Tamarac

National Wildlife Refuge and

Wetlqnd M anag ement D istrict

Gomprehensive Gonseruat¡on Plan Approval

Submitted by:

Goncur:

t-zn-r0

Bichard D. Schultz

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Tamarac

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................1

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................................................1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................3

The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................3

Refuge Purposes .........................................................................................................................................................3

Refuge Vision ..............................................................................................................................................................4

 Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................4

Organization of the Plan ..............................................................................................................................................4

History of Refuge Establishment and Management ...................................................................................................5

Legal Context ..............................................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ..............................................................................................................................6

Internal Agency Scoping .............................................................................................................................................6

 Public Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................6

Refuge Program Reviews ............................................................................................................................................7

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .......................................................................................................7

Tamarac NWR .....................................................................................................................................................7

Wildlife Management ..................................................................................................................................7

Habitat Management ...................................................................................................................................8

Visitor Services .............................................................................................................................................9

Facilities/Roads ..........................................................................................................................................10

Tamarac WMD ..................................................................................................................................................10

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .....................................................................11

Public Comments on the Draft CCP ...........................................................................................................................11

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment ................................................................................................................................12

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................12

Other Units Administered .........................................................................................................................................12

Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................................12

Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................................................12

Areas of Special Designation ............................................................................................................................12

Ecological Context .....................................................................................................................................................13

Historic Land Cover ............................................................................................................................................13

Minnesota Ecological Classification System ....................................................................................................14

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................17

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ............................................................................17

Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..............................................................................18

Landscape Connectivity and Corridors ......................................................................................................................18

Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Tamarac NWR .........................................................................................19

Social and Economic Context ....................................................................................................................................19

Area Economy ....................................................................................................................................................19

 Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................19
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Geology and Glaciation .............................................................................................................................................19

Soils ...........................................................................................................................................................................21

Hydrology and Topology ............................................................................................................................................22

Refuge Habitats ........................................................................................................................................................24

Forest .................................................................................................................................................................24

Wetlands ...........................................................................................................................................................26

Open Water .......................................................................................................................................................26

Grassland ...........................................................................................................................................................26

Shrub ..................................................................................................................................................................26

Developed Land .................................................................................................................................................26

Refuge Wildlife .........................................................................................................................................................26

Birds ...................................................................................................................................................................26

Mammals ...........................................................................................................................................................29

Fish .....................................................................................................................................................................30

Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................................................30

Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................................................30

Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................................31

Refuge Resources of Concern ...........................................................................................................................31

Threats to Resources ................................................................................................................................................31

Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................................31

Earthworms ........................................................................................................................................................33

White-tailed Deer ..............................................................................................................................................33

Zebra Mussel .....................................................................................................................................................33

Other Forest Pests and Pathogens ....................................................................................................................34

 Contaminants ...........................................................................................................................................................34

Climate Change and Tamarac NWR ........................................................................................................................34

Midwest Climate Change Impacts ............................................................................................................................35

Observed Climate Trends ...........................................................................................................................36

Scenarios of Future Climate .......................................................................................................................36

Midwest Key Issues: ..................................................................................................................................36

1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels ................................................................................................36

2. Agricultural Shifts ...........................................................................................................................37

3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ........................................................................37

Administrative Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................38

Visitor Services .........................................................................................................................................................38

Current Management ................................................................................................................................................38

Habitat Management ........................................................................................................................................38

Wetland Management ......................................................................................................................................39

Open Landscape Management ..........................................................................................................................40

The 1000-acre Tract ...................................................................................................................................41

Forest Openings ..........................................................................................................................................42

Croplands ....................................................................................................................................................42

Forest Management ..........................................................................................................................................42

Habitat Restoration ...........................................................................................................................................43

Fish and Wildlife Management and Monitoring ......................................................................................................44

Fish and Wildlife Management .........................................................................................................................44

Fishery Management ..................................................................................................................................44

Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................................44

Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management ................................................................................................44

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................................................44
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Studies and Investigations ................................................................................................................................45

Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................45

Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................................45

Pathways for Ecological Restoration of Native Plant Communities ..........................................................46

Survivability of Spotted Knapweed Biological Agents to a Spring Prescribed Fire ..................................46

Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Ecology ................................................................................................46

Post-fledging Ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota ......................................................................46

Disease Monitoring and Control ................................................................................................................47

West Nile Virus ...................................................................................................................................47

Avian Influenza (H5N1) .......................................................................................................................47

Visitor Facilities .........................................................................................................................................................47

Hunting .............................................................................................................................................................47

Fishing ................................................................................................................................................................47

Wildlife Observation ..........................................................................................................................................50

Wildlife Photography .........................................................................................................................................50

Interpretation .....................................................................................................................................................50

Environmental Education ...................................................................................................................................50

Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................50

Volunteer Contributions .....................................................................................................................................51

Partnerships ..............................................................................................................................................................51

Interagency Coordination ..................................................................................................................................51

Tribal Activities .................................................................................................................................................52

Cooperating Organizations ................................................................................................................................53

Archeology and Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................54

Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................................55

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision .........................................................................56

Tamarac NWR Goals, Objectives and Strategies .....................................................................................................56

Tamarac NWR Goals .................................................................................................................................................57

Goal 1: Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................57

Goal 2: Habitat ...........................................................................................................................................61

Goal 3: People ............................................................................................................................................72

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ..............................................................................................................................82

New and Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................................82

Tamarac NWR Operating Needs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects ...................................................82

Enhance Environmental Education and Interpretive Capacity and Capability ...................................82

Provide Public Safety, Security and Resource Protection Through 

Increased Law Enforcement Capability .......................................................................................83

Develop Strategic Forest Management Program ...............................................................................83

Develop a New Audiovisual Program at Tamarac NWR Visitor Center .............................................83

Update Visitor Center Exhibits ............................................................................................................83

Hydrological Geomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Tamarac NWR Lakes and Rivers ..........................83

Aquatic Resources and Water Quality Investigation .........................................................................84

Climate Change Adaptations for Biodiversity Conservation at Tamarac NWR .................................84

Wetland Management District Operating Needs Projects ...............................................................................84

Enhance Wetland Management District ............................................................................................84

Survey FSA Easements .......................................................................................................................84

Future Staffing Requirements ...................................................................................................................................84
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................................................85

Partnership Opportunities .........................................................................................................................................85

Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................................................85

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................85

Plan Review and Revision .........................................................................................................................................86

Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District ............................................................................................87

Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................................87

District Purposes .......................................................................................................................................................87

District Vision ............................................................................................................................................................87

Planning Background .................................................................................................................................................87

District Environment and Current Management .......................................................................................................87

District Environment ..........................................................................................................................................87

Current Wetland Management District Programs: Where We Are Today .......................................................90

Habitat Restoration and Management ......................................................................................................91

Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................91

Grasslands ..................................................................................................................................................91

Forests ........................................................................................................................................................91

Wetland Management District Public Recreation, Environmental Education, and Interpretation ............92

Wetland Management District Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...........................................................................92

Future Management Direction: Where We Want To Go Tomorrow .................................................................92

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ......................................................................................................................92

Goal 1: Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................92

Goal 2: Habitat ...........................................................................................................................................93

Goal 3: People ............................................................................................................................................96

Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................................................97

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ......................................................................................................99

Appendix B Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................103

Appendix C Species Lists ......................................................................................................................................105

Appendix D Refuge Species of Concern .............................................................................................................131

Appendix E Bibliography and References Cited ...............................................................................................139

Appendix F Compliance Requirements ..............................................................................................................143

Appendix G Collier Agreement .............................................................................................................................149

Appendix H Compatibility Determinations .........................................................................................................155

Appendix I Appropriate Use ................................................................................................................................197

Appendix J List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................211
List of Figures and Tables

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Figure 1 Location of Tamarac NWR ................................................................................................................................2

Figure 2 Areas of Special Designation, Tamarac NWR ................................................................................................13

Figure 3 Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR ............................................................................................................................14

Figure 4 Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Surrounding Landscape Prior to European Settlement ............................15

Figure 5 Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Provinces of Minnesota .........................................................................16

Figure 6 Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the 

Ecological Classification System of Minnesota ..............................................................................................17

Figure 7 Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR ....................................................................................18

Figure 8 Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR .....................................................................................20

Figure 9 Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central Minnesota ..........................23

Figure 10 Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR ................................................................................................................25

Figure 11 Tamarac NWR Habitat ....................................................................................................................................26

Figure 12 Current Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter ......................................................................................48

Figure 13 Current Visitor Services Facilities – Spring and Summer ...............................................................................49

Figure 14 Future Land Cover Goals, Tamarac NWR ........................................................................................................63

Figure 15 Hunting Areas on Tamarac NWR ....................................................................................................................74

Figure 16 Future Visitor Services Facilities –Spring and Summer, Tamarac NWR ........................................................78

Figure 17 Future Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter, Tamarac NWR ..............................................................79

Figure 18 Current Staffing Chart (2010), Tamarac NWR and WMD ...............................................................................85

Figure 19 Location of Tamarac WMD in Relation to Other FWS Lands .........................................................................88

Figure 20 Overview of Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota ...........................................................................89

Table 1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota ........................................................................21

Table 2 Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR ..........................................................................................22

Table 3 Distinct Classes of Soils Within Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity and Texture ......................22

Table 4 Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation ......................27

Table 5 Proposed Changes in Vegetation Cover Types, Tamarac NWR ......................................................................62

Table 6 New Staff Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2025, Tamarac NWR and WMD ...................................85

Table 7 Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Tamarac NWR ...............................................................................86
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Tamarac 

NWR), encompassing nearly 43,000 acres, is located 

in Becker County, 18 miles northeast of Detroit 

Lakes, Minnesota, (pop. 7,400) and 60 miles east of 

Fargo, North Dakota (Figure 1 on page 2). Tamarac NWR lies in the glacial lake country of northwestern Minnesota, in the heart of one of the most 

diverse transition zones in North America. Here 

eastern deciduous hardwoods, northern coniferous 

forests and western tall grass prairie converge, creating a rich assemblage of both plants and animals.

The landscape is characterized by rolling forested hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers, 

marshes and shrub swamps. Sixty percent of the 

refuge is forested with aspen, jack pine, red pine, 

balsam fir, paper birch, red and white oak, sugar 

maple and basswood tree types. Large and small 

wetland complexes comprise about 35 percent of the 

Refuge. Many refuge lakes and rivers contain large 

native wild rice beds that produce abundant food for 

waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. 

Twenty-eight lakes lie within the Refuge and three 

rivers flow through the Refuge, while marshes and 

wooded potholes number several thousand. The 

remaining 5 percent of Tamarac NWR is grassland, 

mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small 

farms. 

Tamarac NWR wildlife is as varied as the habitat 

with more than 258 species of birds and 50 species of 

mammals. Bald Eagles are common with up to 23 

territories producing as many as 33 young in recent 

years. Resident bear and gray wolves are seen periodically.

The Refuge was historically and remains a prized 

hunting, fishing, ricing and maple sugaring area for 

a succession of Native American people. The 

Dakota/Lakota inhabited the area until the 18th 

century when they were displaced by the Annishanabe or “Chippewa.” These native people knew 

the value of the lush beds of manoomin (wild rice), 

stands of sugar maple and abundance of wild foods, 

fish and game the land provided for their people. 

Today, the north half of Tamarac NWR lies within 

the original White Earth Indian Reservation established in 1867.

Between 1890 and 1930, the Refuge’s original 

stands of red and white pine were logged. Catastrophic fires occurred during this time period due 

to extensive slash piles that were left behind after 

the logging. Several dams and ditches were also created by loggers, to transport logs down river to the 

mill. Settlers followed the loggers, but farming 

never achieved much prominence due to the dense 

forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands. 

Though the landscape has been altered by the 

influences of human history and past management, 

the Refuge remains largely intact with a functioning 

ecosystem and retains an untamed character for 

current visitors to enjoy, use and respect. With the 

encroachment of development surrounding the Refuge, the promotion of sound land stewardship practices will be key in remaining connected in the 

landscape.

A bird’s eye view of Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: D. Brand

 

The Refuge is also responsible for a five-county 

region known as the Tamarac Wetland Management District (Tamarac WMD). Established in 1987, 

Tamarac WMD stretches over 10,600 square miles 

in Beltrami, Cass, Clearwater, Hubbard and Kooch-
Figure 1: Location of Tamarac NWR 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

iching Counties, extending the Refuge’s sphere of 

responsibility to the Canadian border. District activities, including an active Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, complement Refuge goals to ensure a 

landscape perspective for conservation delivery.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tamarac NWR and WMD are administered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The 

Service is the primary federal agency responsible 

for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the 

nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife 

laws, management and protection of migratory bird 

populations, restoration of nationally significant 

fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species 

Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat. The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. 

Today, the system is a network of 547 refuges and 

wetland management districts covering nearly 95 

million acres of public lands and waters. Most of 

these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states 

and several island territories. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat 

for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of 

international treaties for migratory bird conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have 

been established to protect migratory waterfowl 

and their migratory flyways.

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species. Among the 

most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in 

Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly 

endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida 

Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most 

endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique 

recreational and educational opportunities for people. When human activities are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places 

where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, 

wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental 

education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 

million people visited national wildlife refuges in 

2004.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and purposes of the individual refuges are carried 

out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations 

that is strategically distributed and carefully 

managed to meet important life history needs of 

these species across their ranges.

 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are 

unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in 

existing protection efforts. 

 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation). 

 Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Refuge Purposes

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938...

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive 

Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938.

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Refuge Vision

The planning team considered the past vision 

statements and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statement as the desired future state 

for the Refuge:

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is treasured as an ecologically and culturally rich landscape of rolling forested hills interspersed with 

shallow lakes, rivers and marshes that nurtures 

a unique and diverse assemblage of plants and 

animals. Towering red and white pine intermingle with aspens, majestic old growth forests, 

jack pine barrens and tamarack-spruce bogs. In 

the land where food grows on water, bountiful 

wild rice provides for future generations of wildlife and native people. From the vibrant emergence of spring woodland wildflowers to the rich 

colors of autumn to the quiet hush of winter, 

people come to revitalize their spirit and connect with a rich wildlife heritage. Tamarac 

NWR will remain resilient to human influences 

and provide an unbroken landscape of native 

plant communities to support healthy and productive native fish and wildlife populations. 

 Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Tamarac NWR and District for the next 15 

years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the 

Refuge and district also contribute to the overall 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Several legislative mandates within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

have guided the development of this plan. These 

mandates include:

 Wildlife has first priority in the management of 

refuges.

 Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation are priority public uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuge’s purpose or the mission of the refuge system.

 Other uses of refuges will only be allowed when 

determined appropriate and compatible with 

refuge purposes and mission of the refuge system.

This CCP will guide the management of Tamarac 

NWR by:

 Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of the Refuge.

 Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that occur 

in the surrounding area.

 Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management 

actions on and around the refuge. 

A lone canoe. Photo Credit: Heather Lehmann Callaway

 Ensuring the Refuge actions and programs are 

consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

 Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

federal, state, county and tribal plans.

 Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

 Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

Organization of the Plan

The purpose of the CCP is to specify management directions for Tamarac NWR and the Wetland 

Management District over the coming 15 years. 

These management directions will be described in 

detail through two distinct sets of goals, objectives, 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

and strategies; one each for the Refuge and District. 

The Tamarac WMD is managed by the staff of the 

Refuge. For that reason, some of the written material for the Refuge and District is integrated 

throughout the CCP. However, Chapter 6 was created to serve as a separate location for the goals, 

objectives and strategies for the Tamarac WMD.

History of Refuge Establishment and 

Management

The initial land acquisition for Tamarac NWR 

was the result of concern for limited waterfowl 

breeding grounds. During the 1930s, waterfowl populations plummeted due to drought, farming practices and wetland drainage, which reduced the 

amount of lands suitable for breeding, brood rearing 

and staging during migration. In response to these 

concerns, the Bureau of Biological Survey (now the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), began the National 

Waterfowl Restoration Program in June 1934 to 

search for lands suitable for restoration practices 

that would benefit waterfowl habitat needs.

The Refuge area was first recommended to President Roosevelt’s Waterfowl Restoration Committee, of which publisher Thomas Beck was chairman 

and Jay N. Darling and Aldo Leopold, members. 

The committee, in turn, recommended investigation 

by the Bureau of Biological Survey, and studies during the summers of 1934 and 1935 indicated that 

Becker and Mahnomen Counties had the highest 

waterfowl nesting indices in the state of Minnesota. 

The Biological Survey viewed this area as a link in 

the series of migratory waterfowl refuges being 

established in the Mississippi Flyway. The Egg 

Lake region, as this area was known, provided adequate food and dependable water supply, which was 

rare during the Dust Bowl era. A suitable area for 

acquisition was laid out in consultation with wildlife 

officials of the Minnesota Conservation Department 

(now the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources) and local citizens. The proposed refuge 

boundary was readily approved by the Becker 

County Commissioners. Negotiations got under way 

to acquire these lands, which were owned by a variety of entities including private non-tribal individuals, county tax forfeited lands and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. The Collier Agreement of 1935 (Appendix 

G) was an agreement between the Bureau of Biological Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 

establish Tamarac NWR while providing that 

Native Americans retained certain ricing and trapping privileges within the Refuge. Approximately, 

the northern half of the Refuge lies within the original boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which 

was established in 1867. 

Tamarac NWR was established by Executive 

Order No. 7902 on May 31, 1938 by Franklin D. 

Roosevelt to serve as a “breeding ground and sanctuary for migratory birds and other wildlife”. The 

Refuge was originally known as the Tamarac Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, thus emphasizing the 

importance of the area to waterfowl. The name was 

subsequently changed in July 1940 to Tamarac 

National Wildlife Refuge, as was the case with many 

other federal wildlife lands. The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, also known as the Duck 

Stamp, further solidified the Refuge’s purpose. 

Although the Refuge’s original focus was on waterfowl (ducks and geese), other migratory birds (forest passerines and raptors) and year-round resident 

wildlife (wolves and deer) have received an increasing emphasis in Refuge management over the years.

Following establishment in 1938, the north half of 

the Refuge was acquired almost instantly through 

purchases by the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission from willing sellers and of county tax 

forfeited lands. Much land in the south half was 

owned by influential hunting clubs. Their opposition 

to the Refuge delayed complete acquisition in the 

south half until the early 1960s. Land exchanges 

with the State completed acquisition of the present 

boundaries in 1968. 

Early Refuge development was started by a 

Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) camp in the 

1930's and further enhanced in the 1960s by the 

Army Corp of Engineers Job Corps Conservation 

Center. These efforts included the construction of 

dikes, trails, water control structures and a number 

of refuge buildings. Many of these structures and 

buildings are still in use today and the trails are the 

foundation for refuge access.

Legal Context

In addition to the executive order establishing 

the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern administration of Tamarac NWR and WMD. Appendix F 

contains a partial list of the legal mandates that 

guided the preparation of this plan and those that 

pertain to Refuge management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP 

has been written with input and assistance from citizens, universities and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and staff from other federal, state 

and local agencies. The participation of these stakeholders is important, and all of their ideas have been 

valuable in determining the future direction of the 

Refuge. Refuge and Service planning staff are 

grateful to all of those who have contributed time, 

expertise, and ideas throughout the CCP process. 

We appreciate the enthusiasm and commitment 

expressed by many for the lands and living 

resources administered by the Tamarac NWR.

Internal Agency Scoping

The CCP process began in late February 2007 

with a kick-off meeting between Refuge staff and 

regional planners from the Service’s office at Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota. The participants in this “internal scoping” exercise discussed a vision statement, 

goals, existing baseline resource data, planning documents and other pertinent information. In addition, the group identified a preliminary list of issues, 

concerns and opportunities facing the Refuge and 

Tamarac WMD that would need to be addressed in 

the CCP.

A list of required CCP elements (e.g., maps, photos, and GIS data layers) was also developed at this 

meeting and during subsequent e-mail and telephone communications between Refuge staff and 

the Service’s office in the Twin Cities. Concurrently, 

the group studied federal and state mandates plus 

applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans 

for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, 

the group agreed to a process and sequence for 

obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for 

completion of the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan 

was drafted and distributed to participants immediately after the meeting.

 Public Scoping

Public input was encouraged and obtained using 

several methods, including open house events, written comments during a public scoping period and 

personal contacts.

Initial public scoping for the Tamarac NWR and 

WMD CCP began in July 2007 with a series of open 

house events held in Detroit Lakes and at the Refuge Headquarters (Tamarac NWR) and in Bagley, 

Minnesota (WMD). Turn-out was light at all events 

despite widespread notification in area newspapers 

and local television. Comment forms were available 

at the events and made available at the Refuge 

Headquarters and Visitor Center during the following weeks. 

Skiing at Tamarac NWR. Photo credit: D. Mudderman

People interested in making written comments 

had until September 2007 to submit them. Comments could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the 

Tamarac NWR planning website on the Internet. 

The Planning Team received eight written comment 

forms and several e-mail messages during public 

scoping and took numerous pages of notes from 

internal group discussions and conversations with 

individuals representing government agencies, 

NGOs and Refuge users.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Refuge Program Reviews

On April 25-26 and November 14-16, 2006, a Biological Program Review was held to obtain detailed 

input on the issues and opportunities concerning the 

habitat and biological monitoring program at the 

Refuge. Thirty people representing the Minnesota 

DNR, the U.S. Geological Survey – Biological 

Resource Division, universities, NGOs, Refuge staff, 

volunteers and the Tamarac Interpretive Association attended these discussions. On July 17-18, 2006, 

a Visitor Services Review was conducted by the 

Regional Office. Regional Landscape Architect 

Richard Sorenson, Fergus Falls Prairie Wetlands 

Center Visitor Services Specialist Ken Garrahan, 

and Tamarac NWR staff participated in the reveiw. 

This program review was scheduled to coincide with 

the CCP scoping process and to help formulate 

objectives and strategies in the plan.

Summary of Issues, Concerns and 

Opportunities

The following list of issue topics was generated 

by internal Refuge scoping, the public open house 

sessions and program reviews. Each topic will be 

described in more detail in the following chapters of 

this plan.

Tamarac NWR

Wildlife Management

 Waterfowl Focus Shift to Natural Diversity 

with Emphasis on Service Resource Conservation Priority Species

When Tamarac NWR was established in 1938, 

the tail end of the Dirty Thirties, much of the 

land had been cleared, prairies were dry, forests 

were less dense, and lakes were shallower. The 

Refuge’s original master plan emphasized getting water on the land and focusing on the production of Wood Ducks, Ring-necked Ducks, 

Blue-winged Teal, Mallards, and Canada Geese. 

The landscape has changed since the 1930s, 

both in terms of the environment and Service 

policy. By expanding Tamarac NWR’s original 

specific focus on waterfowl to natural diversity 

of wildlife native to Minnesota, with an emphasis on Conservation Priority Species in Region 

3, Tamarac NWR demonstrates a more holistic 

view of wildlife. This view continues to implement the broad mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System to conserve America’s wildlife 

and enhance biodiversity, as well contribute to 

wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional 

scale by trying to assist those species in greatest need of attention. Identifying the direction 

of waterfowl management will dictate some 

habitat management decisions.

 Establish Population Objectives For Eastern 

Gray Wolves, Bald Eagles and Trumpeter 

Swans

Eastern gray wolves are federally listed as 

threatened in Minnesota under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Bald Eagle has been delisted 

from the Endangered Species Act but is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act and revisions (1994). The Trumpeter Swan 

is a Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 

and considered by the state of Minnesota to be 

threatened. The Refuge has a legal responsibility to monitor the status of these species. Additionally, given the history of reintroduction of 

the Trumpeter Swans at Tamarac NWR and 

recovery from the brink of extinct of the Bald 

Eagle, there is tremendous visitor interest in 

these majestic bird species.

 Stocking Fish Where Appropriate and Not in 

Conflict with Refuge Purposes

Tamarac NWR is managed primarily for waterfowl, which means that lake levels are managed 

with the goal of producing aquatic vegetation 

and invertebrates for ducks. There is interest 

in to developing more fishing opportunities by 

stocking fish in Refuge lakes. Some of these 

include lakes where certain fish species did not 

naturally occur. 

 High White-tailed Deer Population is Damaging Refuge Habitats

The recent high Refuge deer population has 

limited conifer regeneration by over browsing. 

Insects, amphibians, mammals and some migratory songbird populations can also be negatively 

impacted. The Refuge needs to establish a sustainable deer population objective that balances 

habitat concerns, hunting opportunities and 

eastern gray wolf population objectives. Deer 

are a major prey species for the resident wolf 

packs. Utilize state and tribal deer hunting 

framework/strategies to achieve this goal

 Managing Invasive Wildlife Species

Earth worms are an invasive species present on 

the Refuge. Carp have not yet entered Refuge 

waters, but are only held in check by a water 

control structure. Zebra mussels have recently 

infested a lake within the Refuge’s watershed. 

The Refuge needs to better understand what 

impacts exotic earth worms are having on habitat and explore ways to ensure that carp, zebra 

mussels, and other invasive species do not infiltrate the Refuge.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

 Managing Beaver to Minimize Infrastructure 

Damage

Beaver are very effective in blocking water 

flows, including through Refuge water control 

infrastructure. Beaver activity increases the 

costs of maintaining Refuge water control 

structures and road culverts. To date, beaver 

control has been primarily addressed by tribal 

recreational trapping, and to a lesser degree, 

removal by contract, permit, and Refuge staff. 

These efforts have been ineffectual in controlling the growth of Refuge beaver populations. 

An expansion of the Refuge’s trapping program 

may help reduce the beaver population, however, fluctuating` fur markets dictate interest 

and other alternatives need exploration. 

 Invertebrate Numbers and Health

Invertebrates are a critical food resource for 

waterfowl, particularly during migration, egg 

laying, and brood rearing. An initial investigative survey on Pine Lake suggested a general 

lack of aquatic invertebrates in the lake. The 

study underscores the need for more information regarding the abundance and diversity of 

Refuge invertebrate populations. Water quality 

monitoring may provide some answers to this 

concern.

Habitat Management

 Manage Water Levels to Promote Wild Rice 

Production, Enhance Tribal Harvest Opportunities and Minimize Downstream Impacts

Refuge waters have a long history of wild rice 

production and use by wildlife, particularly 

waterfowl, and Native American people. The 

basic purpose of water level management has 

been to enhance the area’s natural ability to 

grow wild rice, and the other vegetation and 

associated invertebrates established within the 

aquatic ecosystem. 

The Refuge has added stoplogs in August to 

enhance tribal rice harvesting opportunities in 

the past. This action was thought to have 

benign consequences for all parties involved, 

however the downstream lake shore owners 

complained of lowered water levels on Height of 

Land Lake. The resulting low water caused 

boat launching and docking problems and posed 

safety concerns for boaters and skiers that 

could potentially hit submerged dead head logs, 

now closer to the surface. The water management program needs to address this issue.

Additionally, there has been a request to maximize rice production on a yearly basis. However, recent research indicates that stable water 

levels will, over time, jeopardize the long-term 

viability of a wild rice-dominated lake. Wild rice 

systems require water level fluctuations from 

year to year to insure a sustainable system.

 Water Quality Monitoring Needs

A 2005 lake assessment by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicated that North Tamarac Lake could possibly be listed as an Impaired 

Water due to high levels of phosphorus.

