70101010504 Wolf Lake-Mississippi River
Little Wolf
Mud
Reed
Spike
Unnamed
Wolf
524.59
57.80
11.47
15.10
20.38
172.52
Note: Unnamed represents the sum of all unnamed