The Refuge needs to develop a comprehensive 

water quality monitoring program to establish a 

baseline for Refuge waters (not just North Tamarac Lake). Work with MPCA to determine the 

parameters, sites, timing, laboratory use, long 

term objectives, etc., for this effort.

 Managing Invasive Plant Species

Exotic and invasive plant species pose a threat 

to the maintenance and restoration of the Refuge’s diverse habitats. Canada thistle, plumeless thistle, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and 

spotted knapweed and several other invasive 

terrestrial plants are known to occur on the 

Refuge. The Refuge currently uses chemical, 

mechanical and biological methods of controlling invasive plant species. 

Although Tamarac NWR believes, from general 

observation, the water bodies of the Refuge are 

fairly clear of aquatic invasive plants, the potential for infestation is high due to the large number of boating visitors.

More invasive plant species, both terrestrial 

and aquatic, are predicted to spread to the area. 

The Refuge needs to establish an invasive species monitoring program. Closer coordination 

with county weed task forces would help with 

the early detection monitoring, preventative 

measures development and removal strategies. Outreach with neighboring lake associations has been requested.

 Forest Management

Forest habitat within the transitional zone was 

once characterized by upland conifer, upland 

deciduous, mixed upland, lowland conifer, mixed 

lowland forest, and lowland deciduous communities. These communities have been altered 

over the past 200 years by logging, agriculture 

and development. This has created grassland 

and forest openings that are costly to maintain 

and do not fully emulate a natural system of 

succession.

 Establishing Habitat Corridors With Other 

Conservation Lands

Tamarac NWR is located near federal, state, 

tribal and county lands. Connectivity between 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

the Refuge and other conservation units could 

benefit wildlife and habitats.

Visitor Services

 Inadequate Parking Facilities 

Inadequate parking areas raises safety concerns and does not invite use.

 Hunters with Disabilities Limited by Lack of 

Accessible Facilities

Hunters with disabilities are limited to hunting 

on roads that are already open to vehicles. 

There is interest in the Refuge providing more 

access.

 Tribal and State Hunting Season Conflicts

On the north half of the Refuge, the tribal seasons overlap with state seasons. The season for 

tribal primitive deer hunting overlaps with the 

state small game season, creating quality hunt 

conflicts for tribal members and safety issues 

for small game hunters. The tribal rifle season 

overlaps with state archery season, creating 

quality hunt conflicts for hunters and possible 

safety concerns. Additionally, many non-tribal 

hunters scout out locations for deer hunting 

during the state grouse season and are not 

wearing the required blaze orange, which creates safety concerns. All hunters should be 

aware of the different hunting seasons on the 

Refuge and use safe hunting practices. The 

Refuge needs to insure visitors are informed.

 Native American Cultural Practices

The site of Tamarac NWR has a long, rich history of Native American Indian cultural traditions. The Refuge remains an important site for 

traditional practices of the local Ojibwe tribe. 

Wild rice is harvested by tribal members in concert with the rice abundance. Access to ricing 

lakes is balanced with wildlife management 

activities. Other activities such as plant collection and harvesting leeches have potential conflicts with wildlife management objectives. 

There are opportunities for incorporating traditional Ojibwe practices into the Refuge’s interpretive programs, events and signage.

 Lake Access Regulations are Confusing

The regulations related to lake access are confusing. One Refuge lake is open only for the 

winter, some are open only during the summer, 

some are open both winter and summer. Some 

lakes are open to fishing but not to other uses. 

In some instances, roads provide vehicle access 

to a boat landing, but walking on that road is 

prohibited. This complexity makes it difficult 

for the visiting public to follow the Refuge’s regulations.

 Bank Fishing Access Regulations Are Unclear

Bank fishing restrictions are unclear for the visiting public.

 Expanded Hunting Opportunities

The Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources has asked Tamarac NWR to consider 

opening bear and turkey hunting seasons.

 Additional Public Use Activities Requested

Visitors have expressed interest in uses not currently allowed or expanding some that are limited.

 Leaving ice houses overnight is currently 

prohibited in accordance with federal regulations.

 Motorized vehicles are not allowed on frozen 

lakes. This activity has been requested to 

access ice fishing locations.

 Horseback riding is currently allowed on 

county and township roads, auto tour route 

and Bruce Blvd. Increased spread of invasive 

plants through horseback riding activities on 

the Refuge is a threat to the maintenance and 

restoration of the Refuge’s diverse habitats.

 The North Country National Scenic Trail is a 

footpath proposed to route through the Refuge in the public use area south of County 

Hwy 26. 

 Canoeing and tubing on the Ottertail River is 

currently not allowed through the Refuge due 

to its location within the sanctuary area and 

disturbance to wildlife.

 Fishing with Motorboats

In some cases, motorboat use interferes with 

Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observation. There is concern that boat trailering and 

motorized fishing activity is not compatible with 

other uses along the Refuge’s auto tour route. 

 More Demand for Environmental Education 

Programming

Tamarac NWR’s environmental education program is growing and lacks the facilities and 

staffing to meet demand for environmental education programming. School groups, home 

school groups, colleges and others have 

expressed interest in Refuge-based environmental education opportunities.

 Division of Outreach Workload Among FWS 

Offices

Agassiz NWR, Glacial Ridge NWR, Rydell 

NWR, Hamden Slough NWR, Detroit Lakes 

Wetland Management District and Fergus Falls 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Wetland Management District are all less than a 

2 hour drive of Tamarac NWR. There are many 

benefits to having other stations nearby, however this proximity also makes it confusing for 

Refuge staff to divide up the outreach workload 

and articulate the differing Refuge purposes to 

the public. Because the refuges are so close and 

there is potential for audiences to overlap, there 

are opportunities for outreach efforts to have a 

broader perspective and impact.

Facilities/Roads

 Volunteer/Intern Housing Needed

The Refuge needs to provide housing for volunteers and interns who come to do extended projects. The nearest community with available 

housing is a long drive away from the Refuge, 

making it unfeasible to house people off-site. A 

bunkhouse would be suitable for students; Recreation Vehicle pads would be useful for volunteer Refuge hosts working on the Refuge.

 Potential to Demonstrate Green Facilities

Federal buildings, particularly U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service facilities, can play an important role 

in demonstrating practical and efficient “green” 

building technologies. There are opportunities on 

Tamarac NWR to demonstrate these technologies.

 Speeding Creates Safety, Wildlife Mortality 

and Maintenance Problems

Vehicle speed on all public roads needs to be kept 

to a minimum to improve visitor safety and to 

reduce dust, wildlife mortality, and long-term maintenance costs. Many of these public roads are 

administered by the county and townships. Tamarac NWR needs to continue to work with these local 

governmental agencies responsible for speed limits 

to insure safety and to maintain the character of a 

National Wildlife Refuge.

 ATV and Snowmobile Uses

County ordinances allow the operation of an 

ATV or snowmobile in the right-of-way of 

county roads. Local ATV and snowmobile 

enthusiasts have respected Tamarac’s interest 

in prohibiting this activity, particularly in light 

of the numerous trails available around the Refuge. Additionally, most road right-of-ways 

within the Refuge include either steep or undeveloped ditches which are unsafe to operators, 

thus limiting the potential activity. Tamarac 

NWR plans to coordinate with the County to 

restrict this activity within the boundary of the 

Refuge in order to maintain the character of a 

National Wildlife Refuge, prevent habitat 

destruction and avoid law enforcement issues, 

such as trespass or illegal operation.

Tamarac WMD

 Land Acquisition

Thousands of wetlands dot the District landscape, yet as of 2010, no fee-title lands have 

been acquired or additional easements procured 

within the five-county Wetland Management 

District. Private lands work is a valuable component of habitat restoration and protection, 

however, perpetual protection, whether through 

the Service or other agency programs, assures 

long-term conservation benefits for wildlife and 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

 Partnerships

Partnerships are an essential part of accomplishing the goals of the Tamarac WMD. Partnerships allow the Service to reach beyond 

social and political boundaries to achieve specific objectives and, through involvement of 

individuals and organizations, inspire future 

generations to care about conservation. Developing partnerships requires a commitment of 

people and funding.

 Direction of the WMD

District activities have been primarily 

restricted to private land wetland restoration 

and easement enforcement. Many opportunities 

exist to broaden habitat restoration efforts. 

The role the District can play at addressing the 

needs of migratory birds, Conservations Priority Species and critical habitats across the landscape needs to be determined. A commitment of 

staff and funding is critical to achieving this 

goal. 

 Easement Management Planning and Implementation

Over 35 FmHA inventory property tracts were 

transferred to the District in the mid-1990s. 

Many of these tracts possess undeveloped, outdated, or unfulfilled management plans, but 

could yield significant ecological benefits to the 

landscape. Service resources need to be allocated to develop and carry out up-to-date habitat management plans on these Refuge System 

lands. 

 Invasive Plants

Invasive plants are considered one of the greatest threats to natural ecosystems. Within the 

District, the Service is working with private 

landowners and partners to control existing and 

prevent additional spread of invasive species.

 Education and Outreach

Opportunities exist for the Service to develop 

education and outreach tools for the Tamarac 

WMD that will promote private lands conserva-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

tion and demonstrate wildlife conservation techniques.

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization 

and Implementation of the CCP

The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP 

was prepared by the staff of Tamarac NWR, the 

USFWS Regional Office and a representative of the 

Minnesota DNR. The CCP was published in two 

phases and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA presented a 

range of alternatives for future management and 

identified the preferred alternative. A public review 

period of at least 30 days, which included a public 

meeting, followed the release of the draft plan.

The alternative that was selected has become the 

basis of the Final CCP. This document then, 

becomes the basis for guiding management on the 

Refuge and its management district over the coming 

15-year period. It will guide the development of 

more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas; it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation 

databases. Most importantly, it lays out the general 

approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people 

at the Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD that will 

direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.

Public Comments on the Draft CCP

The Draft CCP/EA was officially released for 

public review on July 7, 2010; the 31-day comment 

period ended on August 6, 2010. Planning information was sent to approximately 220 individuals and 

organizations for review and announced through 

local media outlets, resulting in six comment submissions. During the comment period the Refuge 

hosted an open house to receive public comments on 

the Draft CCP and met with members of the Tamarac Interpretive Association in a separate event. 

Thirteen individuals attended the open house event 

and 16 people attended the TIA discussion. Because 

few changes to the preferred alternative were recommended by Refuge audiences during the public 

review period, only minor changes were made to the 

Final CCP and the EA.

All respondents who expressed an opinion 

endorsed the selection of Alternative 1 and the general approach of the proposed future management 

of the Refuge. We were able to incorporate nearly 

all of the specific changes suggested in the written 

comments. Consequently, we did not produce a formal Response to Comments Appendix for this CCP.

The Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources provided the most extensive comments 

the Refuge received on the CCP. We were able to 

incorporate their suggestions concerning invasive 

species, habitat cover types and land ownership 

maps. However, the CCP planning team has decided 

not to revisit the subject of watercraft use on the 

Otter Tail River through the sanctuary portion of 

the Refuge. In 2009, the DNR completed the Otter 

Tail River Water Trail Master Plan and agreed that 

watercraft use was not appropriate for this stretch 

of the river. Refuge staff have determined that the 

area is vital to waterfowl breeding, brood rearing 

and staging. The stretch of river immediately south 

of the Refuge in the DNR’s Hubbel Pond Wildlife 

Management Area is closed to watercraft use for 

the same reasons. In addition, heavy vegetation and 

low water flows make this stretch nearly impassible 

in many locations.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Introduction

Tamarac NWR encompasses 42,738 acres of land 

and waters in the glacial lake area of northwestern 

Minnesota. The Refuge is located in Becker County, 

18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes, in the heart of 

one of the most diverse ecological transition zones in 

North America, where northern hardwood forests, 

coniferous forest and tall grass prairie converge. 

Between 10,000 and 10,500 years ago, receding glaciers left behind the rolling ridges and deep depressions that became a woodland area complemented 

by lakes, rivers, bogs and marshes and is now Tamarac NWR. The primary ecological drivers influencing the plant and wildlife populations of the Refuge 

are the climate, hydrology, and natural disturbances 

such as fire, disease and wind events. 

Other Units Administered

Wilderness Area

The Tamarac Wilderness Area (Figure 2 on page 

13) was established by law in 1976. The Wilderness 

Area is managed under the provisions of the 1964 

Wilderness Act as a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. That is, it is “an area where 

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled 

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain” (The Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964; 

(16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136)). Staff carries out 

no active management in the Tamarac Wilderness 

Area, but does conduct research in the unit. The 

management strategy for the wilderness area calls 

for passive management with natural succession 

allowed to take its course. In theory, examples of 

almost all forest types on the Refuge would be preserved in this one single complex of wilderness. 

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, we reviewed other 

lands within the legislative boundaries of Tamarac 

NWR for wilderness suitability. No additional lands 

were found suitable for designation as defined by 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. Many of the lands have 

been substantially altered by humans, both before 

and after the Refuge’s establishment, particularly 

from agriculture, timber harvest, roads, and water 

control. Although Tamarac NWR cannot be 

described as pristine, it is largely an intact, health 

and functioning ecosystem that just does not meet 

the strict definition of suitable lands. 

Frog. Photo Credit: Michele Gedgaud

 

Areas of Special Designation

The Research Natural Areas were designated in 

1972 with some general management and protection 

criteria. Research Natural Areas are managed to 

maintain the natural features for which they were 

established and to maintain natural processes; 

therefore, management of the Refuge RNAs is 

through protection against activities which directly 

or indirectly modify ecological processes or alter the 

type or feature which is being preserved. Manipulative practices such as grazing, prescribed burning, 

timber cutting, road construction and the use of 

chemical for plant, insect and disease control are not 

permitted unless such are necessary to maintain the 

type or process for which the RNA was established 

or to prevent the spread of insects and disease. 

There is not a lot of flexibility to manage the wilderness area or RNAs in regard to habitat management; however, there remains a tremendous amount 

of flexibility in the strategies and tactics that can be 
Figure 2: Areas of Special Designation, 

Tamarac NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

used to manage these areas (ie: fire suppression tactics, invasive species control, etc.). 

The area bordered by the Blackbird Auto Tour 

and County Highways 29 and 26 was internally designated as an “Old Growth Area” in the early 1990s. 

The goal was to set aside a significant habitat block 

in addition to the Wilderness Area and RNAs that 

would be allowed to develop and be managed for 

characteristics of old growth forest. Prescribed fire 

was not excluded as a management tool, but large 

scale timber harvests would not be allowed. Silvicultural treatments would be used to create small canopy gaps of up to one acre in size to replicate wind 

throw events.

There is also a significant area designated as 

sanctuary for the benefit of breeding birds 

(Figure 2). The lower one-third of the Refuge supports visitor use activities and the sanctuary occupies the northern two-thirds of the Refuge. The 

sanctuary is closed to the general public from March 

1 to September 1 each year. Approximately the 

northern half of the Refuge lies within the original 

boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which 

was established in 1867. 

Ecological Context

Situated along the backbone of Minnesota, the 

Refuge lies within a mile of the continental divide, 

which separates the Mississippi and Hudson Bay 

watersheds. Lake Itasca, the headwaters of the Mississippi River, lies approximately 25 miles northeast 

of the Refuge. Many Refuge lakes and rivers contain 

large wild rice or “manoomin” beds that produce 

abundant waterfowl food in most years. Upland vegetation is diverse due to the Refuge’s location in the 

transition zone between northern hardwood and 

coniferous forests, which levels off into tallgrass 

prairie, or the Red River Valley, a mere 10 miles 

west of Tamarac NWR (Figure 3 on page 14). 

Hence, many species of plants and animals are at 

the extreme western edge of their range. 

Historic Land Cover

Over thousands of years, the area’s vegetative 

communities have undergone perpetual change, primarily due to climatic changes following glaciation. 

“Pollen core” records and pre-settlement conditions 

and are often the best or only sources of information 

on pristine, baseline conditions and natural environmental and biotic variability. This information is 

sometimes used as a reference of available vegetation at the various time periods. Pollen core records 

provide a long-term context of what the landscape 

was like since the time of the last glaciation, but are 

often limited in availability (Tester 1995). The presettlement vegetation represents a “snap-shot” in 

the time of the era immediately prior to European 

settlement within the area and by itself it does not 

adequately represent changes in vegetative communities and their associated processes over time. 

Pollen records from Itasca State Park, which had 

similar glacial history and climate as the Refuge due 

to its proximity, indicate transition in dominant 

plant community types since the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier (Tester 1995). Immediately following 

this retreat, the land was likely barren and void of 

vegetation; however, within a few years coniferous 

trees such as spruce and pine began to dominate the 

landscape due to the cool and moist environment. 

These forests dominated the landscape until about 

8,000 years ago, when more herbaceous species 

became prevalent. This indicates the presence of a 

savanna with scattered oak trees and large open 

areas of prairie due to warmer and drier conditions. 

Other studies indicate this warmer, drier period was 

characterized by extremely variable climatic conditions from drought to abundant precipitation 

(Almendinger 1988). Several thousand years later, 

the area became cooler and wetter again, giving rise 

to an expansion of the coniferous forest (primarily 

red and white pine) and other deciduous trees back 

into the area with a decrease of prairie. This condi-
Figure 3: Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

tion has persisted until the present, with some 

increase in hardwoods in recent years. Peatlands 

formed approximately 3,000 years ago. These pollen 

core records provide a testament to the range of 

natural variability of vegetation within the larger 

landscape. 

When Euro-American settlers first arrived in 

Minnesota in the mid-1800s, native plant communities occurred in complex patterns across the entire 

landscape. Francis Marschner (1882-1966) mapped 

the pre-European settlement vegetation of Minnesota based on Public Land Survey notes and landscape patterns. His maps provide a reference 

condition of the vegetation in the area of Tamarac 

NWR prior to European settlement. Caution should 

be used when interpreting these historic vegetation 

maps because of the scale and base data that 

Marschner used, but it does provide a good context 

of historic forest types. Based upon Marschner’s 

interpretation for the area that is now Tamarac 

NWR, pre-European settlement cover types were 

comprised of mature stands of red and white pine, 

jack pine barrens, aspen-birch, mixed hardwoods, 

conifer bogs, swamps and numerous lakes (Figure 4 

on page 15). After more than a century of extensive 

settlement and development, the vast majority of 

native plant communities within the state have been 

destroyed or substantially altered. Although forested communities have changed in composition 

across much of northern Minnesota following nearly 

150 years of logging, opportunities exist for sustainable management and conservation of forested communities in large areas. 

Minnesota Ecological Classification System

Recently, the Minnesota DNR established an 

Ecological Classification System (ECS) for land 

classification and ecological mapping for Minnesota 

based upon the national hierarchy of nested units 

(ie: Provinces, Sections, Subsections, Land Type 

Associations, etc.). The vegetation classification is 

hierarchical with units describing broad landscapes 

to local native plant communities (NPC). The Minnesota ECS enables land managers to consider ecological patterns for broad landscapes or for a single 

small local unit, (ie: forest stand or native plant community) which is valuable at multiple planning levels 

and crucial to the long-term ecological integrity and 

stability of these ecosystems. One of the most 

important considerations in the ECS classification is 

the inclusion of ecological processes as an organizing principle (e.g., fire regime, successional or seral 

stage, hydrology, etc.). In order to facilitate habitat 

management and restoration, an assessment of cur-
Figure 4: Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Surrounding Landscape Prior to European 

Settlement

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15
Figure 5: Tamarac NWR in Relation to 

Major Provinces of Minnesota

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

rent conditions including disturbance regimes, successional pathways, rare communities, common 

plant/animals and habitats, invasive species, water 

resources, and soils is imperative. The comparison 

of current conditions to historical and desired future 

conditions is crucial in the development and refinement of management goals, objectives and strategies. 

Provinces are the highest level of classification 

under the Minnesota ECS. These provinces were 

defined using major climate zones, native vegetation 

and biomes such as prairies, deciduous forests and 

boreal forests. The four major provinces of Minnesota include the Laurentian Mixed Forest, Eastern 

Broadleaf Forest, Prairie Parkland and the Tallgrass Aspen Parklands. Tamarac NWR falls primarily in the Laurentian Mixed Forest with the 

exception of a small sliver along the southwestern 

edge of the Refuge, which falls in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Figure 5). Tamarac NWR lies near the 

tallgrass prairie province but is clearly within a forest landscape. 

Sections are units within provinces that are 

defined by origin of glacial deposits, regional elevation, distribution of plants and regional climate. 

Tamarac NWR falls primarily within the Northern 

Drift and Lake Plains section, with a small sliver 

falling in the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa 

Morainal (Figure 6).

Subsections are units within sections that are 

defined using glacial deposition processes, surface 

bedrock formations, local climate, topographic relief 

and the distribution of plants, especially trees. Tamarac NWR falls primarily with the Pine Moraines 

and Outwash Plains subsection, and a small portion 

in the Hardwood Hills subsection (Figure 6 on page 

17). The subsection level will be the primary reference for landscape level planning. The Pine 

Moraines and Outwash Plains subsection should be 

the primary reference for planning as greater than 

97 percent of the Refuge falls within this subsection. 

Considerations for the Hardwood Hills subsection 

should be restricted to the extreme southwestern 

corner of the Refuge, along the west side of Tamarac Lake. 

The Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Subsection is characterized by the mix of end moraines, 

outwash and till plains, abundant lakes and wetlands, and large, heavily forested tracts. Kettle 

lakes and wetlands are common on the outwash 

plains (Minnesota DNR 2006). Before this area was 

settled by people of European descent, forests of 

jack pine mixed with northern pin oak were most 

common on excessively drained portions of broad 

outwash plains, and aspen-birch and pine (mixed red 

and white) forests were the most common on the 

irregularly sloped end moraines. Mixed hardwood 

and pine forests, dominated by a diverse mix of 

northern hardwoods and white pine, were found in 

the most fire-protected areas at the northern and 

eastern edges of the subsection. Fire occurred on a 

10- to 40-year interval within much of the subsection, accounting for the dominance by upland conifers and quaking aspen-birch forests (Frissel 1973); 

however, natural fire protection was provided by 

irregular topography, broad wetlands, and relatively large lakes. Forest management and tourism 

are the predominant land uses within this area 

today; however, agriculture is becoming more common. Near-shore habitat is being lost at a rapid pace 

due to increased development along lakes, thus negatively affecting fish and wildlife.

The Hardwood Hills Subsection is characterized 

by many wetlands, prairie potholes, and kettle lakes 

exist throughout the area. Before settlement by 

people of European descent, vegetation included 

maple-basswood forests interspersed with oak 

savanna, tallgrass prairie, and oak forest, but the 

topography and distribution of lakes and wetlands 

provided a partial barrier to fire that resulted in 

woodlands rather than prairie vegetation. Fire was 

important in oak savanna development, whereas, 
Figure 6: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the Ecological 

Classification System of Minnesota

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

windthrow was common in the sugar maple-basswood forests. Currently much of this subsection is 

farmed and many wetlands have been drained. 

Important areas of forest and prairie exist throughout the subsection, but they are small and fragmented. Development, tourism, and outdoor 

recreation, especially around lakes, are other significant land uses that are impacting wildlife within 

this subsection.

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have 

been published over the last decade that can be used 

to help guide management decisions for refuges. 

Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved 

from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more 

regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented 

perspective (Figure 7 on page 18). 

Several trans-national migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional 

plans relevant to Tamarac NWR are: 

 The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint 

Venture Implementation Plan of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan;

 The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and

 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

All four conservation plans will be integrated 

under the umbrella of the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative. Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating priority 

species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in 

Flight method of computing scores based on independent assessments of global relative abundance, 

breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to 

threats, area importance, and population trend. 

These scores are often used by agencies in developing lists of priority bird species. The Service based 

its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation 

Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

In 2005, Minnesota completed the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), a stra-
Figure 7: Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

tegic plan to better manage populations of “species 

in greatest conservation need” in Minnesota. The 

plan was developed with the support of funding 

from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by 

Congress in 2001. The heart of the strategic plan is 

for a partnership of conservation organizations 

across Minnesota to work together to sustain the 

populations of the identified species. Members of 

the partnership include the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Minnesota, and the University of Minnesota, as well as 

many other agencies and conservation organizations. The plan outlines priority conservation 

actions that might be undertaken by partners. 

Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Priorities

Every species is important; however the number 

of species in need of attention exceeds the resources 

of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes: 

 All federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and proposed and candidate species that 

occur in the Region.

 Migratory bird species derived from Service 

wide and international conservation planning 

efforts. 

 Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic 

plants and animals that represent an abbreviation of the Endangered Species program’s preliminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the 

Region. 

Appendix D lists Regional Resource Conservation Priority species relevant to Tamarac NWR and 

WMD. 

Landscape Connectivity and Corridors

Forests throughout North America are becoming 

increasingly fragmented and in some cases isolated. 

Fragmented and isolated forests tend to take on 

characteristics of habitat islands unless corridors 

and connectivity to larger blocks of forest are maintained. Ultimately, biotic diversity is lost over time 

within these isolated forests. Tamarac NWR’s position near the edge of three major biomes, coupled 

with increasing development by humans, makes it 

extremely susceptible to isolation from the rest of 

the forest province extending into Minnesota from 

northeastern North America. The Ponsford Prairie 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

is an open landscape to the east of the Refuge that 

was once historically a forested area. If development or agriculture were to expand to the northwest 

or southwest from the Ponsford Prairie it could 

threaten Tamarac NWR’s connectivity to the rest of 

the intact forest. 

 If Tamarac NWR intends to maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health, it 

is imperative that connectivity is maintained to the 

forested ecosystems of Minnesota. Refuge staff has 

discussed the possibility of maintaining the connectivity to other natural resource land management 

areas such as Itasca State Park, Chippewa National 

Forest, state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets, 

Smoky Hills), wildlife management areas (Hubbel 

Pond), county and tribal lands through corridors, 

conservation easements and stewardship planning 

with both land management agencies and private 

landowners. 

Other Conservation Lands in the Area of 

Tamarac NWR

The Refuge is an integral part of a significant 

complex of federal, state, tribal and county lands 

administered for natural resources (Figure 8 on 

page 20). The Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources manages the 3,342-acre Hubbel Pond 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which borders 

the Refuge to south, the Greenwater Lake Scientific 

and Natural Area, Itasca State Park, and three 

large state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets and 

Smoky Hills) that lie within 25 miles of the Refuge 

to the east. Many other small state WMAs lie within 

short distance of the Refuge as well. The Becker 

County Natural Resources Department is responsible for managing the county's nearly 75,000 acres of 

tax-forfeited lands, most of which lie within the eastern half of the county. A significant portion of this 

tax-forfeited land lies along the northwestern 

boundary of the Refuge. The northern half of the 

Refuge lie within the White Earth Reservation, 

although most of the land adjacent the Refuge in not 

in tribal ownership. The Chippewa National Forest, 

which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is 

located approximately 45 miles northeast of the Refuge. The Refuge staff work closely with these land 

management agencies as well as the Many Point 

Boy Scout Camp, a private entity, and other private 

citizens on issues of mutual concern. 

Social and Economic Context

Tamarac NWR is located in Becker County, Minnesota. The City of Detroit Lakes is the largest 

town, 22 miles south of the Refuge headquarters 

with 7,348 people listed in the 2000 Census. The 

racial makeup of the county is 89 percent white, 7 

percent Native American, 0.3 percent African 

American with Asians, Hispanic and other races 

contributing 3 percent (Table 1 on page 21). 

Area Economy

Table 2 on page 22 shows the economy of the 

region surrounding the Refuge. The area population 

increased by 11.3 percent from 1995 to 2005, compared with a 10.0 percent increase for the state of 

Minnesota and a 11.4 percent increase for the U.S. 

as a whole. Area employment increased by 30.8 percent from 1995 to 2005, with the state of Minnesota 

showing a 16.0 percent increase and the U.S. a 17.0 

percent increase. Area per capita income increased 

by 23.7 percent over the 1995-2005 period, while the 

state of Minnesota and the U.S. increased by 17.3 

and 13.2 percent respectively. 

 Climate

The climate at Tamarac NWR is characterized by 

warm summers and long, cold winters. Temperatures range from minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit to 

107 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual average precipitation is 25 inches with an average annual snowfall of 

46 inches. Frost can occur in almost any month 

although June, July and August are usually frostfree. The annual average growing season is 115 

days. Most climatic models predict that this area 

will warm by 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius within 

the next 50 years.

Geology and Glaciation

Formation of the regional terrain is the result of 

glaciation, specifically and most recently, the 

retreat of the Wadena lobe of the Wisconsin ice 

sheet toward the northwest, leaving a complex 

series of marginal and terminal moraines. The 

Itasca moraine, which covers most of the Refuge, 

and associated outwash plains are a direct result of 

this glaciation. Moraines are formed by the deposition of soil and rock at the edges of a glacier as it 

moves. Terminal moraines are associated with the 

tip of a glacier, whereas, marginal moraines are 

along sides of the glacier. Water from the melting 

ice formed lakes and rivers, while glacial till that 

was deposited formed the moraines. Within Tamarac NWR, a “chain of lakes” was formed along these 

marginal moraines primarily due to the settling and 

slumping of wet sediments. The outwash plains 

were created when “meltwater” carried away fine 

sediment from the retreating glacier. The outwash 

plains on the Refuge are characterized by numerous 

depressions such as kettles, shallow pits, and potholes, hence known as “pitted” outwash plains. 

Initially the Wadena lobe moved southeastward 

into northern Minnesota from the limestone belt of 
Figure 8: Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20
Table 1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota

Population Becker County Minnesota

Population, 2006 estimate 32,230 5,167,101

Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 7.4% 5.0%

Population, 2000 30,000 4,919,479

Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2006 6.4% 6.7%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 23.2% 24.3%

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 16.2% 12.1%

Female persons, percent, 2006 50.2% 50.3%

White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 89.6% 89.3%

Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.3% 4.5%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 7.3% 1.2%

Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.5% 3.5%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0 0.1%

Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 2.2% 1.5%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 1.0% 3.8%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 88.9% 85.9%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 61.8% 57.0%

Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.0% 5.3%

Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 4.4% 8.5%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 82.9% 87.9%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 16.7% 27.4%

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 4,799 679,236

Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 23.1 21.9

Households, 2000 11,844 1,895,127

Persons per household, 2000 2.49 2.52

Median household income, 2004 $40,182 $51,202

Per capita money income, 1999 $17,085 $23,198

Persons below poverty, percent, 2004 10.9% 8.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (2008)

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

the Winnipeg lowland, depositing calcareous sandy 

loam and gray till that contains Paleozoic limestone 

from southern Manitoba. This deposition left behind 

rich, calcareous fens that are interspersed amongst 

the marginal moraines. The Wadena lobe retreated 

northward and re-advanced to form the Itasca 

Moraine approximately 20,000 years ago. The 

deposits of sand and gravel drift found throughout 

the Refuge, supported dense coniferous stands, ultimately resulting in accumulation of organic material 

in depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drainage is a problem in lower areas. 

Soils

A heavy mantle of glacial drift covers all of 

Becker County. The source material and the mode 

of deposition of the drift contribute to important differences in soil texture and nutrients that ultimately 

affect vegetative growth (McAndrews 1966). In general, Refuge soils run on the sandy side, from coarse 

sand to sandy loams that are well to excessively 

drained (Table 3 on page 22.). Soils on the northern 

half of the Refuge are generally lighter than those 

in the south where all extant grasslands occur. Subsoils are mostly limy clay loams. All areas soil tested 

to date produced neutral to slightly basic pH readings. 
Table 2: Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR

County

Population Employment Per Capita Incomea

2005b

Percent 

change

1995-2005

2005

Percent 

change

1995-2005

2005

Percent 

change

1995-2005

Becker, Minnesota 31.9 10.0% 22.4 44.8% $28,968 30.0%

Hubbard, Minnesota 18.8 13.7% 8.0 3.0% $26,208 17.5%

Area Total 50.7 11.3% 30.5 30.8% $27,588 23.7%

Minnesota 5,126.7 10.0 % 3,498.6 16.0 % $37,290 17.3 %

United States 266,278.4 11.4 % 174,249.6 17.0 % $34,471 13.2 %

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2007. 

Table 3: Distinct Classes of Soils Within 

Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity 

and Texture

Soil Moisture Class Sum Acres Acre %

01 - Dry Sand 9.2 0.02%

02 - Dry-Mesic Sand 728.8 1.69%

03 - Dry-Mesic Loam 15,050.4 35.00%

04 - Mesic Sand 4,613.1 10.73%

05 - Mesic Loam 1,550.7 3.61%

06 - Wet-Mesic Sand 318.1 0.74%

07 - Wet-Mesic Loam 1,444.5 3.36%

09 - Wet Loam 195.1 0.45%

10 - Peat 11,200.4 26.05%

11 - Water 7,891.9 18.35%

Total 43,002.1 100.00%

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Soil map units delineated in soil surveys usually 

do not coincide exactly with habitat, although a 

strong relationship often exists. The reason for the 

lack of direct correlation is found in the concepts of 

soil taxonomy and soil mapping methodology. Soil 

properties that affect habitat type differentiation 

are those that affect conditions in plant growth, such 

as moisture and nutrients. Soil taxonomy, however, 

is not based directly on such functional properties, 

but rather on morphological features that can more 

readily be measured and classified (ie: type of horizon, color, structure and texture. These soil taxonomy parameters may or may not have a direct 

bearing on plant growth; however, careful examination of the moisture and nutrient parameters of soils 

is important in predicting plant growth, successional 

pathways and subsequent disturbance regimes. 

Hydrology and Topology

Tamarac NWR is located near or at the top of two 

major watersheds (Figure 9 on page 23). The Ottertail River watershed originates just north of the 

Refuge in Elbow Lake. It flows southerly through a 

chain of lakes along the eastern half of the Refuge, 

eventually exiting the Refuge via Height of Land 

Lake in a south-westerly direction. The Egg River, 

which is a tributary to the Ottertail River, is primarily contained within Refuge boundaries and flows 

southerly through a chain of lakes along the northwestern half of the Refuge and merges into Ottertail 

River in the central portion of the Refuge. The Buffalo River watershed originates in Pine Lake and 

exits the Refuge in an east-west fashion via Tamarac Lake along the western boundary of the Refuge. 

These watersheds eventually drain into Hudson Bay 

through the Red River of the North. The Continental Divide, which is located a couple of miles just 

east of Refuge, divides the Red River and Mississippi River Watersheds. There are 31 palustrine 

wetlands (shallow lakes), 14 miles of riverine habitats and approximately 1,500 small wetlands within 

the Refuge.

The deposits of sand and gravel drift found on the 

Refuge, supported dense coniferous stands, ultimately resulting in accumulation of organic material 

in depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drainage is a problem in lower areas. Elevation ranges 

from 1,400 to 1,650 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 

Generally, the higher elevations are in the northa. In 2006 dollars.

b. Population and employment in thousands; Per Capita Income in 2006 dollars.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Figure 9: Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central 

Minnesota
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

northeast and eastern portions of the Refuge. Broad 

areas through the central portion of the Refuge are 

between 1,450 and 1,500 feet above MSL, and the 

lowest portions are in the extreme southwest corner 

of the Refuge. Total relief of the Refuge is in excess 

of 250 feet. The steeper slopes typically exist in the 

northern one-third of the Refuge, whereas the 

southern two-thirds is indicative of an outwash 

plain, containing fewer areas with slopes in excess of 

24 percent. 

Refuge Habitats

Vegetation on the Refuge is diverse due to its 

location in the transition zone between northern 

hardwood and coniferous forests. (See Figure 10 on 

page 25, and Table 4 on page 27) 

Pre-settlement cover types were comprised of 

mature stands of red and white pine, jack pine barrens, stands of aspen, birch, and mixed hardwoods, 

numerous lakes, conifer bogs and swamps. The 

extensive logging of red and white pine virtually 

eliminated the dominant pine cover types from the 

landscape. Following the harvest, these timbered 

lands were burned two to three times in as many 

years. This practice resulted in appreciable 

regrowth of aspen, birch, and hardwoods, but not 

conifers. 

Current cover types are significantly altered 

from pre-settlement times (Figure 11 on page 26). 

Red and white pine has been reduced by 92 percent 

and jack pine coverage has been reduced by 89 percent. Significant increases have occurred in mixed 

hardwood and the aspen-birch cover types (plus 244 

and 40 percent, respectively). The upland grass 

cover type has increased due to remnant openings 

that were created for farming at the time of settlement . 

Forest

Sixty percent of the Refuge is forested, dominated by second-growth timber such as: 

 aspen (Populus spp.)

 jack pine (Pinus banksiana)

 red pine (Pinus resinosa)

 white pine (Pinus strobus) 

 balsam fir (Abies balsamea)

 black spruce (Picea mariana)

 tamarack (Larix laricina) 

 paper birch (Betula papyrifera)

 red and white oak (Quercus spp.)

 sugar maple (Acer saccharum) 

 American basswood (Tilia americana)

For the purpose of this plan, the 50 vegetative 

cover types were combined into 12 general habitat 

types (Table 4 on page 27). The vegetative cover 

types were derived from aerial photo interpretation 

conducted by the Upper Midwest Environment Sciences Center in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, based on 2005 

aerial photography. These 12 major habitat types 

(Figure 10 on page 25) are described in the following 

paragraphs.

Upland deciduous forest (16,167 acres): This habitat type includes aspen, paper birch, oak, red and 

sugar maple, basswood, northern hardwoods and 

forest broadleaf mix cover types. This habitat type 

comprises approximately 37 percent of the Refuge 

land base. Aspen, particularly in the young to mid 

age classes, dominates this habitat type within the 

Refuge. 

Mixed upland forest (4,348 acres): This habitat 

type contains a mixture of hardwoods and softwoods, and includes an aspen/birch/spruce/fir mix, 

aspen/pine and forest upland broadleaf/coniferous 

mix cover types. This habitat type comprises 

approximately 10 percent of the Refuge land base. 

Red and white pines are prevalent in the overstory 

along with a mix of hardwood, such as aspen and 

birch. Jack pines are often mixed with pin oak and 

burr oak on drier sandy soils. 

Lowland deciduous forest (755 acres): This habitat type primarily consists of black ash and lowland 

forest broadleaf mix cover types. These communities are often referred to as black ash swamps. Species composition includes green ash , black ash, and 

occasionally American elm. The lowland hardwoods 

are located mostly on medium quality sites which are 

found along sluggish streams, swamp edges and in 

depressions within the upland hardwoods.

Mixed lowland forest (463 acres): This habitat 

type consists of a mix of lowland conifers and hardwoods, primarily black ash, and includes the lowland 

forested broadleaf/coniferous mix. The mixed lowland forested broadleaf/coniferous is heavily dominated by hardwoods in the overstory.

Upland coniferous forest (713 acres): This habitat type consists of jack pine, red pine, white pine, 

red cedar (non-native), white spruce/balsam fir and 

forested coniferous mix as the dominant cover 

types. As species that once dominated the landscape 

as pure stands, red pine and white pine comprises 

only 1 percent (482 acres) of the Refuge, including 

plantations. Jack pine barrens, which were quite 

prevalent prior to European settlement, only make 

up about one-quarter of a percent of the Refuge. Jack 

pine is located in pure stands on dry sandy soils. In 

heavier soils it is mixed with oak, red pine and aspen.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Lowland coniferous forest (1,863 acres): This 

habitat type consists of pure stands of tamarack, 

mixed black spruce/balsam fir and lowland coniferous mixed stands. The lowland forested coniferous 

mix is dominated by lowland conifers such as tamarack, black spruce and balsam fir.

Wetlands

Thirty percent of the Refuge is comprised of large 

and small wetland complexes dominated by wild 

rice, sedges and cattail. 

Marsh/Wetland (6,251 acres): This habitat type 

consists of cattail, giant reed grass (Phragmites), 

mixed emergent aquatics, rooted-floating vegetation, sedge meadow/bluejoint grass, sedge meadow/

cattail mix, reed canary grass and wet meadow 

cover types. This is the third most abundant habitat 

type and comprises approximately 14 percent of the 

Refuge land base.

Open Water

Open Water (7,117 acres): This habitat type consists of open water, submergent vegetation and wild 

rice cover types. Although open water is not a plant 

community, it is classified as such because throughout a majority of the year, the surface consists of 

open water but vegetation can occur within these 

areas. Most of these open water habitat types are 

natural, but some have been enhanced through the 

construction of water control structures and dikes. 

Wild rice is an important staple food for waterfowl 

migrating through the Refuge in the fall, as well as 

subsistence for Native Americans. This habitat type 

is the second most abundant habitat type and comprises approximately 16 percent of the Refuge land 

base. 

Grassland

About 1,360 acres (3 percent) of grassland are managed on the Refuge, mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small farms. The tallgrass prairie 

(Prairie Pothole region in the Red River Valley) 

begins about 10 miles west of Tamarac NWR.

Upland grass (1,362 acres): This habitat type 

consists of cool season grasses, other grasses and 

forbs, and warm season grasses. All of these sites 

were anthropogenic habitats created as a result of 

logging and early settler clearings that were planted 

into agriculture crops in the early days of the Refuge. In recent years, most of these sites have been 

converted primarily to warm season grasses. Many 

non-native species of grass and other herbaceous 

plants are quite prevalent throughout many of these 

areas.

Shrub

Upland shrub (1,519 acres): This habitat type is 

dominated by upland shrub species such as hazel, 

willow, dogwoods and other upland shrubs. Typically few to no trees are present in the overstory 

and very little herbaceous cover exists where the 

shrub layer is dense.

Lowland shrub (2,657 acres): This habitat type 

consists of lowland areas typically within a wetland 

where the dominant vegetation is shrubs. These 

areas include bog birch, tag alder, willow and scrub/

shrub lowland types. Generally, there is a thick herbaceous cover beneath the shrubs consisting of a 

variety of sedge species. Large expanses of these 

areas typically surround the shallow lakes within 

the Refuge as well as closed wetland systems. A lack 

of fire within these habitats has resulted in brush 

species invading and becoming dominant in these 

areas.

Developed Land

Development (374 acres): This classification is 

not a true habitat type but merely depicts areas on 

the Refuge that have been developed such as buildings, maintenance facilities and roads.

Refuge Wildlife

Birds

Tamarac NWR is especially important for migratory birds, both during the migrating and nesting 

seasons. Fifty-three species of birds that are on the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 Regional Conservation Priority Species list reside on the Refuge 

or migrate through, although only 21 of these species breed within the Refuge. The remaining 32 species have been documented in migration. Many of 

these species, as well as other species, are listed 

Figure 11: Tamarac NWR Habitat 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation 

Number of stands Total Acres Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of Stands Total Acres

1,559 16,167 Upland Deciduous Aspen (Upland) 786 6,698

Aspen/Oak 179 1,785

Basswood 5 9

Forested Broadleaf Mix 

(Upland)

299 2,346

Northern Hardwoods 199 4,264

Oak 84 1,035

Paper Birch 1 1

Red Maple/Sugar Maple 6 29

593 4,348 Mixed Upland Forest Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce 240 1,579

Aspen/Pine 190 1,601

Forested Broadleaf/

Coniferous Mix (Upland)

163 1,168

222 755 Lowland Deciduous Black Ash 95 313

Forested Broadleaf Mix 

(Lowland)

127 442

110 463 Mixed Lowland Forest Forested Broadleaf/

Coniferous Mix (Lowland)

110 463

169 713 Upland Conifer Jack Pine 19 94

Jack Pine Plantation 2 9

Red Pine 33 221

Red Pine Plantation 27 161

Red Pine/White Pine 10 34

White Pine 26 66

Spruce/Fir 43 95

Forested Coniferous Mix 

(Upland)

9 33

270 1,863 Lowland Conifer Spruce/Fir Swamp 7 116

Tamarack 233 1,625

Forested Coniferous Mix 

(Lowland)

30 122

279 1,519 Upland Shrub Scrub/Shrub (Upland) 279 1,519

536 2,657 Lowland Shrub Bog Birch 10 273

Scrub/Shrub (Lowland) 442 2,020

Tag Alder 38 98

Willow 46 266

180 1,362 Upland Grass Cool Season Grasses 71 604

Grasses/Forbs 83 344

Hayfieldsa 6 1

Pasturea 4 6

Warm Season Grasses 16 407
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

species of greatest conservation concern by the Minnesota DNR. Of the 258 species of birds that have 

been observed on the Refuge, 113 species are 

reported to have nested here. A list of bird species 

known to occur on Tamarac NWR is included in 

Appendix C. 

Waterfowl have been an important bird group 

throughout the history of the Refuge. Primary nesters include: 

 Mallard Duck

 Wood Duck

 Blue-winged Teal

 Ring-necked Duck

 Canada Goose

 Trumpeter Swan

Duck nesting densities are among the highest 

reported for the woodland transition zone in Minnesota. Spring surveys indicate slightly more than 40 

breeding pairs of ducks per square mile. In addition 

to the breeding population, approximately 50,000 

ducks also migrate through the Refuge each fall 

stopping to feed on the abundant annual wild rice 

crops. The Refuge was the focal point for the 1987 

Minnesota DNR Trumpeter Swan reintroduction 

program. The Trumpeter Swan was extirpated from 

Minnesota in the early 1900s. The population within 

the Refuge has grown to more than 30 breeding 

pairs and an annual production of around 100 cygnets per year. Average brood size is nearly twice the 

national average. 

The Refuge is currently cooperating on a Minnesota DNR research study to relate the distribution 

and welfare of a local population of ducks, specifically Ring-necked Ducks, to the pattern of Refuges 

(including state refuges) existing in north-central 

Minnesota. Understanding the factors influencing 

the distribution of locally raised Ring-necked Ducks 

in the fall may provide valuable insights into the distribution of refuges required to meet management 

objectives for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota.

As recently as the early 1970s, the Bald Eagle 

population was in jeopardy throughout the United 

States. Only one Bald Eagle nest was active on the 

Refuge. Since that time the number of eagle nests 

has increased to approximately 30 occupied territories and 25 active nests on an annual basis, producing 20-30 eaglets per year. Other raptors, such as 

Red-tailed Hawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, Broadwinged Hawks, Cooper’s hawks, and Sharp-shinned 

Hawks breed and migrate through the Refuge.

The wetland ecosystems are particularly important to other waterbirds. These wetlands are ideal 

nesting sites for species including:

 Common Loons

 Great Blue Heron

 Forster’s Tern

 Black Tern

 American Bittern

 Least Bittern

 Yellow Rail

1,104 6,251 Marsh/Wetland Cattail 119 897

Giant Reed Grass 

(Phragmites)

47 108

Mixed Emergents 6 26

Rooted-Floating Vegetation63 873

Sedge Meadow/Bluejoint 

Grass

589 2,885

Sedge Meadow/Typha 

Mix

278 1,457

Reed Canary Grass 1 2

Wet Meadow 1 3

243 7,117 Open water Water 86 3,464

Submergent Vegetation 110 2,902

Wild Rice 47 751

19 374 Development Developed 16 46

Roadside 3 328

a. Hayfields and pasture in this table were mis-identified in the aerial photo interpretation and are actually cool season grasses.

Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation 

Number of stands Total Acres Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of Stands Total Acres
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

 Sora Rail

 Virginia Rail

 Sedge Wren

 Swamp Sparrow

Annual surveys of Common Loons indicate 

nearly 70 adults, but production is less than 10 loon 

chicks per year. 

The diverse forests of Tamarac NWR are well 

suited for providing habitat for migrating and nesting passerines. Red-eyed Vireos, Ovenbirds, 

Veery’s, Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, Golden-winged Warblers and Chestnut-sided 

Warblers are common breeders throughout the Refuge. 

The Refuge has been actively engaged in the 

Golden-winged Warbler research because of the 

high nesting densities found on the Refuge due to an 

abundance of early successional forest habitat 

within the Refuge’s boundaries. The Golden-winged 

Warbler is currently listed as a Resource Conservation Priority species for Region 3 (USFWS) and is 

considered a neotropical migratory species of high 

continental conservation concern by Partners in 

Flight (PIF) (Rich et al. 2004). Since 1966, the 

Golden-winged Warbler has declined by approximately 3.5 percent per year across its breeding 

range. An estimated 76 percent of the global population of Golden-winged Warblers breeds within Bird 

Conservation Region 12 (BCR12), and approximately 40 percent the global population breed in 

Minnesota (Rosenberg 2004). Surveys indicate 

approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of this global 

population reside within the boundaries of Tamarac 

NWR.

Although not abundant on the Refuge, various 

species of shorebirds can be seen throughout the 

Refuge. The Refuge contains very little mud flat 

habitats or shallow water (<10 cm) that most shorebirds prefer. Despite low shorebird densities, the 

American Woodcock breeds in significant numbers 

throughout the Refuge, again primarily due to the 

abundance of young forest habitats. The American 

Woodcock is also a Resource Conservation Priority 

species for the Midwest Region due to long-term 

declines in breeding populations. In Minnesota, 

there is more early successional forest than there 

ever were historically, yet the declines persist. The 

Refuge is currently engaged in research that is 

examining low productivity rates or “recruitment” 

as a possible cause for these declines.

Resident bird or year-round species include:

 Ruffed Grouse

 Wild Turkey

 Great-horned Owl

 Barred Owl

 Downy Woodpecker

 Hairy Woodpecker

 Pileated Woodpecker

 Blue Jay

 Black-capped Chickadee

 White-breasted Nuthatch. 

Mammals

The Refuge supports 53 species of resident mammals and seven species of bats that migrate off-Refuge to overwinter. Some of the mammal species 

found on the Refuge are listed as RCPs for Region 3 

(ie: gray wolf) and numerous other species are listed 

species of greatest conservation concern by the Minnesota DNR (ie: Franklin’s ground squirrel). Two 

packs of gray wolves have successfully produced 

young on the Refuge, and a third pack’s territory 

overlaps into Tamarac NWR. White-tailed deer, 

beaver, striped skunk, raccoon, muskrat, mink and 

red squirrels are abundant. White-tailed deer and 

beaver can severely impact the Refuge’s ability to 

restore or manage habitats. Currently there is an 

overabundance of white-tailed deer state-wide. The 

Refuge has recently supported a relatively high 

density of deer (26 to 28 deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey) 

and thus the adverse effects of browsing in forest 

understory are significant with huge ecological ramifications. Beaver can have significant effects on 

water levels which can directly impact the production of wild rice within lakes. Cottontail rabbits and 

snowshoe hare populations follow a cyclical pattern. 

Other furbearers, including red fox, coyote, bobcat, 

fisher, otter, long and short-tailed weasels, are 

locally common and seen in the area on a regular 

basis. Based on state-wide surveys conducted by the 

Minnesota DNR, most of the mammals that are conGolden-winged Warbler. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

sidered “predatory” are well above long-term 

trends and historical records (ie: fox, skunk and raccoon), which have devastating effects on ground 

nesting birds. A list of species known to occur within 

the Refuge is included in Appendix C. 

Fish

Fish surveys have been conducted on select lakes 

and streams by the Minnesota DNR , the LaCrosse 

Fishery Resource Office (USFWS), the White 

Earth Natural Resources Department and various 

universities in cooperation with the Refuge staff on 

a periodic basis. Sampling by various methods has 

documented 37 species of fish including:

 Walleye

 Yellow perch

 Black crappie

 Large-mouth bass

 Bluegill

 Pumpkinseed

 Rock bass

 Brown bullhead

 Yellow bullhead

 Black bullhead

 White sucker

 Northern pike

 Bowfin

Numerous other fish species were also documented including shiners, dace, chubs, darters and 

other minnow species (Appendix C). Walleye and 

lake sturgeon are both listed as Regional Conservation Priority Species (USFWS) for Region 3; however, only the lake sturgeon is listed as a state listed 

species of special concern.

The Minnesota DNR currently stocks Wauboose 

and North Tamarac lakes with walleye fry on an 

every-other year cycle. Likewise, the White Earth 

Natural Resources Department stocks walleye fry 

in Lost and Teacracker lakes on a similar cycle. The 

White Earth Natural Resources Department in 

cooperation with LaCrosse FRO recently stocked 

lake sturgeon in Round Lake, which is immediately 

upstream of the Refuge on the Ottertail River. 

Although no lake sturgeon were stocked directly in 

the waters of Tamarac NWR, they have the potential to enter the Refuge via the Ottertail River. 

Some of the issues that threaten the Refuge’s 

fishery and waterfowl are undesirable nuisance fish 

species (bullheads, common carp and fathead minnows), poor survival of naturally produced walleye, 

and winterkills. All the Refuge water areas, with the 

exception of Lost and Wauboose Lakes have an 

average depth of 8 feet or less and are thus subject 

to frequent winterkills. 

Carp are present within Ottertail River system, 

but so far restricted in distribution by a box culvert 

structure in the Hubbel Pond WMA, which is just 

south of the Refuge. The possibility exists that carp 

can bypass the box culvert via a ditch from Cotton 

Lake to Height of Land Lake, thus potentially 

entering the Refuge as far up the Ottertail River as 

the Chippewa Lake water control structure and 

could potentially destroy wetland habitats in Rice 

and Blackbird lakes. Other fish species, like fathead 

minnows and walleye, forage on amphipods, which 

are the primary food resource of migrant and breeding waterfowl. Fathead minnows may be present in 

lakes that were previously fishless systems. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Eleven species of amphibians and five species of 

reptiles have been recorded. Lakes, streams, 

ditches and other wetland basins provide aquatic 

habitat required for a variety of turtles, frogs, toads 

and salamanders. Spring peeper, American toad, 

wood, chorus, northern leopard, gray tree, Cope’s 

gray tree and mink frogs are common. Garter 

snakes and prairie skinks are common throughout 

the Refuge. Snapping and painted turtles are also 

common. The snapping turtle is listed a species of 

special concern by the Minnesota DNR. 

Reptiles and amphibians are important food 

sources for many mammals, birds and fish. Their 

numbers and diversity are often indicators of the 

health of an ecosystem. Many species of reptiles and 

amphibians are declining on a state and nationwide 

scale.

Invertebrates

Twenty-five species of butterflies have been documented to date although formalized surveys have 

not occurred. Refuge wetlands are presumed to contain typical freshwater invertebrates found in the 

A woodchuck takes a rest. Photo Credit: Dick Henry
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

area but only limited sampling has been done as 

well. There is speculation that some freshwater 

invertebrate species have been negatively impacted 

by fish species that were not historically present 

within several wetland basins (ie: fathead minnows). 

Freshwater invertebrates are an extremely important food source for waterfowl, during spring migration, egg laying and brood rearing. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

As of July 2010, the gray wolf (canis lupus) is the 

only federally listed endangered species in Becker 

County. The status of a proposed delisting of the 

wolf is subject to court action. There are no other 

federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed 

or candidate species in Becker County. However, 

the Canada lynx is listed as threatened in 14 Minnesota counties, including adjacent Clearwater 

County. Two unverified Canada lynx sightings have 

been reported in northeastern Becker County. 

The state of Minnesota lists 22 endangered, 

threatened or special concern species, which have 

been sighted or reproduce on the Refuge. The six 

species with confirmed reproduction are:

 Gray wolf

 Trumpeter Swan

 Red-shouldered Hawk

 Bald Eagle

 Forster’s Tern

 Snapping turtle

The Henslow’s Sparrow is state-listed as endangered. The Peregrine Falcon, Wilson’s Phalarope, 

Loggerhead Shrike, Horned Grebe and Common 

Tern are state-listed as threatened. Although some 

of the state-listed threatened or endangered species 

can be occasionally seen during migration, none of 

them have been known to breed on the Refuge. Several state-listed species of concern occur on the Refuge, including:

 Short-eared Owl

 Yellow Rail

 Cerulean Warbler

 Franklin’s Gull

 American White Pelican

 Northern myotis

 Eastern pipistrelle

 Mountain lion

 Prairie vole

 Woodland vole 

Refuge Resources of Concern

Resources of Concern were identified by literature review and expert opinion. Refuge resources of 

concern include special areas, habitats, ecosystems, 

and individual species. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s Habitat Management Plan policy defines 

resources of concern as:

“...all plant and/or animal species, species 

groups, or communities specifically identified in 

the Refuge purpose, NWRS mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem

conservation plans or acts. Habitats or plant 

communities should be considered resources of 

concern when they are specifically identified in 

the Refuge purpose(s), support species or species groups identified in Refuge purposes, support Service trust species, and/or are important 

in the maintenance or restoration of biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health.” 

To better focus on Refuge habitat management, 

the staff developed a list of Refuge Resources of 

Concern for Tamarac NWR (Appendix D). Some of 

these “priority” resources of concern could ultimately be known as “focal” species, which should be 

representatives of other species or guilds that are 

highly associated with the same habitat attributes 

or conditions. These species are not always species 

imperil or rare, but could be good indicators of a 

particular habitat type.

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

Exotic and invasive plant species pose one of the 

greatest threats to the maintenance and restoration 

of the diverse habitats found on the Refuge. They 

threaten biological diversity by causing population 

declines of native species and by altering key ecosystem processes like hydrology, nitrogen fixation, 

Gray tree frog. Photo Credit: Dick Henry
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

and fire regimes. Left unchecked, these plants can 

come to dominate areas and reduce the value of the 

land as wildlife habitat. There is often a seed source 

of many of these exotic/invasive species on the lands 

surrounding the Refuge, thus in order to be effective with our efforts, we must bring together a complex set of interests including private landowner, 

commercial, and public agencies to combat invasive 

species and restore native plants.

Three categories of undesirable species (invasive, 

exotic, noxious) are found within the Refuge. Invasive species are alien species whose introduction 

causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Executive Order 

13112 – Invasive Species, dated February 3, 1999, 

directs federal agencies to use relevant programs 

and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species, monitor invasive 

species infestations accurately and reliably, and promote public education on these species and methods 

to address them. Exotic species are those that are 

not native to a particular ecosystem. Service policy 

also directs the Refuge to try to maintain habitats 

free of exotic species. Noxious weeds are designated 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as species which, 

when established, are destructive, competitive or 

difficult to control. 

Baseline information on invasive species presence, distribution, density, etc. is crucial for setting 

priorities for control, developing management strategies, estimating impacts and evaluating management effectiveness. A long-term invasive weed 

mapping/monitoring program using GPS technology was initiated in 2005. On Tamarac NWR, there 

are currently numerous invasive species of concern 

and the Refuge uses an integrated approach to control these weeds. Control methods have included 

cultural (tillage, burning, cropping, mowing, haying, 

etc.), chemical and biological (bio-agents) methods. 

Canada thistle, plumeless thistle, purple loosestrife, 

leafy spurge and spotted knapweed are introduced 

species that occur on the Refuge that are classified 

as prohibited noxious weeds in Minnesota. Other 

invasive species known to occur on the Refuge 

include: 

 hybrid cattail

 hoary alyssum

 Siberian peashrub

 Kentucky bluegrass

 yellow starthistle

 birdsfoot trefoil

 reed canarygrass

 perennial sowthistle

 common tansy

 quackgrass

 smooth brome

Although flowering rush is not known to occur on 

the Refuge, it is an imminent threat to the Refuge 

aquatic resources as it is fairly abundant in the lakes 

around the Detroit Lakes area. Eurasian milfoil is 

not common in the area but is a species of concern 

and poses a threat in the local area. The species is 

being monitored by the local Minnesota DNR. 

Detroit Lake typically sees significant boat traffic, 

and many of these boats use other lakes in the 

greater Detroit Lakes area, including Tamarac 

NWR, increasing the spread potential to the Refuge. 

Canada and plumeless thistle are controlled 

through chemical and mechanical means, as well as 

through competition from native seeded warm season grasses including big and little bluestem, Indiangrass, switchgrass, etc. Purple loosestrife is 

controlled by hand pulling isolated plants prior to 

seed production or by chemical application on larger 

infestations. Leafy spurge and spotted knapweed 

are controlled primarily through the use of biological control agents. A few other invasive species are 

known to occur on the Refuge and the appropriate 

control strategy is applied accordingly; however the 

Bio-agents are released to control leafy spurge. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

species listed above take priority due to proliferation and their threat to native plant communities.

Earthworms

In the Great Lakes region, native earthworm 

species have never been documented, and any 

native species of earthworms living in the region 

were extirpated when glacial ice sheets covered the 

Upper Midwest 11,000 to 14,000 years ago (NRRI 

2007). Therefore, forests of the Great Lakes Region 

developed in the complete absence of earthworms. 

For thousands of years, no earthworms existed in 

this region until European settlers began arriving 

around the mid 1800s. 

Researchers have documented dramatic changes 

in native hardwood forest ecosystems when exotic 

earthworms invade, including loss of native understory plant species and tree seedlings, changes in 

soil structure and declines in nutrient availability 

(Hale 2004). Exotic earthworms not only alter ecosystem components, but they also change some of 

the important underlying processes, such as fire, 

succession, and natural regeneration, that support 

the health and diversity of forest plants and animals. 

In addition, research suggests the changes caused 

by exotic earthworms may lead to a cascade of other 

changes in the forest that affect small mammal, bird 

and amphibian populations. Earthworm presence 

may also increase the impacts of herbivores like 

white-tailed deer and facilitate invasions of other 

exotic species, making them a potential threat to the 

biodiversity and long-term stability of forest ecosystems in the region. Recent research suggests earthworms can potentially affect water quality by 

mobilizing phosphorus levels. 

The Refuge has a significant infestation of earthworms. At this time, there is no known technique for 

managing or eradicating these non-native earthworms. The Refuge intends to assess the earthworm 

distribution on the Refuge in the near future using 

protocol developed by researchers at the Natural 

Resources Research Institute in Duluth, Minnesota. 

Refuge staff will need to be cognizant of the potential impacts of earthworms to management success 

and desired future habitat conditions during all 

future forest planning and management on the Refuge.

White-tailed Deer

The Refuge is officially designated as a whitetailed deer management unit (251), but the Minnesota DNR and Tamarac NWR cooperatively manage the deer herd and administer harvest 

regulations within the Refuge. Recently, there has 

been an overabundance of white-tailed deer statewide. Relatively high densities of deer (26 to 28 

deer/mi2

 pre-fawn survey) have occurred on the 

Refuge within the last decade. Over-browsing by 

deer could lead to significant ecological ramifications, particularly when coupled with earthworm 

infestation problems. Long-term over-browsing by 

deer reduces plant cover and diversity, alters nutrient and carbon cycling, and redirects succession to 

shift future overstory composition (Dussault and 

Waller 2004). The impacts of deer over-browse on 

plants can also cascade to affect species diversity, 

from insects to amphibians to migratory songbirds. 

Impacts on vegetative structure and abundance 

have been noted with deer exclosures on the Refuge. 

Zebra Mussel

The zebra mussel, a non-native mussel from Russia, has been rapidly spreading across the Midwest. 

Zebra mussels pose serious ecological and economic 

threats to the aquatic resources of Minnesota. 

Heavy infestations can kill native mussels, impact 

fish populations, interfere with recreation, increase 

costs for industry, and alter aquatic ecosystems. 

In September 2009, both adult and young zebra 

mussels were discovered in Pelican Lake, Ottertail 

County which is approximately 20 (straight-line) 

miles from the Refuge. This is the first discovery of 

zebra mussel within the Red River and Ottertail 

River watershed. Although the Refuge is a distance 

upstream from Pelican Lake, the approximation of 

Tamarac NWR to this new infestation has heightened the threat of zebra mussel invasion to the RefSpotted knapweed. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

uge substantially. Pelican Lake typically sees 

significant boat traffic, many of which utilize other 

lakes in the greater Detroit Lakes area, including 

Tamarac NWR, thus increasing the threat potential 

to the Refuge.

Other Forest Pests and Pathogens

Refuge staff continually monitor the health and 

condition of the forests on the Refuge and stay 

abreast of the regional status of insects and disease 

that affect the forests. The goal of the Refuge is to 

protect the health of our forests by preventing, 

where possible, the introduction of forest insects 

and diseases in the area. 

Native epidemic pests have exhibited outbreak 

behavior throughout recorded history and although 

unpredictable, their outbreaks are expected to 

occur. However, human influence has subjected forests to exotic insect species that are prone to spectacular outbreaks. Disturbances such as climate 

change, fire suppression and even-aged forest management can increase the severity, frequency and 

distribution of exotic and native insects. 

Forest tent caterpillars, gypsy moth, jack pine 

bud worms, Asian long-horned beetle, and emerald 

ash borers (EAB), oak wilt, white pine blister rust, 

Dutch elm disease, are just a few of the insects and 

diseases of concern to the Refuge. Currently, the 

emerald ash borer is the most serious forest pest 

concern in eastern U. S. It attacks and kills all ash 

trees. In 2009, EAB was discovered in Minnesota in 

the Twin Cities area. The spread to remainder of 

the state is imminent. Early detection of invasive 

insects and disease is key to effective control of 

these unwanted forest pests and pathogens.

 Contaminants

Tamarac NWR is not near any major pointsources of pollution, and the Refuge has limited risk 

from spills. Instead, the Refuge is more likely to be 

impacted from air pollution that may originate from 

other sources well beyond the Refuge boundaries.

Mercury is a pervasive contaminant across Minnesota, necessitating a statewide Fish Consumption 

Advisory from the Minnesota Department of 

Health. Air pollution is the major source of mercury 

contamination to Minnesota’s lakes and rivers. 

About 70 percent of the mercury in the air is the 

result of emissions from coal combustion, mining, 

and the incineration of mercury-containing products, the remaining 30 percent is derived from natural emissions. Only about 10 percent of Minnesota’s 

mercury contamination originates from Minnesota 

emissions, however, 90 percent of Minnesota’s emissions are deposited in other states and countries 

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005). 

Several lakes within the surrounding area of the 

Refuge are listed on the Minnesota Impaired Water 

list due to mercury as the pollutant. These lakes 

include Cotton, Island, Many Point, Toad, Floyd, 

Detroit and White Earth. The increasing presence 

of mercury within inland lakes has prompted the 

Minnesota Department of Health to issue a Fish 

Consumption Advisory. The advisory provides 

guidelines regarding the size and frequency of 

which fish species can be eaten safely. No formal 

testing of fish or wildlife for the presence of contaminants has been conducted on the Refuge.

 In 2005, the Refuge initiated an environmental 

site assessment at the former Job Corps Conservation Center (JCCC). The goal of this project was to 

identify and remove any existing environmental 

contaminants that were still present within the 

JCCC area. The JCCC was a complex, administered 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that was constructed in 1965 to house, educate and train youth. 

The area encompassed approximately 180 acres just 

north of Height of Land Lake. Although the JCCC 

program was terminated on the Refuge in 1969, the 

facilities were used by a Native American group 

until 1980, when the site was abandoned and the 

buildings were reclaimed, sold or demolished. 

Asphalt driveways, concrete foundations, telephone 

pedestals, buried pipes, underground storage tanks 

sewage lagoon (presently dry) and an inactive solid 

waste dump remained on the site.

Three underground storage tanks (fuel tanks) 

were removed in 2005 and the soil around them was 

tested. All soil tests were negative for benzene, 

ethyl-benzene, toluene, xylene, gasoline range 

organics and diesel range organics. Two water wells 

were also sealed with bentonite for contaminant 

prevention to the groundwater. In 2008, five injection wells (septic tanks) were inspected and closed 

by filling them with clean dirt. Concrete pads, industrial hoists and metal pipes were also removed from 

the site. In 2009, a site assessment by Tetra Tech. 

was conducted and concluded that the landfill 

needed to be tested to determine remediation 

action. Additional soil testing for lead and asbestos 

around the building demonstration sites was also 

recommended and one additional septic tank was 

identified for closure. The work is scheduled for 

2010. 

Climate Change and Tamarac NWR 

 Various forest ecologists with expertise in disturbance regimes and potential climate change impacts 

have suggested that this area will likely see significant ecological changes in the forest landscape and 

associated habitats for wildlife. One ecologist goes 

so far as to state “the only forest that may be left in 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Minnesota after climate change runs its course, 

would be located in the Boundary Waters along the 

Canadian border in extreme northeastern Minnesota.” Ironically, a study conducted by University of 

Minnesota Professor John Tester about 15 years 

ago documented that just a subtle change in abiotic 

factors, such as temperature and precipitation, 

impacted these major biomes. The study represented a gradient of ecotones within a 50-mile eastwest transect that transitioned from boreal forest to 

deciduous forest to brushlands to tallgrass prairie. 

The difference in temperature between the boreal 

forest and tallgrass prairie was a mere 4 degrees 

Celsius. Significant differences were documented in 

plant and animal species. 

For example, starting in the boreal forest and 

ending in the tallgrass prairie, four different grouse 

species with specific habitat needs were documented 

(Spruce Grouse, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed 

Grouse and Greater Prairie Chicken). The same pattern was noted in small mammals and other species 

groups. All of the future climate models predict this 

same area will warm by at least 4 degrees Celsius in 

the next 50 years. The ultimate question is what’s in 

store for wildlife and their associated habitats in the 

future with potential climate changes? How does a 

land manager plan for future habitat management 

for wildlife within this tension zone, facing uncertainty with regard to climate change? 

In addition, the Refuge was established in the 

mid-1930s as a result of the reinvigorated national 

waterfowl restoration program by the U. S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service to restore the nesting grounds of 

the waterfowl resource. This was during the Dust 

Bowl Era when the prairie potholes of the Dakotas 

were dry, thus significant waterfowl use was present in the shallow lakes of Tamarac NWR and the 

transition zone of Minnesota. Since that time, precipitation and water levels have returned to prairies, 

luring waterfowl populations back to the prairie potholes. Dr. Carter Johnson of South Dakota State 

University suggests the most productive habitat for 

breeding waterfowl are poised to shift from the prairie potholes to wetter eastern and northern fringes 

where many wetlands have already been drained 

(Johnson et al. 2005). How important will the transition zone of Minnesota be under the predicted climate models? 

Midwest Climate Change Impacts

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.

The increase of carbon dioxide within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature commonly referred to as global 

warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife Refuges, carbon 

sequestration constitutes the primary climaterelated impact that refuges can affect in a small 

way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development” defines 

carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure 

storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted 

to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – 

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and 

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Department of Energy report’s 

conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce 

or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges and management areas. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land 

and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon 

sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to 

efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate 

change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases carbon dioxide directly to the 

atmosphere from the biomass consumed during 

combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of 

carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates 

and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and 

sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal 

amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. 

2006). Overall, there should be little or no net 

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at 

Tamarac NWR from any of the proposed management alternatives.

Several impacts of climate change have been 

identified that may need to be considered and 

addressed in the future:

 Habitat available for cold water fish such as 

trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be 

reduced.

 Forests may change, with some species shifting 

their range northward or dying out, and other 

trees moving in to take their place.

 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat due to stronger and more frequent 

droughts.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

 Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

could put some birds out of sync with the life 

cycles of their prey species.

 Animal and insect species historically found farther south may colonize new areas to the north 

as winter climatic conditions moderate.

The managers and resource specialists responsible for the Refuge need to be aware of the possibility of change due to global warming. When feasible, 

documenting long-term vegetation, species, and 

hydrologic changes should become a part of 

research and monitoring programs. Adjustments in 

land management direction may be necessary over 

the course of time to adapt to a changing climate.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the 

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, produced by the 

National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act to help the US Global Change 

Research Program fulfill its mandate under the 

Global Change Research Act of 1990. These 

excerpts are from the section of the report focused 

upon the eight-state Midwest Region.

Observed Climate Trends

Over the 20th century, the northern portion of 

the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, 

has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 

degrees Celsius), while the southern portion, 

along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 

1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius). 

Annual precipitation has increased, with many 

of the changes quite substantial, including as 

much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th 

century. Much of the precipitation has resulted 

from an increased rise in the number of days 

with heavy and very heavy precipitation events. 

There have been moderate to very large 

increases in the number of days with excessive 

moisture in the eastern portion of the Great 

Lakes basin.

Scenarios of Future Climate

During the 21st century, models project that 

temperatures will increase throughout the Midwest, and at a greater rate than has been 

observed in the 20th century. Even over the 

northern portion of the region, where warming 

has been the largest, an accelerated warming 

trend is projected for the 21st century, with 

temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The average minimum temperature is likely to increase 

as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 

degree Celsius) more than the maximum temperature. Precipitation is likely to continue its 

upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 

to 30 percent increases are projected across 

much of the region. Despite the increases in 

precipitation, increases in temperature and 

other meteorological factors are likely to lead to 

a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a 

soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river 

levels, and more drought-like conditions in 

much of the region. In addition, increases in the 

proportion of precipitation coming from heavy 

and extreme precipitation are very likely. 

Midwest Key Issues:

1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climatesensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the 

projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures is likely to lead to reduced levels in the 

Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this 

question, 11 suggest significant decreases in 

lake levels while one suggests a small increase. 

The total range of the 11 models' projections is 

less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot 

decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) reduction would 

lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow to 

the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels 

cause reduced hydropower generation downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 

2050. An increase in demand for water across 

the region at the same time as net flows 

decrease is of particular concern. There is a possibility of increased national and international 

tension related to increased pressure for water 

diversions from the Lakes as demands for water 

increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced 

flows are likely to cause water quality issues to 

become more acute. In addition, the projected 

increase in very heavy precipitation events will 

Canadian tiger swallowtail butterfly. Photo Credit: R. Hickner
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

likely lead to increased flash flooding and 

worsen agricultural and other non-point source 

pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash 

pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water 

levels are likely to make water-based transportation more difficult with increases in the costs 

of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this 

increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover 

extends the navigation season. Shoreline damage due to high lake levels is likely to decrease 

40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels would require adaptations such as re-engineering of ship docks and locks for 

transportation and recreation. If flows decrease 

while demand increases, international commissions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are 

likely to become even more important in the 

future. Improved forecasts and warnings of 

extreme precipitation events could help reduce 

some related impacts. 

2. Agricultural Shifts

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, 

the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a 

capacity to adapt to moderate differences in 

growing season climate, and it is likely that 

agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. 

With an increase in the length of the growing 

season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is 

likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth 

and contribute to generally higher yields. The 

largest increases are projected to occur in the 

northern areas of the region, where crop yields 

are currently temperature limited. However, 

yields are not likely to increase in all parts of 

the region. For example, in the southern portions of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are 

likely to decline, with 10-20 percent decreases 

projected in some locations. Consumers are 

likely to pay lower prices due to generally 

increased yields, while most producers are 

likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining 

prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are very likely to be required and to present new challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding 

new varieties for the new growing conditions. 

Farmers can then choose varieties that are better attuned to the expected climate. It is likely 

that plant breeders will need to use all the tools 

of plant breeding, including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing 

planting and harvest dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest management, 

conservation tillage, and new farm technologies 

are additional options. There is also the potential for shifting or expanding the area where 

certain crops are grown if climate conditions 

become more favorable. Weather conditions 

during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large 

yield reductions; severe droughts, like the 

drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over 

30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are 

likely to help farmers adjust their practices 

from year to year to respond to such events. 

3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

The Upper Midwest has a unique combination 

of soil and climate that allows for abundant 

coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures 

and increased evaporation will likely reduce 

boreal forest acreage, and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It 

is likely that the southern transition zone of the 

boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of 

temperate forests, which in turn will have to 

compete with other land use pressures. However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial 

effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an 

increase in tree growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. Most climate models indicate that higher 

air temperatures will cause greater evaporation 

and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation 

conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century 

progresses, there will be an increased likelihood 

of greater environmental stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to disease and pest infestation, likely 

resulting in increased tree mortality. 

As water temperatures in lakes increase, major 

changes in freshwater ecosystems will very 

likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish 

species, such as trout, to warmer water species, 

such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also 

likely to create an environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of 

excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely 

to increase due to the increase in heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake 

temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth 

of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the 

detriment of other living things. Declining lake 

levels are likely to cause large impacts to the 

current distribution of wetlands. There is some 

chance that some wetlands could gradually 

migrate, but in areas where their migration is 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

limited by the topography, they would disappear. Changes in bird populations and other 

native wildlife have already been linked to 

increasing temperatures and more changes are 

likely in the future. Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to climate extremes due to 

the effects of drought on their food sources.

Administrative Facilities

The primary facility on Tamarac NWR is a combined Visitor Center and Refuge Headquarters 

located on Highway 26. The Visitor Center portion 

features an exhibit area, an observation deck, a book 

shop and an auditorium/theater. The Headquarters 

portion contains office space for most of the Refuge 

staff. Workshops, garages, storage buildings, and 

additional offices are located just east of the Refuge 

Headquarters. 

Visitor Services 

Between 60,000 to 85,000 visitors per year visit 

Tamarac NWR. The number of people that visit per 

year is dependent upon many factors, some which 

we control, such as the number of programs offered 

and outreach efforts. 

The Refuge’s Visitor Center is open year-round. 

In the winter and spring, the Visitor Center is open 

Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. In the 

summer and fall, the hours are extended to 10 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. on weekends.

Attractions include informational and interpretive displays such as a children’s touch table, a Bald 

Eagle’s nest, a ‘sounds of the Refuge’ display, Trumpeter Swan mounts and more. 

The Visitor Center also features a 12-minute orientation to the Refuge theater presentation. 

Other facilities include: 

 Old Indian Hiking Trail on County Road 29 

winds through maple-basswood and diverse forest for approximately 1.5 miles.

 All roads and trails in the Visitor Use Area are 

open for hiking year-round and snowshoeing 

during winter months. Roads and trails in the 

Sanctuary Area are open for hiking, snowshoeing or skiing from September through February. 

 Blackbird Auto Tour Drive, a 5-mile long, selfguided interpretive trail which travels through 

forested areas and follows the edge of lakes, 

marshes and bogs. The tour is open from April 

15 through December 15, road conditions permitting.

 Two observation decks, each with spotting 

scopes and interpretive panels.

 Trails and parking areas available for hunting 

waterfowl, deer and small game.

 Boat access available at Tamarac, Rice, Lost, 

Waboose, Blackbird, Height of Land, Cotton, 

Egg, Two Island, Day, Pine and Carmen Lakes.

 Information kiosks at the Visitor Center, the 

southern entrance on Highway 29 and the western entrance on Highway 26. 

 The Chippewa site, along the banks of the Otter 

Tail River, offers tables, grills and restrooms.

 The Pine Lake Ski Trail is open seasonally and 

offers two occasionally groomed loops approximately 2 and 6 miles. A parking lot and trail 

head map are located on County Road 29.

 Eleven historic monuments.

Current Management

Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Tamarac NWR conducts a broad array of wildlife and 

habitat management activities while providing for a 

variety of visitor services. Efforts to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and 

protection from environmental hazards are crucial. 

Refuge management has made significant progress 

in implementing planned activities over the years 

since establishment. Refuge planning and management, however, are a continual work in progress and 

evolve over time, depending on feedback and monitoring as well as changing values, needs, and priorities in wildlife management at the Refuge, regional, 

and national scale. 

Habitat Management

Land management on the Tamarac NWR has 

shifted over time from the wholesale logging of the Tamarac NWR Visitor Center. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

late 1800s, to pioneer settlement and agricultural 

attempts, to the edge management of early wildlife 

management, and on to the landscape and disturbance ecology of today.

As our knowledge and understanding of landscape ecology and wildlife management evolve over 

time, and as circumstances and values “on the 

ground” change, the direction of habitat management tends to change as well. By keeping the “Wildlife First” motto at the forefront of refuge 

management the Tamarac NWR is adhering to the 

refuge purpose. Although the Refuge’s original 

focus was on waterfowl (ducks and geese), other 

migratory birds, such as forest passerines, and resident wildlife, such as wolves and deer, have received 

an increasing emphasis in Refuge management over 

the years. In addition, a more holistic approach has 

been proposed for the future through ecosystem 

management principles and philosophies. The Refuge will accomplish these purpose(s) and mission by 

ensuring that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge are maintained 

and, where appropriate, restored. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological 

integrity policy (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2001) directs the agency to “maintain and restore, 

where appropriate, the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS). Biological diversity can be 

referred to as the variety of life including its processes; whereas, biological integrity refers to the 

“biotic composition, structure and functioning at 

genetic, organism and community levels comparable 

with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms 

and communities. Environmental health in the policy refers to the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features 

comparable with the historic conditions, including 

the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment. Unlike many locations in the upper Midwest, 

Tamarac NWR has the unique ability to manage for 

biological integrity based upon the ecosystem 

approach, without overemphasizing single species 

management. 

From the time of Refuge establishment, until the 

mid 1960s when acquisition boundaries were complete, much of the Refuge management focused on 

land acquisition and management of the waterfowl 

resources. From 1979 to 1992, the Refuge was managed under the guidance of the Tamarac NWR Master Plan. The primary management objective under 

this plan was the production and maintenance of 

waterfowl. This often was thought of as the more 

water that could be placed on the landscape, the 

more waterfowl that could be produced. Secondary 

objectives were directed toward maintaining an ecological balance between resident species their habitat and providing public opportunities such as 

hunting, fishing and wildlife observation.

Currently, Tamarac NWR operates under the 

guidance of the Refuge Management Plan (1992). 

This plan put forth the current mission for Tamarac 

NWR: 

“Manage Refuge habitats to maximize biodiversity, with emphasis on endangered species and 

waterfowl production and maintenance, while 

providing visitor opportunities, compatible with 

Refuge purposes, that produce high quality 

education, interpretation and recreation experiences.” 

Management emphasis of this plan focused on 

furthering the purposes for which Tamarac NWR 

was established, primarily production and maintenance of migratory waterfowl, with only endangered 

species having a higher priority than waterfowl.

The goals and the specific objectives stated in the 

1992 Refuge Management Plan were pursued by an 

aggressive habitat management program involving 

wetland, forest, grassland and fire management and 

a diverse public use program to provide a wide variety of recreational, interpretive and educational programs. These Refuge habitat goals were essentially 

divided and managed via three succinct management disciplines through individual step down plans: 

forest management plan (1994), grassland management plan (1990) and marsh & water management 

plan (1992), which provided more specificity to habitat management.

Wetland Management

In the early years of Refuge management, the 

management philosophy focused on constructing 

water control structures to create more waterfowl 

habitat. Refuge management philosophies have 

changed, and today, wetlands are being managed 

based on historical distribution and hydrological 

Bald Eagle and eaglet. Photo Credit: D. Braud
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

regimes to the extent possible. The basic purpose of 

water level management on the Refuge has been to 

enhance the area’s natural ability to grow wild rice 

and maintain aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of 

migrating waterfowl and other wetland dependent 

species. 

A total of 30 shallow lakes are managed on the 

Refuge using one of three management strategies: 

 Active water manipulation

 Removal of problem beaver dams as necessary

 No water level manipulation

The 1992 Marsh and Water Management Plan 

clearly articulated which strategy will be used for 

each lake and subsequently, lakes with active water 

manipulation have “target” water levels prescribed 

for different time periods throughout the year. 

According to the plan, eleven lakes/pools were to be 

addressed annually. However, only six lakes have 

management capability via water control structures 

and only four of those have been actively manipulated in recent years. With the exception of South 

Tamarac, which is controlled by a pumping station, 

all lakes are managed through natural gravity flow 

and runoff and are considered gravity flow systems.

Throughout Refuge history, water control structures have been used to manipulate water levels to 

maximize wild rice production. Initially, as each 

water control structure became functional elevations were established for each lake based on flooding a majority of the pool to a depth of 4 feet or less. 

Later some of the approved elevations changed 

based on observations and experiences of Refuge 

staff. Historically, approved levels were generally 

held constant throughout the year. From 1959 to the 

mid 1980s, management tactics focused on moving 

high spring runoff through Refuge lakes as rapidly 

as possible and stabilizing water levels throughout 

the growing season stabilizing water levels so that 

the growth of wild rice would benefit waterfowl by 

providing brood cover and food for migrants.

Since that time, management efforts have 

attempted to allow these natural fluctuations to 

occur in order to sustain the long-term viability of 

wild rice production, particularly in the Rice, Blackbird, Flat and Little Flat Lakes. Wild rice evolved 

through a cyclic process of water level fluctuations 

depending upon precipitation, runoff, and evaporation in any given year. For example, in a 10-year 

period, there were likely a couple drought years, a 

couple flood years, and some years with water levels 

in between these extremes. Recent research (Carson 2002) indicates stable water levels over time 

jeopardize the long-term viability of a wild rice dominated lake by allowing undesirable species to outcompete wild rice. 

Under today’s strategy, annual water level prescriptions are not rigid, but rather targets that provide the flexibility for wetland enhancement and 

management of aquatic ecosystemsl. The primary 

intent is to allow water to flow through naturally 

during peak periods such as spring run-off or heavy 

rain events, rather than restrict the flow. It is recognized that these water control structures do pose a 

fish barrier problem, but that seems to be an advantage with common carp in the Ottertail River systems just below the dam in Hubbel Pond Wildlife 

Management Area. 

Open Landscape Management

The Refuge currently manages about 2,800 acres 

(6.5 percent of the Refuge) as upland grass/brush 

habitat. Most of these areas are remnants of the 

early settler clearings or small farms which followed 

the virgin timber harvest or the late 1800s. Early 

management of grassland “openings” in the landscape was through intensive farming efforts. Food 

plots were established as part of an aggressive 

goose restoration program in the 1950s. Once Canada Geese were successfully restored in the area, 

many of these food plots were slowly converted to 

dense nesting cover (DNC) for the benefit of nesting 

waterfowl. In recent years, many of these DNC 

fields have been converted to stands of warm season 

grasses and forbs, and most have been maintained 

primarily by prescribed burning. 

A plan to continue converting half of extant Refuge grassland to forest was proposed in 1984, but 

not approved, and instead a decision was made to 

rehabilitate existing grasslands and reclaim additional grassland habitats through timber removal 

and fire use. In 1981, a prescribed fire program was 

initiated as a tool to maintain and rehabilitate grasslands. The primary goal of the current Grassland 

Tamarac NWR wetland. Photo Credit: George Read
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Management Plan (1990) was to provide a variety of 

quality grasslands, by 1999, totaling 2,500 acres and 

eventually 5,000 acres for the benefit of nesting 

waterfowl. Additional goals were to:

1. Strive for a 4.6 to 1 forest to grassland ratio 

which would represent habitats observed by 

Refuge founders.

2. Provide habitat suitable for reestablishment of 

Prairie Grouse populations, either by natural 

immigration or eventual restocking

3. Provide openings in unbroken forest cover to 

benefit Woodcock, deer, grouse and other resident wildlife.

Many grassland areas are small and scattered 

throughout the Refuge. These patches are too small 

to be of value to most area-sensitive grassland bird 

species and some upland nesting waterfowl due to 

their juxtaposition in a forested landscape. Currently, there are 83 designated grassland units on 

the Refuge with an average size of 17 acres (median 

of 7.6 acres). Sixty-eight percent (57 of 83) of these 

grassland units are less than 20 acres in size, and 

only ten of these grasslands are greater than 40 

acres in size with the largest tract consisting of 88 

acres. Historically, there probably was not any 

upland grass habitat at the Refuge during the era 

immediately prior to European settlement. However, grass/brush habitats would likely fall within 

the range of natural variability due to catastrophic 

disturbances and may have been present for short 

periods of time until succession quickly progressed. 

The 1000-acre Tract

One attempt to create a sizeable, contiguous unit 

of grassland/brushland that could be managed long 

term by prescribed fire to enhance habitat for 

upland nesting ducks, especially Mallards, and recolonization of Prairie Grouse was conceived 

through establishment of the 1,000-acre Tract. Following the logging of the native red and white pine 

stands in the late 1800s, subsequent fires and settlement of the Refuge, Pinnated and Sharp-tailed 

Grouse were observed on the Refuge. The Pinnated 

Grouse persisted into the 1940s and Sharp-tailed 

Grouse until the 1950s when the developing second 

growth forest closed in eliminating suitable habitat 

for them. Nearly a hundred years later (late 1980s) 

significant portions of the 1,000-acre Tract were 

logged a second time. This tract was a forested/wetland area in the central portion of the Refuge that 

was cleared of most the trees by 1990 to create a 

brushy grassland area of 1,000 acres that would be 

burned at least 3 times from 1990-1995 to kill woody 

regeneration and to stimulate native grasses and 

forbs on uplands, as well as kill willows, create open 

water for pairs [waterfowl] and enhance marsh vegetation in wetlands. 

This tract was chosen because of the relative 

openness of the area and the presence of a remnant 

parcel (52 acres) of native big bluestem that suggested that the area historically developed under 

some open landscape conditions. The relative openness of several other anthropogenic grassland fields 

that were already established adjacent to the unit 

was significant in the tract’s selection. Indeed, 

recent research indicates this 52-acre remnant parcel developed under “open’ grassland conditions, but 

this was the only area within entire 1,000-acre Tract 

indicative of this condition. In addition, most experts 

would agree that big bluestem is ubiquitous to a 

variety of habitat types including forest habitats in 

northern Minnesota. 

Prior the creation of the 1000-acre Tract, the unit 

was dominated by aspen with varying densities of 

mature burr oak and scattered white and red pines 

present within the stands. Also present on the 

higher ridges was a closed canopy community of 

jack pine with paper birch inclusions. A complex of 

more than 100 wetland basins and 52 acres of old 

settler field openings were also present. Logging 

excluded many of the oaks and large red and white 

pines along the ridges. These trees were left as 

future seed trees should Prairie Grouse not return. 

Essentially, this management adopted a “cookiecutter” approach where a block of forest habitat was 

fragmented within an interior forested landscape. 

The intensity and timing of prescribed burns have 

only stimulated the shrub species present on the 

unit rather than eliminated or reduced them as originally intended. Overall, this tract is not contributing greatly to regional or even local waterfowl 

Tamarck NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

populations. Tamarac NWR is positioned in a forested landscape and Sharp-tailed and Pinnated 

Grouse have not pioneered or re-established into 

the area. A new management scenario for this area, 

either through natural succession or active restoration, will be considered in this CCP. 

Forest Openings

Thirty-two forest openings, totaling 63 acres, 

were established in the northern portion of the Refuge from 1990 to 1991. These openings are very similar to the smaller grassland units mentioned 

previously but are smaller in size. The openings 

were typically placed in a variety of forest types and 

generally centered on recently abandoned logging 

decks and ranged in size from 1 to 3 acres with an 

irregular shape. In most cases, these openings represent a “hard edge” or transition from grass to forest without much woody vegetation within the 

opening itself. These openings were created out of a 

need to provide early successional stages and edge 

habitat within a continuous forest habitat primarily 

for the benefit or ruffed grouse, woodcock, bear and 

white-tailed deer. 

Maintenance of these openings included tree 

removal, prescribed fire, herbicide, tillage, grading, 

mowing and seeding to stop woody invasion. Prescribed fire, herbicide and mowing have been the 

primary treatments in recent years, although invasive species, particularly thistle species, have 

invaded many of these openings thus requiring additional mechanical or chemical treatment. With limited budgets, these openings can be very costly to 

maintain. There are enough natural openings on the 

landscape; therefore anthropogenic openings do not 

need to be maintained. The natural openings on the 

landscape provide enough habitat on the landscape 

for these relatively common species and the Refuge 

should focus on maintaining “unbroken” or nonfragmented forest habitat. Temporary openings created through on-going silvicultural practices on the 

Refuge provide the same amount of habitat if not 

more at no additional cost to the Refuge and require 

no maintenance. 

Croplands

Similar to the “edge-management” philosophy of 

the grasslands, wildlife biologists (particularly 

waterfowl managers) for decades encouraged the 

cultivation of crops, particularly grains, as a nutritious food source both for upland game and migrating ducks and geese. When national wildlife refuges 

were established, agricultural lands were acquired 

and often maintained to produce food for wildlife. 

However, by the 1980s, wildlife biologists generally, 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically, 

were adopting more holistic approaches to wildlife 

management. They realized that artificial food production often had undesirable outcomes even among 

those species targeted to benefit, such as overpopulation or overcrowding and thus susceptibility to disease and other problems, e.g., outbreaks of botulism 

or avian cholera.

At the same time, croplands often came at the 

expense of more robust, sustainable, and diverse 

natural communities and the non-game organisms 

that inhabit them. In recent years, the Service and 

wildlife biologists in other agencies have tended to 

discourage grain and crop cultivation. Today, only 

one small cropland field is maintained on the Refuge 

for the benefit of watchable wildlife. It is located off 

the Blackbird Auto tour route. All other cropfields 

within the Refuge have been converted to grassland, 

many of which will ultimately be converted to forest. 

In recent years, the management philosophy at 

Tamarac NWR, paralleling that of other refuges 

around the country, has become more oriented 

toward fostering or simulating natural processes, 

like wildland fire, to achieve desired landscapes and 

to restore scarce habitats. 

Forest Management

The long range goal identified in the current Forest Management Plan (USFWS 1994) was to provide diverse patterns of vegetation and openings 

throughout the entire Refuge. The goal was to be 

accomplished through management ranging from 

preservation to very active forest management via 

timber harvest to promote early successional 

stages. In general, the current purposes of forest 

management are to provide protection and generate 

new habitat areas for endangered species, as well as 

managing for a variety of forest species, through the 

use of sustained yield principles of forest management. Under the 1994 plan, the development of open 

crowned canopies and block clearcuts to provide 

habitat for a diversity of wildlife was promoted, 

along with the growth and retention of abundant 

tree cavities for cavity nesting waterfowl and other 

birds. 

Management of upland and lowland hardwoods 

was to be directed toward mixed, uneven-aged 

stands with all age classes represented to insure a 

continuous supply of natural cavities. From the mid1980s through the late 1990s, timber harvest of 

aspen on the Refuge was accelerated due to an 

increase in aspen pulp markets. From 1987 to 1990, 

over a thousand acres of aspen was harvested per 

year, primarily through clear-cutting practices. In 

order to alter the age class diversity, some of these 

aspen regenerating sites were mowed with a 

hydroaxe or knocked down with a roller chopper; 

however, this practice was fairly limited. Forest 

management objectives associated with these 

efforts were primarily concerned with managing for 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

early successional habitats on a rotational basis for 

Golden-winged Warblers, American Woodcock and 

Eastern Towhee. Timber harvest of mixed upland 

hardwoods was through selective harvest techniques where single trees or clusters of trees were 

harvest from within a larger stand of trees. 

Some clear-cutting of decadent jack pine 

occurred in recent history, followed by prescribed 

fire in an attempt regenerate jack pine. These 

efforts were met with limited success. Selective harvest of red pine occurred infrequently as well, primarily as a thinning operation to increase basal area 

of the remaining red pines. For the most part, white 

pine has been preserved on the Refuge to provide 

nesting trees for bald eagles. Although harvest 

strategies exist in the Forest Management Plan for 

lowland hardwoods and lowland conifers, these 

cover types have been left relatively undisturbed. 

Specific management strategies for each of the 

major cover types were identified in the 1994 plan.

Representative areas of all forest cover types 

were allowed to succeed to mature forest with no 

active management in an effort to insure the needs 

of all wildlife species were being considered. These 

specific areas include the Wilderness Area, 

Research Natural Areas and “Old Growth Unit”. 

Although the “Old Growth Unit” really does not 

meet true old growth criteria in a true sense of the 

term, it was an area set aside to be managed as a 

diverse forested area which possesses a high probability of becoming, over time, acceptable habitat for 

interior forest birds.

Currently, there is no mandate that the NWRS 

harvest trees or manage specifically for timber production. The Refuge has the unique opportunity to 

manage the land for wildlife management purposes, 

which may include various management strategies 

such as preservation, timber harvesting, prescribed 

fire, etc. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act and 

subsequent Biological Integrity policy provide the 

foundation for this determination, along with the 

land’s inherent capability.

The distribution and abundance of cover types 

are significantly altered from pre-settlement times 

primarily due to timber harvest, farming, grazing 

and fire suppression. Consequently, in many forest 

patches, the compositional and structural patterns 

that now exist are considerably different relative to 

pre-European benchmark conditions. For example, 

many of the timber harvest efforts on the Refuge 

have converted climax communities or later seral 

stages to early successional stages. Subsequent 

management has attempted to maintain them at the 

young stage while fire suppression has essentially 

eliminated a natural process within fire dependent 

plant communities. These efforts have created an 

imbalance of cover types within the native plant 

communities in relation to the range of natural variation. 

Although forest communities have changed in 

composition across much of northern Minnesota, 

opportunities exist for sustainable management and 

conservation of these communities. Large tracts of 

native plant communities provide opportunities for 

ecosystem management, through silviculture, fire 

and hydrological management that mimic natural 

cycles in forests and forested wetlands, thereby, 

perpetuating all of the beneficial functions that 

native plant communities provide. Specifically, on 

Tamarac NWR management efforts include the restoration of these native plant communities, including the composition, structure and ecological 

processes associated with these communities. 

Habitat Restoration

Many of the management efforts on the Refuge 

focus on restoring ecosystems, wildlife habitats and 

populations that have declined or have been completely lost. Since the inception of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s biological integrity policy 

in 2001, increasing emphasis has been placed on 

restoring native ecosystems and their associated 

natural processes. Where feasible, management 

that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes 

or function to achieve Refuge purpose(s) is favored; 

however, it may be necessary to modify the frequency and timing of natural processes at the Refuge scale to fulfill Refuge purpose(s) or to 

contribute to biological integrity at larger landscape 

scales. Endangered plants and animals, as well as 

rare communities, are the highest contribution that 

Winter day at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Pam Lehmann 

Callaway
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Tamarac can make to preservation of local and landscape levels of biological integrity. 

The boreal hardwood forest in Minnesota, particularly the coniferous component, is becoming a rare 

and unique habitat and the preservation and restoration of these systems helps the Refuge adhere to 

the biological integrity policy. Restoration of endangered species (ie: Bald Eagles and Trumpeter 

Swans), as well as rare communities (ie: jack pine 

barrens, red and white pine cover types, etc), has 

and will continue to be at the forefront of management at Tamarac. The majority of the habitats on 

the Refuge have been modified by humans to some 

extant; however, most of these habitats are not 

degraded and could be managed as intact ecosystems, with potential for restoration near the historic 

range of natural variation rather than an arbitrary 

point in time, such as pre-settlement conditions. 

Given the continually changing environmental 

conditions and landscape patterns of the past and 

present (e.g., rapid development, fire suppression, 

climate change), relying on natural processes may 

not be feasible or always the best management 

strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires that a refuge manage within a natural range of variability rather than 

emulating an arbitrary point in time. This approach 

maintains processes that allow species, genetic 

strains, and natural communities to evolve within 

changing conditions, rather than trying to maintain 

stability.

Fish and Wildlife Management and 

Monitoring

Fish and Wildlife Management

Fishery Management

The goal of the Refuge fisheries program is to 

provide and maintain a diverse, yet balanced, fish 

population capable of supporting a quality sport 

fishery. Lakes currently supporting catchable sizes 

of game fish (and open to public fishing) in most 

years include: Lost, Two Island, Wauboose, Blackbird, North Tamarac and Pine. The Minnesota DNR 

currently stocks Wauboose and North Tamarac 

Lakes with walleye fry on an every-other year cycle. 

Likewise, the White Earth Tribal Natural 

Resources Department stocks walleye fry in Lost 

and Teacracker lakes on a similar cycle. The Minnesota DNR and White Earth Tribal Natural 

Resources Department routinely conduct fish surveys on these lakes that are stocked. The LaCrosse 

Fisheries Resource Office (USFWS) has conducted 

fish survey assessments on some of the other priority lakes within the Refuge on a five year rotation.

Wildlife Management

Wildlife population management is predicated on 

the fact that habitat is the most critical factor limiting a desired species response. Therefore, most refuges focus on managing the habitats rather than the 

wildlife species. Wildlife management on national 

wildlife refuges has evolved “from managing for a 

few species to managing for many species using natural processes” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1999). Today, many refuges focus on restoring land 

to certain desired conditions through direct habitat 

management for the benefit of wildlife, rather than 

setting specific population objectives. Emphasis is 

placed on maintaining or restoring native plan communities that sustain the area’s biological diversity 

at the landscape scale.

Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management

Tamarac NWR has a trapping program, administered through a 1991 Trapping Plan, with the primary purpose to control predation on groundnesting birds. Trapping also helps control the number of muskrat and beaver which cause damage to 

roads and water control structures. The plan provides specific guidance for administering the recreational/commercial trapping program of the White 

Earth Band of Objiwa on the Refuge, and contains 

guidelines for other trapping by Refuge staff or 

other permittees. 

The Refuge has a trapping history that dates 

back to the time of Refuge establishment. Starting 

around 1975, the program was modified such that 

only enrolled members of Minnesota Objiwa were 

able to obtain a permit. Non-tribal members may be 

offered trapping opportunities if the alternate list of 

tribal applicants is exhausted (pending Refuge manager discretion). Trapping of beaver, muskrat, 

mink, raccoon, red fox, coyote and otter is authorized under the trapping plan. Low fur prices in 

recent years have diminished interest in trapping on 

the Refuge and as a result fewer furbearers have 

been taken in recent years. Beaver and muskrat 

comprise most of the harvest on an annual basis.

The Refuge is divided into seven zones with only 

one authorized trapper per zone. On those portions 

lying within the White Earth Reservation, permittees are governed by seasons, bag limits, methods of 

take and license requirements established by the 

White Earth Tribal Council. On the remainder of 

the Refuge, regulations of the Minnesota DNR are 

applicable. The trapping season typically runs from 

mid-October through April each year. 

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

In support of the Service’s mission, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Improvement Act of 1997, specifically directs the 

Service to “...monitor the status and trends of fish, 

wildlife, and plants in each refuge.” It is nearly 

impractical for most refuges to monitor all species 

within a given refuge, therefore refuges must prioritize monitoring efforts. Ideally, guidance for prioritizing inventory and monitoring is derived directly 

from management objectives established in the 

CCP and HMP, which incorporate the Refuge System mission, refuge purpose, the refuge’s role as a 

part of the NWRS, refuge resources of concern 

(both wildlife and habitat), ecosystem function and 

integrity (i.e.: native plant community intactness 

and their natural processes), and the context of the 

surrounding landscape.

The Refuge staff currently conduct approximately 33 surveys on an annual basis that are 

guided through an approved 1992 Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan (IMP). The station’s IMP identifies 

and prioritizes survey objectives and includes a set 

of approved survey protocols. 

Four basic types of inventories are conducted on 

Tamarac NWR: 

 basic species lists through presence/absence 

detection

 qualitative surveys lacking statistical vigor

 quantitative surveys characterized by a high 

level of statistical vigor

 cooperative surveys which follow predetermined protocols established by their respective 

coordinating offices or agencies. 

The surveys within the Refuge’s IMP are generally conducted by Refuge staff with some assistance 

from Refuge volunteers.

Studies and Investigations

The intent of additonal studies and investigation 

beyond routine monitoring is to promote research 

(or investigation) that relates to a specific refuge 

management concern and uses the results to inform 

management decisions (applied research). Tamarac 

NWR recognizes the important and much needed 

role research has in the management of federal 

lands. The following paragraphs describe a few of 

the studies and investigations (research) that are 

either ongoing or have taken place in recent years. 

Water Quality

To address water quality concerns, the Refuge 

initiated a water quality monitoring program in 

2007.

Currently, the Refuge, in cooperation with the 

Tamarac Interpretative Association and Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency, monitors various water 

chemistry parameters for 11 lakes and 7 stream 

sites within the boundaries on a weekly basis 

throughout the ice-free period. These water quality 

assessments are also incorporated in evaluation of 

the water quality in the entire Red River Basin.

Climate Change

In 2009, the Refuge joined a partnership with the 

Terrestrial Wetland Global Change Research Network (TWGCRN) via Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) to begin to address 

the needs of the FWS and the Refuge regarding climate change and understanding effects and options 

within regional, national, and international contexts.Tamarac NWR functions as a research node in 

the TWGCRN, a growing network of U.S. and 

Canadian scientists, organizations, and research 

sites using multidisciplinary methods to assess the 

impacts of climate change across a vital portion of 

North America and management options for mitigating negative effects. The primary objective is to 

implement a long-term, integrated assessment of 

the effects of climate on a set of indicators of landscape conditions at Tamarac NWR via installation of 

digital sound recorders, water-level loggers, and 

temperature loggers at ten individual wetlands. 

This study allows the Refuge to obtain crucial information on the status of Refuge biodiversity (using 

birds and amphibians as indicators) relative to climatic, hydrologic, and habitat conditions inside and 

outside the Refuge. It enables the Refuge staff to 

manage terrestrial and aquatic conditions within the 

Refuge to maximize conservation benefits and to 

identify essential habitat connectivity to areas outside the Refuge so Refuge staff can collaborate with 

Obtaining lake samples for the Tamarac NWR water quality 

monitoring program. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

partners and landowners to maximize conservation 

benefits at larger landscape scales.

Pathways for Ecological Restoration of Native Plant 

Communities

In 2009, Tamarac NWR initiated a project 

through Wildlands Ecological Services, which used 

the Minnesota Ecological Classification System 

(ECS) to determine the distribution of native plant 

communities (NPC) within the Refuge in an effort to 

assess the restoration potential, including ecological 

processes associated with those communities. 

An important consideration within ECS is the 

inclusion of ecological processes as an organizing 

principle (e.g., fire regime, successional or seral 

stage, hydrology, etc.). Instead of basing management decisions solely on cover types or other single 

attributes, ECS will enable Refuge staff to understand how a variety of conditions are interacting and 

the site potential that results from those interactions. The expected completion date for this project 

is March 2011. 

Survivability of Spotted Knapweed Biological Agents to 

a Spring Prescribed Fire

A graduate student from the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, initiated a study in 2006 to examine the “Survivability of Spotted Knapweed 

Biological Agents to a Spring Prescribed Fire”. As 

land managers began to integrate biological control 

agents into their weed management programs, 

questions arise to whether or not prescribed fire has 

an effect on these agents. Tamarac NWR is one of 

six study sites distributed between Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. Areas were sampled for spotted knapweed bio-agent densities and vegetative cover 

before and after burn treatments. Preliminary 

results indicate that soil and unburned areas provide refugia from low intensity fires, thus there 

appears to be no detrimental effect for most knapweed biological control agents. These results will be 

used to formulate a more comprehensive integrated 

weed management scheme for spotted knapweed 

control in grassland systems, incorporating prescribed fire, biological control, and cultural methods 

to decrease the time-lag in site restoration. 

Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Ecology

Tamarac NWR launched a multi-year research 

study in cooperation with Concordia College to: 

 Assess the cumulative contribution of small isolated patches of Golden-winged Warbler habitat 

to the overall population on Tamarac NWR.

 Develop a fine-scale model of Golden-winged 

Warbler habitat selection on Tamarac NWR.

 Document seasonal changes in breeding ecology.

 Evaluate the detection area correction factor 

(“listening distance”) established by Partners in 

Flight for estimating the population of GoldenWinged Warblers throughout the continental 

U.S. 

In May 2010 project was near completion.

The University of Minnesota-Crookston launched 

a similar project examining Golden-winged Warbler 

ecology and management. This effort is through a 

comprehensive approach coordinated through collaboration of federal and state agencies, academia 

and industry stakeholders across the breeding 

range of the Golden-winged Warbler. The primary 

objective is to examine responses of Golden-winged 

Warblers and associated species to a host of early 

successional habitat types and conditions with the 

goal of developing suitable habitat management 

prescriptions. 

In addition, researchers hope to document genetically pure-populations by developing a genetic 

atlas. Tamarac NWR is one of seven studies monitored across the breeding range. Basic demographic 

data (return rates, territory size, clutch size, nest 

success, young produced per successful nest, annual 

reproductive output, parasitism rates and hybridization rates) is currently being collected in New York, 

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, 

Michigan and Minnesota. The study is scheduled to 

be completed by December 2010.

Post-fledging Ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in 

Minnesota

The Minnesota DNR Fall Use Plan recognized 

sizable populations of resident breeding ducks as a 

cornerstone to improving fall duck use. Although 

breeding Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) popu- Cleaning out a culvert plugged lations have been increasing continentally, they by beavers. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

appear to be declining in Minnesota (Zicus et al. 

2005). Factors influencing resident populations are 

poorly understood, and efforts to better understand 

their status began in 2003 with development of a 

breeding-pair survey for Ring-necked Ducks in 

Minnesota. Minnesota’s Fall Use Plan identified the 

need to better understand the role of refuges in 

duck management. The influence of north-central 

Minnesota refuges on the distribution and welfare 

of resident Ring-necked Ducks is largely unknown, 

as well as the influence that the distribution of the 

resident population might have on that of migrant 

Ring-neck Ducks arriving in the fall. 

The intent of this project is to relate the distribution and welfare of a local population of ducks to the 

pattern of refuges existing in north-central Minnesota. Understanding factors influencing the distribution of locally raised Ring-necked Ducks in the 

fall may provide valuable insights into the distribution of refuges required to meet management objectives for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota.

Incorporating the aid of radio telemetry, the 

objectives of this study were to: 

 Characterize post-fledging movements of local 

Ring-necked Ducks prior to their fall departure

 Estimate survival of locally produced birds during this period

 Relate the survival of locally produced birds to 

their relative use of or proximity to established 

refuges (federal and state) in north-central Minnesota. 

Tamarac NWR is one of two federal refuges and 

12 state refuges involved in the study which encompasses a significant portion of the core of the Ringnecked Duck breeding range in Minnesota. The 

project is scheduled to be completed in December 

2009.

Disease Monitoring and Control

West Nile Virus

West Nile Virus appeared in northwestern Minnesota in 2002, reported first in horses. Spread by 

mosquitoes, this exotic virus infects mammals, 

including humans, and birds. Members of the Corvidae family (crows and jays) seem to be especially 

vulnerable. 

Avian Influenza (H5N1)

Avian influenza, the H5N1, highly pathogenic 

strain of “bird flu,” has received a great deal of 

attention in recent years. It has not yet been 

detected in North America, but because migratory 

waterfowl, shorebirds and other birds could potentially introduce the virus, an early detection sampling strategy was developed. The Refuge has 

participated in surveillance monitoring efforts of 

this disease from 2006 to 2009 primarily by collecting cloacal and/or oropharyngeal during waterfowl 

banding activities. Primary targets sampled include 

Mallard, Green-winged Teal and Wood Ducks. All 

samples were submitted to the USGS National 

Wildlife Health Center located in Madison, Wisconsin for analysis. 

Visitor Facilities

Visitor activities on Tamarac NWR vary with the 

season (see Figure 12 on page 48 and Figure 13 on 

page 49). 

Hunting 

Hunting on the Refuge is very popular with local 

residents and many visiting hunters. All hunting is 

done in accordance with federal, state, and White 

Earth tribal regulations and seasons. A 1,350-acre 

area surrounding the Refuge Headquarters and 

Visitor Center is closed to hunting.

White-tailed deer are hunted during the state 

firearms, muzzleloader, and archery seasons. The 

Refuge is identified as a separate harvest unit by 

the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The most popular small game is Ruffed Grouse, 

with gray and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbit and 

snowshoe hare also pursued by hunters. Migratory 

birds including ducks, Canada Geese, American 

Woodcock and Common Snipe are hunted during 

the established fall seasons. The Refuge is open to a 

special state youth waterfowl hunt every year.

Fishing

Fishing is a popular activity in this region of Minnesota and on Tamarac NWR as well. Regulations 

of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

and, where applicable, the White Earth Reservation 

Visitors discover turtle egg shells on a wildlife excursion. Photo 

Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Figure 12: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Figure 13: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Spring and Summer
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

are in effect regarding licensing, creel limits, tackle 

restrictions and season. Anglers pursue northern 

pike, walleye, largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, yellow perch, black, brown, and 

yellow bullhead and white sucker.

Several lakes are open for fishing throughout the 

year. Two sites along the Otter Tail River are also 

open for bank fishing. The following sites are open 

to fishing on the Tamarac NWR:

 North Tamarac, Wauboose and Two Island 

Lakes are open year-round.

 Blackbird and Lost Lakes are open only during 

the summer fishing season.

 Pine Lake is open to ice fishing from December 

1 to March 31.

 Bank fishing 50 yards either side of Otter Tail 

River bridges on County Roads 26 and 126 is 

permitted. No additional river areas are open to 

fishing.

Wildlife Observation

Tamarac NWR is known as a great place to watch 

wildlife and it is recognized internationally for its 

importance as a migratory bird stopover. Each year, 

visitors from around the world come to the Refuge 

to observe wildlife. The road network and waters 

provide excellent opportunities for people, of all 

ages with various abilities, to observe wildlife. Others prefer to walk the nature trails or hike in search 

of wildlife. During the winter, visitors can get into 

cross-country skis or snowshoes to observe wildlife.

Staff and volunteers working at the Visitor Center maintain a wildlife observation log and share 

that information with visitors. Staff also help visitors locate observation decks that have viewing 

scopes, and binoculars are available for loan. Tours 

are given periodically that provide viewing opportunities into the back country.

Wildlife Photography

The trails and observation platforms along the 

lakes and rivers affords photographers, of all skill 

levels, excellent opportunities to photograph wildlife. Many beginners focus their lens on the ever 

charismatic Trumpeter Swan or state flower, the 

showy lady-slipper, as is evident by entries to the 

annual Tamarac NWR Photo Contest. The more 

seasoned photographers often venture beyond the 

auto tour route to capture images of plants, insects, 

and landscapes bathed in a wide spectrum of light 

conditions. 

Interpretation

The Refuge Visitor Center, open year-round, 

contains a variety of displays to interpret the natural resources of Tamarac NWR as well as the biological work conducted on the Refuge. It contains 

permanent exhibits including a forest and wetland 

wildlife diorama that features wolf, beaver and 

eagle’s nest. Exhibits also include vernal ponds, 

Ruffed Grouse, and wildlife sounds of the Refuge. 

Creative temporary displays and video monitors are 

used to inform the visitors of what’s blooming, who 

is migrating, the use of fire management, the 

threats of invasive species and other Refuge management activities.

Refuge kiosks provide interpretive information 

on the Fish and Wildlife Service and specifically 

Tamarac NWR. The Blackbird Auto Tour Drive has 

an interpretive brochure for stops along the route 

and an observation platform was built with a focus 

on eagles and wild rice. Fact sheets and posters also 

provide additional interpretive information.

Interpretive efforts to connect local residents 

with biological activities and wildlife management 

practices extend to regular newspaper articles, 

radio and tv broadcasts. Off-site presentations to 

civic groups and others are also an important means 

to strive for local communities to recognize refuges 

as national treasures, understanding the System’s 

tremendous contribution toward wildlife conservation and actively participating in their stewardship.

The Refuge’s interpretive program is subsidized 

by funds from Tamarac Interpretive Association. 

The Tamarac Interpretive Association has also paid 

for the publication of brochures and signs as well as 

the construction of observation decks. A majority of 

their funds are derived from the sale of books, Refuge-specific clothing and interpretive material sold 

in a small store located in the Visitor Center. 

Environmental Education

The Refuge welcomes school groups and others 

interested in environmental education. On average, 

2,000-3,000 students visit the Refuge each year, with 

many returning several times over the seasons. 

School field trips are accommodated through guided 

activities including data collection of habitats, tree 

planting, and nature observations. In recent years, 

home-schooled students are frequent visitors. The 

Refuge has a variety of lessons that address state 

graduation standards and the Fish and Wildlife Service mission. There is a growing demand for environmental education both on and off Refuge.

Outreach

The Refuge is an integral part of the surrounding 

communities. It plays a role in the communities’ 

tourism through recreation, is an outdoor classroom 

for local school districts, and is at the headwaters of 

two watershed districts. The Refuge is part of the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, North Country 

National Scenic Trail and the Lake Country Scenic 

Byway. All of these connections and more have created extensive partnership opportunities to enhance 

the biology and visitor service efforts on a landscape 

scale beyond the boundaries of the Refuge. Refuge 

staff regularly work with Chambers, local officials, 

civic groups, agencies and organizations that have 

similar goals. 

Special events, held throughout the season, provide information on a variety of topics such as hunting and fishing, endangered species backyard 

wildlife, migratory birds, fire ecology, invasive species management, wildflowers and wildlife films.

Events in the community and presentations to 

civic groups are all part of the outreach efforts. 

Some of the events sponsored in recent years 

include:

 National Wildlife Refuge Week which includes a 

Fall Festival event and a variety of interpretive 

programs

 Detroit Lakes Festival of Birds

 Winter Open House 

Volunteer Contributions

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by 

the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1988, 

authorized the Service to accept volunteer services. 

Congress reauthorized the Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act in 2004, affirming its desire to involve Americans as stewards of 

our nation’s natural resources and wildlife. As a 

result, the Refuge System expanded its volunteer 

program, environmental education programs, recreational opportunities, and community-based partnerships increased. 

The expanding volunteer program at Tamarac 

NWR includes more than 100 volunteers, both individual and group, that donate more than 6,000 hours 

to the Refuge. Tamarac NWR volunteers are individuals who want to give back to their community, 

parents and grandparents wanting to model environmental stewardship, retirees willing to share a 

wealth of knowledge, concerned citizens of all ages 

who are interested in making meaningful contributions while learning about conservation, and passionate people who enjoy the outdoors and want to 

spread the word about Tamarac NWR and its greatest natural treasures. Volunteers on the Refuge 

assist with providing information to the public at the 

Visitor Center, environmental education activities, 

interpretive and outreach programs as well as 

administrative tasks. They are photographers, 

equipment operators, and journalists. They get 

involved in habitat restoration efforts, biological 

programs and maintenance tasks. Volunteers of 

Tamarac NWR become advocates in the community 

for Refuge management actions and provide vital 

help in fulfilling the Refuge mission. 

Partnerships

Tamarac NWR staff invest a significant amount 

of energy and time representing the Refuge in its 

role as a partner with other government and 

resource agencies as a neighbor and large landowner in the community. Refuge staff participate as 

team members of various committees and groups 

ranging from watershed districts to Minnesota tourism promotion efforts.

Interagency Coordination

Tamarac NWR staff work closely with professionals from the various conservation agencies to 

ensure the continued resilience of the natural 

resources to environmental challenges.

 Assist U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

and local county soil and water conservation districts with Farm Bill program implementation.

 Participation in Buffalo-Red River Watershed 

meetings.

 Collaboration on water quality issues with the 

Red River Basin Water Quality Team, which 

advises Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on 

water quality management, improvement and 

protection strategies for the watersheds of Minnesota’s Red River Basin.

 Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture on invasive species monitoring and 

White-tailed deer welcome visi management, including use of biological control tors. Photo Credit: Dick Henry
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

agents, establishment of insectaries, and infestation monitoring.

 Coordination on a wide variety of surveys, studies and restoration efforts with outside parties 

including the U.S. Forest Service, Minnesota 

DNR, Pelican River Watershed District and 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Tribal Activities 

Tamarac NWR maintains a special relationship 

with the White Earth Reservation. The north half of 

the Refuge lies within the original boundary of the 

White Earth Indian Reservation, established in 

1867. A unique agreement referred to as the “Collier Agreement” was instituted during Refuge 

establishment. This agreement affords White Earth 

band members priority privileges to trap furbearers 

and harvest wild rice on the Refuge (see Appendix 

H). Over the years, the Refuge and White Earth 

Natural Resources Department have forged a 

strong cooperative relationship managing these two 

activities. 

Trapping: A drawing for up to seven trapping 

permits is conducted every October at Refuge headquarters. The Refuge is divided into seven separate 

trapping zones that have been historically reserved 

for tribal members only. The White Earth Reservation Tribal Council establishes seasons and regulations for trap zones within the reservation boundary 

of the Refuge. The state enforces state seasons and 

regulations outside the reservation boundary. In 

addition, Refuge Special Use Permit regulations 

further control trapping activities, such as limiting 

motorized vehicle use to protect habitats and minimize disturbances and imposing more restrictive 

snaring regulations to prevent accidental catch of 

gray wolves. The Refuge trapping season runs from 

October through April 30 each year. The most common furbearers harvested are beaver, otter, muskrat, mink, raccoon, and red fox. Drawing 

attendance, trapping effort, and success varies 

greatly year to year depending on fur market 

futures. Over the past 20 years, harvest rates have 

averaged approximately 330 furbearers per year. 

Beaver are the most sought after species representing 57 percent of the harvest over this period. 

Tribal wild ricing: The White Earth Natural 

Resources Department (WENRD) hosts a Refuge 

permit drawing for wild rice harvest every August. 

Two to three hundred tribal members attend the 

drawing each year. The number of permits issued is 

based on the abundance, quality, and distribution of 

the wild rice beds within the Refuge. Staff from the 

WENRD annually assesses wild rice production on 

the Refuge and determine how many boats each 

lake or stretch of river can sustain. Refuge permits 

have been reserved for White Earth enrolled members and are issued per boat (two people per canoe). 

Over the past 10 years, boat numbers and open 

waters have ranged from 49 to 95 boats on 9 to 15 

lakes and rivers. After the WENRD opens Lower 

Rice Lake, in Clearwater County, to wild ricing, the 

Refuge issues additional permits to enrolled members. Ricing season normally begins in late August 

and concludes by mid-September. The Refuge 

assists with the drawing, issues permits, and mows 

trails and boat landings for access. In addition to 

sponsoring the drawing and managing the harvest, 

WENRD also keeps boat landings clean, opens and 

closes trail gates, and posts required notices. 

Other activities outside the scope of the Collier 

Agreement include:

Leech harvest: Beginning in 1987, the Service 

has permitted commercial leech harvest on the reservation portion of the Refuge for enrolled White 

Earth band members. The WENRD holds a drawing for four leech trapping zone permits. The event 

is annually attended by 150-250 tribal members. 

Tribal interest is high due mostly to the Refuge’s 

Mallard Lake which has produced as many as 8,200 

pounds of leeches in a single year. Bait venders typically pay $4 to $12 per pound. Similar to wild rice, 

leech harvest success is quite variable and has 

ranged from 1,200 to over 8,700 pounds over the 

past 20 years. Leech harvest is open from ice out 

through the end of August. Compared to other 

White Earth tribal members harvest wild rice. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

tribal activities, adherence to permit requirements 

has been very poor, in particular, the problem of 

personal property abandonment on Refuge lakes 

and wetlands. Other concerns have been raised 

regarding impacts this activity has on wildlife, such 

as disruption of Trumpeter Swan nesting and the 

take of snapping turtles that destroy leech bags. 

Hunting and fishing: The Refuge and White 

Earth Natural Resources Department cooperatively manage tribal hunting and fishing over the 

reservation portion of the Refuge. 

Other requested uses: The Refuge controls access 

to closed areas and also issues Special Use Permits 

on a case by case basis for other requested uses, 

such as collection of plants for medicinal use.

Cooperating Organizations

Tamarac NWR partners with several organizations on efforts of mutual interest. 

The Refuge friends group, Tamarac Interpretive 

Association (TIA), was established in 1992 to serve 

as an advocate of Tamarac NWR and the Service. 

The mission of TIA is to facilitate activities and programs that interpret, protect and restore the natural and cultural resources of the Refuge. The 

Tamarac Interpretive Association also raises funds 

and offers volunteer support for conservation work 

that might otherwise go undone. Through a cooperative association agreement, the group runs the 

Wildlife Gifts and Book Store in the visitor center. 

Store items offer visitors a variety of books, videos, 

and tools that help educate and engage people with 

the Refuge. The group provides funding for educational supplies, biological work and more. TIA 

assists with recruiting volunteers for environmental 

education, interpretive programs, events, biological 

and maintenance activities on the Refuge. TIA is an 

essential link to the community as they foster relationships with community leaders, businesses and 

organizations promoting the mission of the Service 

and stewardship of Refuge lands. 

Tamarac NWR staff are involved with the Pine to 

Prairie Birding Trail, a unique partnership between 

the NW Minnesota communities of Detroit Lakes, 

Fergus Falls, Pelican Rapids, Roseau, Thief River 

Falls and Warroad; participating agencies U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Non-game Wildlife Program, Explore 

Minnesota Tourism; the birding entities of the Minnesota Ornithologist’s Union, Audubon Minnesota, 

Lakes Area Birding Club and the Agassiz Chapter 

of the National Audubon Society. The birding trail is 

an exceptional opportunity to provide wildlife tourism opportunities and associated economic activity 

for visitors and residents of northwest Minnesota, 

while showcasing the tremendous natural resources 

of northwest Minnesota. In 2009, partnering with 

the Province of Manitoba, this trail expanded into 

Manitoba to create the newest international birding 

trail in North America.

Currently Tamarac NWR has strong partnerships with the universities, such as University of 

Minnesota – Crookston, University of Minnesota - 

St. Paul, Bemidji State University and Concordia 

University, to investigate resource management 

issues of the Refuge. Working with academia and 

college students at these universities also provides 

the Refuge an opportunity to aid in the development 

of individuals interested in pursuing careers in natural resource management.

Tamarac NWR works with several entities in the 

promotion of tourism opportunities in the surrounding area. These entities include, but are not limited 

to, Becker County Historical Society, Park Rapids 

and Detroit Lakes Chambers of Commerce, Lake 

Country Scenic Byway, North Country National 

Scenic Trail, Becker County Parks and Recreation, 

and the City of Detroit Lakes.

Tamarac NWR works closely with local area 

schools (Perham, Frazee, Detroit Lakes, Holy 

Rosary, Lake Park – Audubon, Waubun-OgemaWhite Earth, Mahnomen, Pine Point, Naytahwaush, 

Moorhead, and Glyndon-Dilworth) to deliver standards-based environmental education programs for 

school age children. Other environmental educational opportunities are made available through 

Tamarac NWR’s partnership with Natural Innovations, a community-driven organization committed 

to assisting individuals and organizations in developing a better understanding of how the health of 

humans and the environment are interrelated. Natural Innovations is comprised of environmental education professionals from local governmental 

agencies (Becker County Environmental Services, 

Trumpeter Swans. Photo Credit: Greg Stetz
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Minnesota DNR), environmental businesses (RMB Laboratories) and citizen volunteers.

Tamarac NWR works with other non-governmental organizations, such as Duck Unlimited, 

Woodcock Minnesota, The Wildlife Management 

Institute, Ruffed Grouse Society, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Becker County Sportsmen Club, 

local Lake Associations, and the Izaak Walton 

League in support of conservation initiatives such as 

habitat restoration, wetland protection, environmental education, water quality monitoring and 

public use opportunities.

Archeology and Cultural Resources

Evidence found on Tamarac NWR has revealed a 

rich history of human use by many cultures. Refuge 

staff strive to protect and to preserve archeological 

and historic sites against degradation, looting, and 

other adverse impacts.

Tamarac NWR has never been intensely surveyed for archeological resources. However, several 

site and project specific investigations have 

occurred on the Refuge. In addition, known archeological and historic sites were summarized and 

mapped in 1977 by two archeologists working under 

contract for the Service (USFWS 1977). This survey 

provided background on the periods of habitation in 

Minnesota and identified prehistoric and historic 

sites on Refuge lands.

Archeologists in Minnesota have divided prehistory into several cultural periods, based on the artifacts left behind by different human groups and the 

kinds of economic activities in which they were primarily engaged. In the Becker County area, these 

periods are: The “Paleo-Indian” (before about 5,000 

B.C. commonly characterized by mammoth, extinct 

giant bison and other “big game” hunting, by 

nomadic groups using distinctively chipped stone 

spear points and tools); the “Archaic” (cs. 5,000 – 

1,000 B.C.; adaptation to changing and increasingly 

diverse environments); the “Woodland” (ca. 1,000 

B.C. – 1,400 A.D.; the advent of pottery, and the construction of earthen burial mounds, by seasonally 

nomadic groups who practiced some limited horticulture in southern areas of Minnesota, and began 

the intensive use of wild rice in northern areas); and 

the “Mississippian” (ca. 1,400 – 1,700 A.D.; influences coming into the area from more southern 

groups practicing organized horticulture, and generally living in large semi-sedentary villages in 

many parts of the American Midwest). These prehistoric periods are followed by the “Protohistoric” 

period (ca. 1,700 – 1,870 A.D.; beginning with the 

first White-European contact and continuing during 

the fur trade expansion) and the “Historic” period 

(after 1,870 A.D.; the time of the European homesteading and the displacement of the Native American inhabitants).

In late prehistoric times, the Tamarac NWR area 

was occupied by the ancestors of the historic Sioux, 

or Dakota/Lakota, who were based in the Mille Lacs 

area and were in the process of fragmenting into the 

various historic bands when the French Jesuits and 

fur traders first arrived there at the end of the 17th 

Century. By the mid 1700s, the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) moved into Minnesota from the east as a 

direct result of the spread of the French fur trade. 

By 1800, the Ojibwe were known to hunt regularly 

in the plains areas west of the Mississippi. The Otter 

Tail Band of the Pillager Ojibwe was probably well 

established in the Tamarac NWR area before 1820.

The first documented European occupants of the 

area were traders of the Northwest Fur Company, 

who established a trading post at White Earth Lake 

in October, 1802. At about the same time, a small 

independent post at Shell Lake was started. However, actual European “settlement” did not occur in 

the region until around 1868. The logging industry 

made an appearance in Becker County relatively 

early, to take advantage of the expansive forest 

stands. Commercial pine and oak were probably 

first cut within the county by about 1870. By about 

1908, the forests of the area had been extensively 

logged and the logging era ended. There were several attempts at farming within the Refuge, but 

farming never achieved much prominence due to the 

dense forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands. 

An inventory of archeological collections from 

Tamarac NWR was completed under contract by 

the Institute of Minnesota Archeology (1993). There 

have been five archaeological projects including 

reconnaisance and collections from Tamarac NWR 

since 1978, totaling an inventory of 1432 artifacts 

and ecofacts. Currently, these collections are being 

curated by the Minnesota Historical Society at Fort 

Snelling and the Department of Anthropology, 

Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota. Due to the 

overlap in habitation by both Ojibwe and Siouan 

speakers, most of the archaeological components 

present cannot be related to any particular historic 

tribe or tribal activity. There is evidence that a large 

number of historic Ojibwe sites are present within 

the Refuge, however, no cultural materials in the 

collections can be assigned to the Ojibwe. 

From these reconnaissance projects, historic 

(post 1700s) and prehistoric sites have been identified. Among the historic sites, those associated with 

logging activities (road, camps, dams, and ditches) 

are most abundant. Other types include clearings, 

foundations, unidentified sites, settler’s communities, bridges, cemetery or grave, standing struc-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

tures, a CCC camp, and a school. Habitations 

comprise nearly one-third of the prehistoric sites, 

followed by seasonal camps. The remaining sites 

include trails, clearings, cemetery/grave, and 

unidentified sites. There are stone markers on the 

Refuge that identify some of these historic sites. 

The markers were placed in the mid-1960s with the 

cooperation of Becker County Historical Society 

and Minnesota State Historical Society.

Cultural resources management in the Service is 

the responsibility of the Regional Director and is 

not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for 

Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic 

Preservation (RHPO) advises the Regional Director 

about procedures, compliance, and implementation 

of cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager 

assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO about 

Service undertakings, by protecting archeological 

sites and historic properties on Service managed 

and administered lands, by monitoring archeological 

investigations by contractors and permittees, and 

by reporting violations.

Law Enforcement

Federal and state laws and tribal conservation 

codes governing the Tamarac NWR are enforced to 

protect its priceless natural and cultural resources, 

facilities, other assets, and public visitors. 

The Refuge currently staffs one dual function 

Refuge officer. The region’s Zone Officer for Minnesota is stationed at the Refuge, lending enforcement 

assistance and guidance as needed. Formal and 

informal assistance agreements are in place with 

state and tribal officials to facilitate cooperation and 

effective law enforcement response to incidents and 

emergencies. 

The primary mission of Refuge officers is to protect visitors, render aid and assistance, and deter or 

interdict criminal activity. Officer presence, recognition, and interface with the public provides not only 

the most effective method of soliciting voluntary 

compliance to Refuge regulations, but it also boosts 

visitor confidence and security, enhancing their Refuge experience. No regular patrols are scheduled, 

however officcers do carry out tours of duty during 

high activity periods such as summer weekends, holidays, and popular hunting seasons. While the Refuge is regarded as a safe, low crime environment, 

officers frequently address a broad spectrum of incidents including accident investigations, citizen 

assistance, missing person searches, fishing and 

hunting infractions, trespass, and drug and alcohol 

violations.

Of prominent importance are enforcement of federal statutes found under the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

and Lacy Act. Refuge officers also enforce the conservation provisions and restrictive covenants 

attached to federal wetland easements and Farmers 

Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements which are spread across the Tamarac WMD. 

Conservation provisions primarily restrict agricultural use and development on easement lands. 

Enforcement operations are crucial to preserving 

these important natural resources situated in a broken and over developed landscape.

Loon. Photo Credit: D. Braud
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Future management on Tamarac NWR will focus 

on conserving and restoring the ecological integrity, 

particularly the structure, composition, and natural 

processes of native biotic communities and physical 

environments within the historical range of natural 

variability. At the landscape scale, management will 

conserve and restore nationally, regionally, or 

locally imperiled ecosystems and a diversity of habitat types (ie: native plant communities and cover 

types) while providing ecosystems, habitats, or seral 

stages important for wildlife species of national, 

regional, state, or local conservation concern (broadbased or coarse filter approach applied within this 

CCP). Management will strive to increase patch size 

and connectivity between similar ecosystems, 

thereby reducing fragmentation. At the patch scale, 

management will focus on conserving and restoring 

historic compositional and structural patterns to 

forests that were degraded by past human activities, 

while providing wildlife species benefits (fine filter 

approach which will be applied in the step-down 

Habitat Management Plan). Public use activities on 

the refuge will continue to be considered as long as 

they are compatible with wildlife and habitat goals 

and objectives.

Tamarac NWR Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

The planning team developed goals and objectives for four management alternatives at Tamarac 

NWR. These alternatives include:

■ Alternative 1: Management of Habitat in Context of Providing Migratory Bird Benefits while 

Emphasizing Restoration of Historic Vegetation 

Patterns and Ecological Processes (Preferred 

Alternative)

■ Alternative 2: Management Emphasizing Restoration of Historic Vegetation Patterns and 

Ecological (natural) Processes

■ Alternative 3: Focused Management for Priority Migratory Birds

■ Alternative 4: Current Management Direction 

of Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation 

(No Action)

The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A 

describes and analyzes four management alternatives for Tamarac NWR. The Service identifies one 

as its preferred alternative and it is described in this 

chapter as the proposed future management direction that would guide activities on the Refuge for the 

next 15 years. 

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the 

proposed future management direction. Goals are 

descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. Goals are followed by 

objectives, which are specific statements describing 

management intent. Objectives provide detail and 

are supported by rationale statements that describe 

background, history, assumptions, and technical 

details to help clarify how the objective was formulated. 

Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of 

strategies, the specific actions, tools, and techniques 

required to fulfill the objective. The strategies may 

be refined or amended as specific tasks are comA tranquil Tamarac NWR setting. Photo Credit: Gale Kaas 

Frazee
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

pleted or new research and information come to 

light. Some strategies are linked to the duties of an 

employee position, which indicates that the strategy 

will be accomplished with the help of a new staff 

position. When a time in number of years is noted in 

an objective or strategy, it refers to the number of 

years from approval of this CCP. If no time is 

given, the objective is to be accomplished within the 

15 years of the life of the CCP. 

Tamarac NWR Goals

Goal 1: Wildlife

Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of 

wildlife species native to habitats naturally 

found on the Refuge with special emphasis on 

Service Regional Conservation Priority Species

Goal 2: Habitat

Protect, restore and enhance the wetland and 

upland habitat on the Refuge to emulate naturally functioning, dynamic ecosystems emphasizing a variety of habitat conditions that were 

present prior to European settlement.

Goal 3: People

Provide people with opportunities to experience 

quality wildlife-dependent activities and make a 

connection with a natural, functioning landscape.

Goal 1: Wildlife

Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species 

native to habitats naturally found on the Refuge with special emphasis on Service Regional Conservation Priority 

Species.

This goal exemplifies the Refuge staff’s commitment to “thinking globally and acting locally.” On 

the local and regional scales, it implements the 

broad mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to conserve America’s wildlife and enhance biodiversity. Tamarac NWR can most effectively do its 

share as part of the national conservation strategy 

by focusing on those migratory species indigenous 

to the particular habitat types found in north-central Minnesota. In addition to migratory species, 

resident species will be considered in management 

efforts, but will not take precedence over migratory 

species, unless the resident species is threatened, 

endangered or of special concern. In emphasizing 

Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 of the 

Refuge System, Tamarac NWR is contributing to 

wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional 

scale by trying to assist those species in greatest 

need of attention. Note: Not all species associated 

with the conservation priority species for Region 3 

are indigenous to Tamarac NWR, nor will the Refuge manage for all the species on the list. A subset 

of the regional priority species has been selected for 

Tamarac NWR (Appendix D). The goal expands the 

Refuge’s original focus on waterfowl and symbolizes 

its commitment to a more holistic view of wildlife. 

We recognize that most direct wildlife outcomes 

result through habitat management and these are 

considered under the Habitat Goal.

Objective 1.1 Trust Resources: Waterfowl

Maintain a minimum annual population of 2,000 

breeding pairs of dabbler ducks (ie: mallards, 

blue-winged teal and wood ducks), 300 breeding 

pairs of diving ducks (primarily ring-necked 

ducks), 250 breeding pairs of Canada Geese and 

25 breeding pairs of Trumpeter Swans on the 

Refuge by providing optimal breeding habitats. 

Note: This is considered a threshold objective 

such that if the breeding pair estimate falls 

below the minimum specified objective for five 

consecutive years it will trigger further investigation and management action. 

Rationale

The establishing authority explicitly states Tamarac NWR was established to serve as a “breeding 

ground and sanctuary for migratory birds and other 

wildlife”. The Refuge was originally known as the 

Tamarac Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, thus emphasizing the importance of the area to waterfowl. The 

Refuge was one of the areas which the initial acquisition action was the result of the reinvigorated 

national waterfowl restoration program which 

began in 1934 to restore the nesting grounds of the 

waterfowl resource. Studies during the summers of 

1934 and 1935 indicated that Becker and Mahnomen 

Counties had the highest waterfowl nesting indices 

in the state of Minnesota. 

Management emphasis throughout Refuge history has focused on furthering the purposes for 

which Tamarac NWR was established, primarily 

There are more than 20 lakes on Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: 

D. Mudderman
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

production and maintenance of migratory waterfowl, with only endangered species having a higher 

priority than waterfowl.

Through this CCP, it might appear that waterfowl management is being de-emphasized; however, 

the Refuge staff plan on focused approach of forest 

waterfowl resources by redirecting efforts to make 

quality habitat for ring-necked ducks, wood ducks, 

mallards and trumpeter swans with less emphasis 

on grassland nesting waterfowl. Large blocks of 

grassland habitat adjacent to wetland habitats will 

be enhanced under this CCP; however, smaller parcels (<20 acre) of grassland will be converted to forest for other species benefits. Considering Tamarac 

NWR’s place in the landscape and that outside the 

Refuge boundaries extensive fragmentation from 

agriculture, development and timber harvest, the 

Refuge should play a powerful role in maintaining 

an extensive, un-fragmented landscape where possible.

Strategies

1. Management of Refuge resources of concern 

will be directed through habitat management 

as identified in this plan as well as the subsequent Habitat Management Plan.

2. Extend the timber harvest rotational ages of 

certain tree species and promote the retention 

of cavity trees for wood ducks

3. With the remaining grassland units develop an 

aggressive management strategy, which 

should be subsequently incorporated in the 

Habitat Management Plan, that enhances the 

value to nesting waterfowl and grassland passerines.

4. In the central portion of the Refuge maintain 

and/or restore Jack Pine barrens (which were 

historically present) adjacent to wetland habitats which provide a natural, open habitat that 

could be just as beneficial to ground nesting 

waterfowl as the current grasslands.

5. Maintain vernal pools or temporary wetlands 

within a forested landscape for the benefit of 

forest waterfowl species (breeding) 

6. Restore natural processes (as much as possible) such as hydrology and fire in the appropriate wetland ecosystem, particularly sedge 

meadows along lake perimeters for the benefit 

of nesting Ring-necked Ducks

Objective 1.2 Other Trust Resources – Non- waterfowl

Implement a monitoring and research program 

to track the presence, abundance, population 

trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust 

Resources, including but not limited to Region 3 

Conservation Priority Species, habitats, communities and ecosystems. Priority for monitoring will be given to those species identified as 

Refuge resources of concern.

Rationale

The diversity of habitats on Tamarac NWR, its 

position in the landscape, and its size all contribute 

to its role as a place for many USFWS Trust 

Resources, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species. Priority Species, other than waterfowl, 

that currently inhabit Tamarac NWR including but 

are not limited to the following species: 

■ Bald Eagle

■ Red-shouldered Hawk

■ American Woodcock

■ Common Loon

■ American Bittern

■ Yellow Rail

■ Forster’s Tern

■ Black Tern

■ Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

■ Northern Flicker

■ Eastern Wood-Pewee

■ Least Flycatcher

■ Sedge Wren

■ Veery

■ Wood Thrush

■ Golden-winged Warbler

■ Black-throated Green Warbler

White pines tower over a Refuge lake. Photo Credit: D. Braud
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

■ Blackburnian Warbler

■ Ovenbird

■ Mourning Warbler

■ Swamp Sparrow

■ Rose-breasted Grosbeak

■ Purple Finch

Fish and Wildlife Service Trust Resources also 

include unique habitat types, communities and ecosystems which are discussed in the Habitat Objectives section later in this chapter.

Strategies

1. Management of Refuge resources of concern 

will be directed through habitat management 

which will be driven by objectives derived 

from the CCP and HMP. The goal of the 

inventory and monitoring program is to 

improve management actions and decisions 

through the adaptive management process. 

2. Revise current wildlife and inventory monitoring plan to address the monitoring needs for 

the Refuge resources of concern

3. Conduct annual review of monitoring plan to 

assess trends of trust resources and determine if there are any priorities for research

4. If a Trust Resource research issue has been 

identified, initiate research at the station level. 

Objective 1.3: Gray Wolves

Maintain adequate habitat and prey base to 

support at least two packs of gray wolves on the 

Refuge.

Rationale

Recent survey trends have indicated a stable wolf 

population in Minnesota which was well above 

recovery goals eastern established in the eastern 

gray wolf recovery plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service delisted the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan in April 2009 and was subsequently mandated to reinstate protection through 

the Endangered Species Act due to pending litigation. The current status of the eastern gray wolf in 

Minnesota is listed as threatened. 

In the near future, the Service will likely attempt 

to delist gray wolf in Minnesota again, upon which 

the state of Minnesota will take over management 

authority. The Minnesota DNR has already completed a management plan in advance of the first 

delisting attempt. Under the state plan, gray wolves 

will have two levels of protection. Tamarac NWR 

falls just outside the more protective zone; however, 

all wolves will continue to be protected on all public 

lands throughout the state. Under the state plan, 

wolves can be removed from private land and in 

some cases, small areas of immediately adjacent 

public land. Hence, it is imperative that Tamarac 

NWR maintain healthy wolf populations with the 

Refuge.

In recent years, two gray wolf packs have produced young on the Refuge. This wolf density is considered viable and sustainable. Gray wolves prey on 

both large and small mammals, including deer, 

muskrat, beaver, rabbit, and snowshoe hare. Tamarac NWR can manage for wolves only indirectly, by 

fostering habitat conditions that are favorable to 

prey populations, and by maintaining populations of 

the wolves’ preferred prey. 

Strategies

1. Manage for a Refuge deer herd (pre-fawn 

density) at a density of 13-17 per square mile.

2. Conduct appropriate surveys to determine 

pack size, distribution, territory size, movements and productivity.

3. Regulate trapping to maintain beaver and 

muskrat populations as a wolf prey base.

4. Maintain trapping restrictions for land-based 

trap sets to prevent accidental captures of 

wolves.

5. Maintain a mix of wetland, brush, forest, and 

grassland habitats that is conducive to healthy 

wolf and deer populations.

6. Minimize disturbance from public use and 

Refuge activities at known denning locations.

Gray wolf on Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Donna Dustin
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Objective 1.4: Deer Management 

Annually, maintain the Refuge deer population 

(Minnesota Deer Management Unit 251) at a 

density of 13-17 deer per square mile (pre-fawning density) based on annual winter surveys. 

Rationale

Recently, there has been an over-abundance of 

white-tailed deer state-wide, with relatively high 

densities of deer (26 to 28 deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey) 

occurring on the Refuge within the last decade. Literature reviews indicate that about 11-13 ungulates/

mi2

historically existed in this area, of which 2-3 

ungulates/mi2 were actually white-tailed deer. As 

previously mentioned, adverse effects of browsing 

in forest understory by white-tailed deer could lead 

to significant ecological ramifications. Data from 

Pennsylvania says that a population above 20 deer/

mi2

 (pre-fawn densities) will impact vegetative 

regeneration. The impacts of deer over browse on 

plants can cascade to affect wildlife species diversity, from insects to amphibians to migratory song 

birds. 

Unlike most of the other deer management units 

surrounding the Refuge that include a lot of private 

land, Tamarac NWR has a sole statutory responsibility for migratory birds and current policy dictates 

that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental of the ecosystem within the Refuge boundaries. In order to attain the future habitat 

goals on the Refuge there is an inherent need to 

maintain deer populations between 13 and 17 deer/

mi2

. Although hunting opportunities are considered 

in the population objective, the emphasis is placed 

on habitat needs for migratory birds.

Strategies

1. Continue the annual aerial deer surveys conducted by the Refuge staff but explore opportunities for improving survey methodology 

and population estimates 

2. Conduct periodic habitat assessments, such as 

browse surveys and deer exclosure evaluations to document the impact of various deer 

densities on the habitat

3. Evaluate the health of individual animals and 

herds using standard techniques, as needed, 

and by cooperating with the Minnesota DNR.

4. Work with the White Earth Natural 

Resources Department to examine methods to 

adequately address tribal deer harvest statistics for the Refuge.

Objective 1.5: Fish 

Maintain diverse, balanced and natural fish populations where compatible with Refuge goals 

and objectives, while maintaining all Refuge 

water-bodies free of invasive aquatic animal and 

plant species.

 Rationale

The goal of the Refuge fisheries program is to 

provide and maintain a diverse, yet balanced and 

natural fish population capable of supporting a quality sport fishery. Lakes currently supporting catchable sizes of game fish (and open to public fishing) in 

most years include: Lost, Two Island, Wauboose, 

Blackbird, North Tamarac and Pine. Some of the 

issues that threaten the Refuge’s fishery are undesirable nuisance fish species (bullheads, common 

carp and fathead minnows), poor survival of naturally produced walleye, and winterkills.

Invasive animals such as common carp and zebra 

mussels pose a current and looming threat to native 

fish and mussel species and have the potential to 

disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. They can also have a 

direct link to the quality of fishing by displacing various game fish, or destroying important habitat for 

fish and wetland-dependent birds which people 

observe or hunt. Carp roll in the marsh sediments 

and create a cloudy environment and uproot aquatic 

plants. Little sunlight can penetrate the water and 

fuel the marsh food web, few organisms thrive in 

such conditions, and the biological diversity of wetlands is reduced, including the production of wild 

rice. Carp are present within Ottertail River system, but so far restricted in distribution by a box 

culvert structure in the Hubbel Pond WMA, which 

is just south of the Refuge. 

All the Refuge water areas, with the exception of 

Lost and Wauboose Lakes have an average depth of 

8 feet or less; therefore, they are subject to frequent 

winterkills (death of fish due to lack of oxygen 

caused by natural environmental conditions). The 

Minnesota DNR currently stocks Wauboose and 

North Tamarac Lakes with walleye fry on an everyother year cycle. Likewise, the White Earth Natural 

Resources Department stocks walleye fry in Lost 

and Teacracker Lakes on a similar cycle. The Minnesota DNR and White Earth Natural Resources 

Department routinely conduct fish surveys on these 

lakes that are stocked to monitor populations. The 

LaCrosse Fisheries Resource Office (USFWS) has 

conducted fish survey assessments on some of the 

other priority lakes on a 5-year rotation.

Strategies

1. Continue monitoring fish populations and 

their impacts to the aquatic resources through 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

cooperation with the Minnesota DNR, White 

Earth Natural Resources Department and 

LaCrosse Fisheries Resource Office. 

2. Include small non-game fish species, such as 

fat-head minnows, daters, etc. in future surveys.

3. Continue to stock naturally occurring fish species (walleye, northern pike, bluegills and 

bass) as necessary following winterkills in 

North Tamarac, Wauboose, Lost and Teacreacker Lakes.

4. Update the Fisheries Management Plan upon 

completion of CCP and HMP.

5. Assess fish barriers within the Refuge boundaries and explore opportunities for removal of 

these barriers and restoration of fish populations (ie: reconstruction of perched culverts, 

flowages, dams, etc.).

6. Maintain water control structure at the South 

Chippewa outlet as an effective barrier to carp 

for the upper portion of the Refuge within the 

Ottertail River watershed.

7. Keep abreast of the distribution and status of 

aquatic invasive animal and plant species and 

initiate preventative measures where feasible.

8. Work cooperatively with the White Earth 

Natural Resources Department, the Minnesota DNR and the LaCrosse Fisheries 

Resources Office to develop guidelines to 

effectively manage the fishery resource within 

the Refuge.

9. Restrict introduction of fish species in lakes or 

other wetlands that were not naturally fish 

basins (i.e., Pine Lake).

Goal 2: Habitat

Protect, restore and enhance the wetland and upland habitat on the Refuge to emulate naturally functioning, dynamic 

ecosystems emphasizing a variety of habitat conditions 

that were present prior to European settlement.

Objective 2.1. Upland Grass

Reduce anthropogenic grassland habitat from 

2009 levels (1,362 acres) by 953 acres (minus 70 

percent) and manage the remaining 409 acres 

for the diversity of species present, including 

Region 3 Conservation Priority Species (Table 5 

on page 62 and Figure 14 on page 63). 

Rationale

The Refuge currently manages about 2,800 acres 

(6.5 percent) as upland grass/brush habitat. These 

areas are mostly remnants of the pre-Refuge farming era and have been maintained by mowing and 

prescribed burning. Many of these areas are small 

and scattered throughout the Refuge and as such, 

are too small to be a value to most area-sensitive 

grassland bird species due to their juxtaposition in a 

forested landscape. These grasslands were originally intended to provide upland nesting habitat for 

dabbling ducks; however surveys in the late 1980’s 

and early 1990’s indicated limited use by mallards 

and blue-winged teal (primarily due to the condition 

of the habitat). Many of the smaller grassland units 

may be biological “sinks” due to high predation 

rates. 

Currently, there are 83 designated grassland 

units on the Refuge with an average size of 17 acres 

(median of 7.6 acres). Sixty-eight percent (57 of 83) 

of these grassland units are less than 20 acres in 

size. Only ten of these grasslands are greater than 

40 acres in size with the largest tract consisting of 

88 acres. Historically, there probably was not any 

upland grassland habitat at the Refuge during the 

era immediately prior to European settlement 

(John Almendinger, pers. comm.). In addition, many 

of these small grassland units are “economic sinks” 

due to the funding resources needed to maintain 

grassland communities and combat threatening 

invasive plant species, which are occurring in many 

of the units. 

Due to limited benefits to nesting dabbling ducks 

the Refuge staff recommended converting many of 

the smaller isolated grassland units to forest habitats. Larger openings adjacent to lakes or large wetland complexes will be managed as grassland 

habitat for the benefits of upland nesting waterfowl, 

and to some extent, grassland passerines. The Refuge staff is committed to enhancing these larger 

blocks of grassland habitat; however, the focus of 

Blue flag iris. Photo Credit: J. Tabaka
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

waterfowl management on the Refuge will be redirected toward forest waterfowl species by providing 

quality habitat for Ring-necked Ducks, Wood 

Ducks, Trumpeter Swans with less emphasis on 

grassland nesting waterfowl.

Strategies

1. Convert targeted small isolated grasslands 

and openings within the forest through reforestation or natural succession based upon site 

characteristics such as soil type, drainage, surrounding habitat types, etc.

2. Use soil maps and other references such as the 

Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities guide 

and Kotar’s habitat typing manual to determine the most suitable forest habitat type and 

associated successional pathways and natural 

disturbances

3. With the remaining grassland units develop an 

aggressive management strategy, which 

should be subsequently incorporated in the 

HMP that enhances the value to nesting 

waterfowl and grassland passerines. 

Objective 2.2. Upland Shrub (1,000 Acre Tract):

Decrease the dominance of upland shrub habitats within the 1,000 Acre Tract by 75 percent 

by conversion to forest cover types initially 

dominated by early successional forest structure for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation 

Priority Species such as American Woodcock 

and Golden-winged Warblers, with long-term 

benefits to forest interior songbirds. 

Rationale

In 1990, this forested/wetland area in the central 

portion of the Refuge was cleared of trees to create 

a brushy grassland area of 1,000 acres for the benefits of upland nesting waterfowl, Sharp-tailed 

Grouse and Greater Prairie Chicken. Prior the creation of the 1,000 Acre Tract, the area consisted of 

extant grassland (52 acres), and the remainder was 

a 50/50 mix of commercial forest (aspen, oak, pine) 

and wetlands. Although the intent was to clear cut 

the tract, many red pines and oaks were spared 

along the ridgelines that traverse the unit. Essentially, this management adopted a “cookie-cutter” 

approach where a chunk of forest habitat was fragmented within an interior forested landscape. Currently, this tract is not contributing significantly to 

regional or even local waterfowl or prairie grouse 

populations.

Because of Tamarac NWR’s position in a forested 

landscape and the juxtaposition of the tract, coupled 

with the fact that Sharp-tailed Grouse and Greater 

Prairie Chickens have not pioneered or re-established into the area, the area should be restored 

back to a forested habitat type either through natural succession or active restoration. Even a slight 

successional shift would greatly increase the value 

of this tract to RCP species such as Golden-winged 

Warblers and American Woodcock.

Table 5: Proposed Changes in Vegetation Cover Types, Tamarac NWR

Habitat Type

Current 

Management 

Direction 

(Acres)

Future Goal Change

Acres Percent of 

Total Acres Percent

by Type

Developed 374 374 1 0 0

Lowland Coniferous Forest 1,863 1,863 4 0 0

Lowland Deciduous Forest 755 755 1 0 0

Lowland Mixed Forest 463 463 1 0 0

Lowland Shrub 2,657 1,814 4 -843 -32

Marsh/Wetland 6,251 6,967 16 716 11

Open Water 7,117 7,117 16 0 0

Upland Coniferous Forest 713 1,328 3 615 87

Upland Deciduous Forest 16,167 16,486 38 319 2

Upland Grass 1,362 409 1 -953 -70

Upland Mixed Forest 4,348 4,995 12 647 15

Upland Shrub 1,519 1,018 3 -501 -33

Total 43,589 43,589
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Figure 14: Future Land Cover Goals, Tamarac NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Strategies

1. Re-forest the 1,000 Acre Tract in small 

patches and allow some open areas to regenerate naturally. Work with the regeneration 

(oaks) and seed sources (red pine) that is currently present there to restore the area back 

to jack pine, red pine, white pine, and red and 

bur oak with aspen pockets.

2. Use soil maps and other references such as the 

Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities guide 

and Kotar’s habitat typing manual to determine the most suitable forest habitat type and 

associated successional pathways and natural 

disturbances

3. Plant jack pine seedlings (bud capping for 

deer) in natural spacing patterns on sandy 

ridges and south-facing slopes.

4. The intensive use of prescribed on this unit 

should be halted until detailed habitat objectives and strategies are developed. A combination of mechanical treatments (ie: patch 

mowing) and prescribed burning three years 

in a row may be necessary to minimize hazel 

(and other brush species) and prepare seed 

bed for additional plantings. 

5. Once the forest cover types have been 

restored, maintain a fire return interval 

appropriate for those plant communities as 

identified in the Native Plant Communities 

Handbook.

6. The unit could used as a long-term research 

site to monitor the changes in forest composition along with potential climatic changes 

introduced through climate change

Objective 2.3. Forest Openings

Convert 32 anthropogenic forest openings 

(totaling 63 acres) to forest cover types through 

natural regeneration or tree planting by 2025 

based upon site characteristics such as soil type, 

drainage, or surrounding habitat types. By conversion to forest cover types these areas will be 

initially dominated by early successional forest 

structure benefiting Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as American woodcock and 

golden-winged warblers, with long-term benefits to forest interior songbirds once fully 

restored. 

Rationale

From 1990 to 1991, 32 forest openings totaling 63 

acres were established in the northern portion of 

the Refuge with funding provided by the DNR and 

local chapters of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association. These openings were created out of a need 

to provide early successional stages and edge habitat within a continuous forest habitat primarily for 

the benefit of Ruffed Grouse, American Woodcock, 

black bear and white-tailed deer. These openings 

are very similar to the smaller grassland units mentioned above and are slightly smaller in size. The 

openings were typically placed in a variety of forest 

types and generally centered on recently abandoned 

logging decks and ranged in size from 1 to 3 acres 

with an irregular shape. In most cases, these openings represent a “hard edge” or transition from 

grass to forest without much woody vegetation 

within the opening itself.

Intense maintenance of these openings has 

included prescribed fire, herbicide, tillage, grading, 

mowing and seeding to stop woody invasion. Prescribed fire, herbicide and mowing have been the 

primary treatments in recent years, although invasive species, particularly thistle species, have 

invaded many of these openings thus requiring additional mechanical or chemical treatment. With limited budgets, these openings can be very costly to 

maintain. 

Based on recommendations (Green 1995) that 

“there are enough natural openings on the landscape, we don’t need to maintain anthropogenic 

openings”, these types of opening will not be maintained on the Refuge in the future. The natural 

openings on the landscape, along with temporary 

openings created through routine silvicultural practices, provide adequate habitat on the landscape for 

the species that are currently using the openings, 

therefore, the Refuge will focus on maintaining 

unbroken or non-fragmented forest habitat. Temporary openings created through on-going silvicultural 

practices on the Refuge provide the same amount of 

habitat if not more at no additional cost to the Refuge and require no maintenance.

Enhancing habitat through a prescribed burn. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Strategies

1. Convert small forest openings within the forest through reforestation or natural succession based upon site characteristics such as 

soil type, drainage, surrounding habitat types, 

etc.

2. If tree planting is implemented, use soil maps 

and other references such as the Minnesota’s 

Native Plant Communities guide and Kotar’s 

habitat typing manual to determine the most 

suitable forest habitat type and associated 

successional pathways and natural disturbances

Objective 2.4. Food Plots

Convert remaining food plots (35 acres), with 

the exception of the plot adjacent the autotour 

trailhead, to forest cover types for the benefit of 

interior forest passerines. 

Rationale

Food plots were initially planted in the 1950’s 

throughout the southern half of the Refuge to provide green browse for Canada Geese and supplemental foods for ducks, migratory passerines and 

resident species. This was during the era of Canada 

goose restoration in the Midwest. The original goal 

was to annually rotate about 100 acres of crop and 

green browse (alfalfa) in various locations throughout the Refuge within failed native grassland restoration sites. Due to successful restoration of Canada 

geese and poor crop production, the number of food 

plots has continued to dwindle to only a few in 

recent years (North Chippewa fields and Auto-tour 

site) and the emphasis has changed to “watchable 

wildlife” sites. Presently, these areas account for 

only about 35 acres of open landscape.

The Refuge intends to abandon the Chippewa 

food plots in favor of natural cover. Alternatives for 

this site include planting native prairie seed or other 

cover crop that can eventually be converted to forest 

or directly plant with trees. A food plot along the 

Blackbird Auto-tour trailhead will continue to be 

maintained as a watchable wildlife site for the viewing public. However, this watchable wildlife site will 

not be promoted as a management practice through 

the Refuge’s environmental education or interpretation program.

Strategies

1. Restore the North Chippewa fields to forest 

cover types utilizing the Native Plant Communities handbook for guidance 

2. Maintain the Blackbird Auto-tour site as a 

watchable wildlife area (food plot)

Objective 2.5. Upland Conifer (Red,White and Jack 

Pine)

Increase dominance of upland conifer (particularly red, white and jack pine but also white 

spruce and balsam fir to some extent), by 

increasing both acreage (plus 615 acres) of dominance at the Refuge scale and basal area at the 

stand level, to provide a diversity of seral stages 

while restoring historic composition and structure for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation 

Priority Species such as Bald Eagle, Cape May 

Warbler, Northern Flicker, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Whip-poor-will, and gray wolf along 

with a plethora of other more-common forest 

passerines such as Blackburnian Warbler, 

Black-throated Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, 

Red Crossbill, etc. Note: Overall changes of 

major habitat types will be reflected as an 

increase in acres for upland conifer (red, white, 

and jack pine) and mixed upland forest (ie: 

aspen/pine, forested broadleaf/coniferous mix, 

aspen/birch/fir/spruce, etc.) and a decrease in 

acres for upland deciduous (aspen, northern 

hardwoods, basswood, oak, forested broadleaf 

mix, etc.). 

Rationale

Conifers are important at all spatial scales for a 

variety of wildlife species. With the exception of 

non-forested wetland habitat, upland conifer (both 

red/white and jack pine) ranks the highest in regard 

to species richness or total number of species using 

this habitat (CWCS 2006). Pre-settlement cover 

types throughout much of the northern and central 

portions of the Refuge were largely comprised of 

mature stands of red pine, white pine, mixed red & 

white pine and jack pine barrens. Red and white 

pine was also intermixed with other dominant hardwood cover types such as aspen, basswood, northern 

hardwoods and oak throughout the southern portion 

of the Refuge. Dry pine woodlands have been identified as imperiled native plant communities through 

Minnesota DNR’s subsection planning (CP-PMOP

SFRMP 2009).

Since upland conifer communities have decreased 

substantially since the pre-settlement era, the Refuge intends to restore native plant communities 

dominated by red, white and jack pine through natural succession, silvicultural practices including tree 

planting and natural processes such as fire. Dominance at the Refuge scale is intended to increase 

between-habitat diversity, whereas the dominance 

at stand level is intended to increase within-in stand 

diversity. 

Opportunities exist to allow some of the other 

habitat (cover) types to convert to red, white or jack 

pine dominated communities either naturally or 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

through silvicultural practices. Additional opportunities exist for planting pine, such as abandoned 

agriculture fields and upland grassland slated for 

conversion to forest. Since upland conifer historically occurred as a component within other habitat 

types (hardwood-dominated stands), opportunities 

also exist for enhancing the structural diversity 

within these hardwood stands by increasing the 

white pine, red pine, white spruce and balsam fir 

component (basal area) through creation of canopy 

gaps and understory planting (particularly where 

seed trees exist). Many of the remaining jack pine 

forests on the Refuge have become closed jack pine 

systems versus the jack pine barrens that once 

existed. In the case of the jack pine barrens, infrequent fire occurrences have altered this community 

type and succession has been allowed to occur. 

Therefore, the Refuge staff intends to restore the 

jack pine barren community and its associated disturbance regime where feasible. In any of these situations, landscape juxtaposition, soil type, moisture, 

and the nutrient regime should be conducive to 

these conifers prior to any management effort or 

treatment. Red, white and jack pine compete best 

on outwash or glacial moraines where soils are 

sandy and gravely, moisture regimes are dry to dry 

mesic and the nutrient regime is poor to medium.

 Although red pine and white pine have largely 

been preserved or protected throughout recent Refuge history, there is concern that red, white and 

jack pine are not adequately regenerating within 

the Refuge largely due to high deer populations in 

recent years and a lack of natural disturbances (ie: 

fire due to fire suppression activities). Based on the 

cover type size distribution for the upland conifer 

stands on the Refuge, the majority of the stands are 

within later age classes, therefore an increase in 

early and mid age classes is desired. 

Strategies:

1. Hire a full-time Forest Ecologist to develop a 

forestry program that is ecologically, economically, and socially responsible as a means of 

sustaining the integrity of Tamarac NWR’s 

forest ecosystems and the human communities 

dependent upon them.

2. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns.

3. Evaluate potential sites for red and white pine 

restoration within the Refuge based on suitability of site characteristics and native plant 

community mapping/modeling.

4. Convert some of upland grass fields that are 

slated for conversion to forest to red, white 

and jack pine cover types through natural 

regeneration or restoration based site characteristics

5. Evaluate current mixed stands (mostly northern pine and bur oak) of closed jack pine/oak 

forest for conversion to jack pine barren habitat type (ie: decrease cover of oaks) followed 

by appropriate disturbance regime (ie: fire)

6. Evaluate other cover types for potential white 

pine and red pine planting in canopy gaps (1-2 

acre) in hardwoods to increase structural 

diversity or within-stand diversity

7. Restore fire to the pine ecosystems through 

development of a detailed HMP.

Objective 2.6. Upland Deciduous Forest

Over the next 15 years, increase upland deciduous forest by 317 acres while managing the remaining acreage (16,167) to maintain a diversity of seral 

stages and restore historic composition and structure for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation Priority Species using this habitat type on the Refuge 

such as American Woodcock, Golden-winged Warbler, Eastern Towhee, etc., as well as other forest 

interior species such as Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, 

etc.

Rationale

The hardwood cover types of upland deciduous 

forest are much more abundant on the Refuge and 

throughout the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains 

of northern Minnesota, than was historically present. The aspen cover type is approximately 40 percent more abundant on the Refuge (plus 40 percent) 

compared to pre-settlement times, whereas the proAmerican Woodcock. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

portion of hardwoods (basswood, maple, oak, etc.) 

has dramatically increased (plus 244 percent) from 

pre-settlement times. In terms of the dominant 

cover type, the northern hardwood cover type may 

not have changed as significantly in acreage estimates as the dry oak forests (which are located in 

the central portion of the Refuge) has. However, the 

structural diversity has changed significantly within 

the northern hardwood cover type through previous 

silvicultural practices.

Also noted previously, the Refuge intends to convert some aspen (particularly those in later age 

classes) to conifer-dominated cover types through 

natural succession and silvicultural practices. 

Approximately 30 percent of the remaining aspen 

cover type will be managed as early successional 

habitat (<20 years age class) for the benefit of 

Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as 

American Woodcock and Golden-winged Warbler. 

The current age-class distribution of aspen does not 

reflect a balanced age-class structure, therefore 

efforts will made to move toward a more balanced 

age structure managed through rotational silvicultural practices so that the ideal habitats are provided on a continual basis, long-term basis. Aspen 

cover types will range from pure aspen stands to 

mixed forests dominated by aspen including conifers and other hardwoods, although efforts will be 

made to increase with-in stand structure and composition where feasible. 

The Northern hardwood cover type consists of a 

mixture of basswood, sugar maple, red maple, 

northern red oak, bur oak, paper birch and aspen in 

which no one species compromises greater than 40 

percent dominance in relation to basal area. Under 

certain conditions, the northern hardwood cover 

type will be converted to other cover types based 

primarily on site conditions, but for the most part 

northern hardwoods will be managed as late successional plant communities. However, the northern 

hardwood cover type will be managed to promote 

structural and compositional diversity and to 

increase dominance of rare species. The use of prescribed fire will be limited in these systems primarily due to the infrequency of natural disturbance in 

these systems; however silvicultural treatments will 

be used to increase the structural and compositional 

diversity where feasible. 

Species comprising the oak cover type include 

burr oak, red oak, and northern pin oak. Most of 

these stands (with the exception of red oak) occur 

on dry sandy soils that historically supported jack 

and red pine and due to fire suppression have slowly 

succeeded to mixed oak/jack pine or oak dominated 

forest. Therefore, some mixed oak-jack pine sites 

will be converted to jack pine barrens by removing 

the oak component and thinning the jack pine to low 

stocking densities. These habitat types were historically fire dependent systems with a rotation of mild 

surface fires of about 22-30 years. Under this strategy, prescribed fire would be re-introduced into the 

system to manage early successional jack pine barrens which could provide nesting habitat for upland 

nesting waterfowl and passerines. Since red oak is 

an under-represented species throughout the Refuge, red oak stands will be maintained where they 

exist and the red oak component will be increased 

within the northern hardwood cover types.

Strategies

1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns.

2. Convert some later age-classes of aspen to 

conifer-dominated cover types through natural succession and silvicultural practices.

3. Manage approximately 30 percent of the 

aspen cover type as early successional habitat 

(<20 years age class).

4. Within the aspen cover type, manage for a 

more balanced age structure managed 

through rotational silvicultural practices.

5. Manage the northern hardwood cover type to 

promote structural and compositional diversity, including coarse woody debris and snags 

and to increase dominance of rare species, 

with continued emphasis on late successional 

plant communities.

6. Within northern hardwood cover types, use 

silvicultural treatments to create single to 

multi-tree gaps to enhance structural & compositional diversity, including coarse woody 

debris and snags, and increase dominance of 

rare (such as conifers) overstory species.

7. Manage northern hardwood cover type as late 

successional plant communities.

8. Convert some mixed dry oak-jack pine sites to 

jack pine barrens by removing the oak component and thinning the jack pine to low stocking 

densities.

9. Maintain red oak stands where they exist 

while promoting structural and compositional 

diversity (ie: white pine) and increase the red 

oak component within the northern hardwood 

cover types.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

10.Use prescribed fire where and when appropriate (primarily in dry oak and aspen cover 

types).

11.Retain snags to insure a continuous supply of 

natural cavities wood ducks, hooded mergansers, and other cavity nesting birds.

Objective 2.7. Mixed Upland Forest

Increase acreage (plus 647 acres) of mixed upland 

forest by increasing the dominance of upland conifer 

(particularly red pine, white pine, balsam fir and 

white spruce) within deciduous forest stands to provide a diversity of seral stages while restoring historic composition and structure for the benefit of 

Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as 

Bald Eagle, Cape May Warbler, Northern Flicker, 

Olive-sided Flycatcher, Whip-poor-will, and gray 

wolf along with a plethora of other more-common 

forest passerines such as Blackburnian Warbler, 

Black-throated Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Red 

Crossbill, etc.

Rationale

Historic benchmark conditions indicate high 

structural and compositional diversity within the 

mixed upland forest habitat type. Red pine, white 

pine, balsam fir and white spruce were often intermixed with other dominant hardwood cover types 

such as aspen, basswood, northern hardwoods and 

oak throughout the Refuge. Since the era of the 

“great cut-over,” this “with-in” stand diversity has 

shifted to more homogenous habitat types such as 

pure aspen or oak stands, primarily due to altered 

disturbance regimes through timber harvest practices. Future management will focus on transitioning homogenous habitat types (ie: pure aspen cover 

types) with the upland deciduous forest toward 

mixed upland forests with higher structural and 

compositional diversity, primarily the conifer component. The mixed upland forest habitat type will 

serve as a transitional stage between homogenous 

deciduous forest and long-term conversion to coniferous forest.

Strategies

1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns. 

2. Maintain and promote structural and compositional diversity where it currently exists in 

mixed upland forests, including coarse woody 

debris and snags.

3. Transition some later age-classes of aspen 

stands to mixed upland forest habitat types 

through silvicultural practices and understory 

tree planting.

4. Use prescribed fire where and when appropriate.

5. Retain snags and cavity trees to insure a continuous supply of natural cavities wood ducks, 

hooded mergansers, and other cavity nesting 

birds.

Objective 2.8. Lowland Conifer

Maintain acreage of lowland conifer (1,863 

acres) and restore historic composition and 

structure when and where possible, while providing a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Conservation Priority Species using this habitat 

type on the Refuge include Long-eared Owl, 

Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cape May Warbler, 

Connecticut Warbler and gray wolf and numerous species in greatest concern need of Minnesota.

 Rationale

Lowland conifer species include tamarack, balsam fir and black spruce. Due to structurally weak 

peat soils and shallow root systems, wind-throw was 

a natural process historically in these habitat types. 

These plant communities are considered relatively 

intact ecosystems relative to historic benchmark 

conditions, as very little harvest has occurred in 

these habitat types. Undoubtedly, some of these 

roads constructed on the Refuge may have altered 

the hydrology associated with some of these lowland 

conifer communities. Restoring the natural hydrology associated with these communities will be promoted. Timber harvest or salvage operations will be 

very limited in these communities in order to prevent a loss of single trees or small groups of trees. 

Preservation and promotion of ecological integrity 

of these habitat types will be the primary strategy 

for these communities in the future.

Strategies

1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns.

2. Restoring the natural hydrology associated 

with these communities, where and when feasible

3. Management techniques should emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

4. Promote research or investigation to determine the hydrological impacts of Refuge roads 

and other facilities (ie: water control structures) on lowland conifer habitats 

Objective 2.9. Lowland Deciduous

Maintain acreage of lowland deciduous (755 

acres) and restore historic composition and 

structure when and where possible, while providing a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Conservation Priority Species using this habitat 

type on the Refuge include Wood Duck, Mallard, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Woodcock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler 

and numerous species in greatest concern need 

of Minnesota.

Rationale

Lowland hardwood species primarily include 

green ash, black ash and American elm. Since timber harvest in these systems has been essentially 

non-existent in recent Refuge history, the Refuge 

proposes to continue with a “preservation” approach 

to these habitat types as well. Very little data is 

available on regeneration and age classes within 

these cover types, but cover size data indicates 

these stands are comprised of older aged trees. 

With the threat of emerald ash-borer on the horizon, 

it seems prudent to monitor these stands in the near 

future rather than manipulate them.

Strategies

1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns. 

2. Restore the natural hydrology associated with 

these communities, where and when feasible

3. Management techniques should emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns

4. Monitor ash stands for any emerald ash-borer 

activity 

Objective 2.10. Mixed Lowland Forest

Maintain acreage of mixed lowland forest (463 

acres) and restore historic composition and 

structure when and where possible, while providing a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Conservation Priority Species using this habitat 

type on the Refuge include Wood Duck, Mallard, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Woodcock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler 

and numerous species in greatest concern need 

of Minnesota.

Rationale

Timber harvest in these systems has been essentially non-existent in recent Refuge history, therefore the Refuge intends to continue with a 

“preservation” approach to these habitat types 

while promoting ecologically integrity within the 

habitat type. Very little data is available on regeneration and age classes within these cover types, but 

cover size data indicates these stands are comprised 

of older aged trees. 

Strategies

1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 

System (ESC) framework and the native plant 

community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance 

regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that 

emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns.

2. Maintain and promote structural and compositional “with-in” stand diversity where and 

when feasible.

3. Restore the natural hydrology associated with 

these communities, where and when feasible.

4. Management techniques should emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns.

5. Assess and monitor the ecological condition of 

this habitat type. 

Drake Wood Duck. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Objective 2.11. Lowland Shrub

Reduce the lowland shrub habitat type by 843 

acres (32 percent) from 2009 levels through conversion to marsh/wetland habitat type (primarily open sedge meadows) and manage the 

resulting acreage (1,815 acres) for the benefit of 

shrub/shrub wetland dependent species, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species 

such as the American Bittern, American Woodcock, Golden-winged Warbler and Black-billed 

Cuckoo as well as numerous species in greatest 

conservation need. 

Rationale

This dominant habitat type has been increasing 

in recent years due to the lack of an ecological disturbance and natural succession of the marsh/wetland habitat type (see marsh/wetland section below). 

Many of the Refuge’s low-lying sites (primarily former sedge fens) are transitioning or succeeding to 

lowland shrub, which although has value to wildlife, 

is not a habitat that is regionally scarce like sedge 

meadows. Much of this transition can be attributed 

to fire suppression. Open sedge fens are important 

habitat for American Bittern, Yellow Rail, 

LeConte’s Sparrow and Sedge Wren, which are considered regional conservation priority species. 

There have been documented positive responses by 

rails to prescribed burning to reduce woody vegetation in the open fens from studies at Seney NWR 

(Burkman 1993).

Strategies

1. Restore and emulate natural ecological processes through the use of prescribed fire and 

natural hydrological regimes where possible.

2. Document ECS native plant community for 

these habitat types and their current condition.

Objective 2.12. Marsh/Wetland

Increase this habitat type by 716 acres (11 percent) from 2009 levels (6,251 acres) by converting the lowland brush habitat type for the 

benefit of wetland dependent species, including 

Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as 

the American Bittern, Northern Harrier, Forster’s Tern, Black Tern Sedge Wren, Yellow 

Rail, Le Conte’s Sparrow and Nelson’s Sharptailed Sparrow.

Rationale

Many of the Refuge’s low-lying sites (primarily 

former sedge fens dominated by Carex and other 

graminoid species) have transitioned or succeeded 

to lowland shrub, which although has value to wildlife, is not a habitat that is regionally scarce like 

sedge meadows. Much of this transition can be 

attributed to fire suppression within these wetland 

habitat types that are characterized by emergent 

vegetation. Sedge meadows constituted more than 

three-quarters of Minnesota’s original wetlands and 

were indispensible habitat for plants like lilies, irises 

and native orchids. Furthermore, non-forested wetland habitat ranks the highest in regard to species 

richness or total number of species using this habitat within the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains 

subsection (CWCS 2006).

Strategies

1. The management of water levels on the Refuge will follow one of three management strategies: 1) no water level manipulation, 2) 

removal of problem beaver dams as necessary 

and 3) active water level manipulation. 

2. Actively managed water levels via water control structures at Dry, Lost, Ogemash and 

Chippewa Lakes.

3. Establish a benchmark (where not previously 

identified) for all identified lakes so that water 

levels can be referenced from year-to-year.

4. Complete a comprehensive hydrological 

assessment to assess water flow, water quality 

and water capability of all major wetland 

areas (lakes and rivers).

5. Complete a comprehensive survey of Refuge 

wetlands by mapping all aquatic resources, 

including wooded potholes, drainage systems 

and other hydrologic features.

6. Use prescribed fire to maintain open sedge 

meadows for benefit of wetland dependent 

birds such as yellow rails and American bitterns.

Tamarac NWR provides a diversity of habitats. Photo Credit: 

D. Mudderman
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

7. Explore opportunities for controlling cattail in 

specified wetlands through physical removal 

and/or minimal chemical treatments.

8. Examine any potential sedimentation build-up 

at water control structures and explore opportunities for removal.

9. Document ECS native plant community habitat types for all aquatic habitats.

10.Restore wetlands and emulate natural hydrologic regimes where possible.

11.Use the water level management database 

which is being developed by the USFWS Biological Monitoring Team.

Objective 2.13. Open Water

Maintain the open water (lacustrine) habitat 

type (7,117 acres) based on 2009 levels for the 

long-term sustainability of wild rice and other 

native aquatic plants by emulating natural 

hydrological regimes and maintaining and/or 

restoring water quality where feasible for the 

benefit Region 3 Conservation Priority Species 

such as the Bald Eagle, Common Loon, Trumpeter Swan, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Wood 

Duck and Lesser Scaup.

Note: Although open water is used to characterize by this habitat type, wild rice is a naturally fluctuating emergent cover type that is 

recognized under this habitat type and varies 

from year to year in acreage, as well as density 

and seed production. 

Rationale

The basic purpose of water level management on 

the Refuge has been to enhance the area’s natural 

ability to grow wild rice and other aquatic vegetation for the benefit of migrating waterfowl. Submerged aquatic vegetation and associated 

invertebrates provide essential food for waterbirds 

as well. Since 1959, management tactics have tried 

to stabilize water levels so that the growth of wild 

rice would benefit waterfowl by providing brood 

cover and food for migrants. Water management for 

wild rice production generally involved moving high 

spring runoff through Refuge lakes as rapidly as 

possible and maintaining stable water levels 

throughout the growing season. Throughout Refuge 

history, water control structures have been used to 

manipulate water levels to “maximize” wild rice production. However, wild rice evolved through a cyclic 

process of water level fluctuations depending upon 

precipitation (and runoff) and evaporation in any 

given year. Recent research (Carson 2002) indicates 

stable water levels over time or drawdown without 

re-flooding capability (Deede pers. obs. 1989) jeopardize the long-term viability of a wild rice dominated lake by allowing undesirable species, such as 

pickerelweed and cattail, to outcompete wild rice.

Sustained long-term viability of wild rice and 

other wetland ecosystems has been recognized as 

the water management philosophy for the future on 

the Refuge. Similar to the forested areas of the Refuge, wetland management will focus on restoring 

ecosystem function, primarily natural hydrological 

regimes. For the most part, the Refuge staff intends 

to manage the lakes, rivers and wetlands through 

natural fluctuations of water levels where possible. 

Essentially, the stop-logs will be removed from 

some of the control structures and water will flow 

through freely. There are a few lakes that will still 

be managed via water control structures for the 

benefit of wild rice and other aquatic vegetation 

where it is recognized that these structures can 

have a positive impact. Water level prescription will 

not be rigid, but rather targets that provide the flexibility for wetland enhancement. Wetland systems 

are dynamic and since wild rice evolved through 

these natural fluctuations it is critical to work with 

these fluctuations in order to sustain wild rice production in the future.

Strategies

1. The management of water levels on the Refuge will follow one of three management strategies: 1) no water level manipulation, 2) 

removal of problem beaver dams as necessary 

and 3) active water level manipulation. 

2. Actively managed water levels via water control structures at Dry, Lost, Ogemash and 

Chippewa lakes.

3. Complete a comprehensive hydrological 

assessment to assess water flow, water quality 

and water capability of all major wetland 

areas (lakes and rivers).

4. Develop detailed wetland/lake management 

strategies in subsequent HMP

5. Establish a benchmark (where not previously 

identified) for all identified lakes so that water 

levels can be referenced from year to year.

6. Develop bathymetric maps of prioritized 

lakes.

7. Examine any potential sedimentation build-up 

at water control structures and explore opportunities for removal.

8. Initiate a shallow lakes survey on prioritized 

lakes to assess habitat condition.

9. Document ECS native plant community habitat types for all aquatic habitats.

10.Restore and emulate natural hydrologic 

regimes where possible.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

11.Document water quality and develop a protection and/or restoration plan for improving 

water quality if necessary. 

12.Use the water level management database 

which is being developed by the USFWS Biological Monitoring Team.

Objective 2.14. Invasive Species

By 2025, reduce the area infested with target 

invasive plants (e.g., purple loosestrife, leafy 

spurge, spotted knapweed, thistle species, etc.) 

and animals by 50 percent from the documented 

2005 level and rapidly respond an where possible control new infestations of these and other 

highly invasive species as they occur. 

Rationale

Invasive species are considered one of the greatest threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, dated 

February 3, 1999, directs federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species, 

monitor invasive species infestations accurately and 

reliably, and promote public education on these species and methods to address them. Numerous exotic 

plants, invertebrates, and pathogens have been 

identified at the Refuge, with many being invasive. 

The zebra mussel, a prolific aquatic invasive, has 

been documented in lakes within 40 miles of the Refuge. More invasive species are predicted to arrive in 

the area in the future. 

Invasive species management on the Refuge in 

the future will focus on early detection and rapid 

response, essentially meaning complete control and 

eradication of new infestations or satellite areas followed by control of large, central infestations. Subsequent to complete eradication of invasive species, 

the goal for invasive species management on the 

Refuge is to promote biological control agents as 

primary treatment and reduce the dependency of 

chemical applications. 

Strategies

1. Complete invasive species inventory in wetlands and forest habitats and establish a regular monitoring program to measure changes in 

invasive plant infestations.

2. Define priorities for controlling these invasive 

species within the Refuge boundaries.

3. Develop an integrated pest management plan 

(invasive species) with a range of alternatives 

for control of individual species.

4. Focus on early detection and rapid response to 

new infestations.

5. Use chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire to 

manage and control infestations.

6. Promote biological control agents as primary 

treatment and reduce the dependency of 

chemical applications.

7. Monitor infestations and effectiveness of management efforts.

8. Maintain information on distribution, abundance, density, treatments, etc. in RLGIS 

database.

9. Promote research of invasive species treatment effects and impacts on biological-control 

agents as well as the effectiveness of the 

agents.

10.Keep aware of distribution and new control 

methods for invasive animals such as zebra 

mussels and earthworms.

Goal 3: People

Provide people with opportunities to experience quality 

wildlife-dependent activities and make a connection with a 

natural, functioning landscape.

Objective 3.1. Welcome and Orient Visitors

Annually provide no fewer than 100,000 quality 

visits to the Refuge. Ninety percent of visitors 

will report a satisfactory overall experience on 

the Refuge.

Rationale

The Refuge mission and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 encourage 

visitation to refuges where compatible. Tamarac 

NWR has been inviting visitors since its establishment. The Refuge staff will assure that the Refuge 

is welcoming, safe and accessible. The Refuge will 

provide clear information so visitors can easily 

determine where they can go, what they can do and 

Balsam Lake, Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: J. Tabaka
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

how to safely and ethically engage in recreational 

and educational activities.

Strategies

1. Improve the website to provide clear and 

dynamic information about the Refuge’s 

importance, location, natural history and 

activities.

2. Ensure that entrance and directional signs are 

well-maintained and meet Fish and Wildlife 

Service standards.

3. Provide kiosks at key locations that welcome 

and orient visitors to the Refuge.

4. Provide and maintain publications that are 

clear, accurate and meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service graphic standards.

Objective 3.2. Hunting

Annually, provide no less than 7,000 quality 

hunting experiences on the Refuge. Seventyfive percent of hunters will report no conflicts 

with other users, a reasonable harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience. 

Rationale

Providing opportunities for hunting is consistent 

with the Refuge mission and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Refuge 

uplands will be open to hunting, subject to state regulations and public safety concerns, and where biologically feasible. When necessary, Refuge staff will 

seek ways to ensure that hunters have the opportunity for high quality experiences with both primitive 

and improved access opportunities. 

All hunting will be conducted within the framework of Refuge, Minnesota DNR, and where appropriate, White Earth Tribal regulations. (See 

Figure 15)

Strategies

1. Continue annual small game hunting opportunities (grouse, woodcock, snipe, rabbit, hare, 

squirrel).

2. Continue waterfowl hunting opportunities.

3. Continue annual firearms, muzzleloader and 

archery white-tailed deer hunting opportunities.

4. Explore assisted/contracted accessible hunts 

during regular seasons in open hunting areas.

5. Consider wild turkey accessible hunts on 

southern portion of the Refuge.

6. Designate Rice, Johnson and as open to hunting, but only primitive boat access will be 

maintained. This will protect the wild rice 

resource and minimize resources impacted by 

improved access. 

7. Maintain Two Island Lake as open to hunting 

with a primitive access.

8. Improve hunter safety including deer drive 

safety, and the perception of safety of nonhunters, by providing new educational materials and events (brochures, signage, programs).

9. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for hunting through a survey of 

hunter satisfaction.

10.Enhance public understanding of Refuge 

hunting opportunities by increasing the quality of maps, signs and wording within brochures and on the Refuge web page.

11.Hire a full-time law enforcement office to 

share duties on the Refuge and District.

12.Establish hunter and vehicle counts, through 

staff and volunteers, at all hunting access 

points to gain an index on hunting pressure 

and collect additional hunting data.

Objective 3.3. Fishing

Annually, provide for 5,000 quality fishing visits 

to the Refuge. Ninety percent of anglers will 

report no conflicts with other users and will 

know that they were fishing on a national wildlife Refuge.

Hunters track down that trophy deer. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Figure 15: Hunting Areas on Tamarac NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Rationale

Providing opportunities for fishing is consistent 

with the Refuge mission and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Select 

waterbodies will be open to fishing, subject to state 

and tribal regulations, and where biologically feasible. When necessary, Refuge staff will seek ways to 

ensure that anglers have the opportunity for high 

quality experiences both primitive and improved 

access opportunties. 

Outboard motor use and lake access were identified as issues during the planning process. In some 

cases, motorboats and intense use interferes with 

Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observation. 

There is concern that boat trailering and motorized 

fishing activity is not compatible with other uses 

along the Refuge’s auto tour route.

Strategies

1. Promote ethical fishing practices, including 

proper disposal of fish lines and use of nontoxic sinkers.

2. Implement educational program that promotes no-wake on wild rice lakes.

3. Use traffic counters to estimate number of 

anglers. 

4. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for fishing through a survey of 

angler satisfaction.

5. Consider a no-wake zone on the south end of 

Tamarac Lake for protection of wild rice 

resource.

6. Designate Blackbird Lake as a non-motorized 

lake for quality wildlife observation. 

7. Improve Cotton and Height of Land Lakes 

accesses.

8. Improve Mitchell Bridge/Otter Tail River fishing opportunities, including accessible fishing 

platform.

Objective 3.4: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Provide year-round opportunities for at least 

60,000 visits annually to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat. 

Rationale

Wildlife observation and nature photography are 

important and valuable activities for Refuge visitors 

and are priority, wildlife-dependent uses approved 

by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act 

of 1997. Specific activities must be compatible with 

the purposes of Tamarac NWR.

Tamarac NWR lakes have some of the last 

“unbroken” or undisturbed shorelines in the area. 

Throughout north-central Minnesota, extensive 

shoreline development for residential and recreational purposes has fragmented the lakes with 

manicured lawns, swimming beaches, docks, and 

other structures. Many of these practices detract 

from a natural viewshed and are detrimental both to 

wildlife and to lake water quality. The Refuge is trying to balance wildlife observation opportunities 

with protection of this critical resource.

Strategies

1. Maintain the 5-mile Blackbird Auto Tour 

Route with quality wildlife watching opportunities.

2. Make the complete Blackbird Auto Tour 

Route one-way traffic. The road is too narrow 

for safe passage of two vehicles. The current 

two-way section creates a confusing route.

3. Continue annual amateur photo contest in 

cooperation with the Refuge friends group, 

Tamarac Interpretive Association.

4. Improve South Tamarac Lake area for wildlife 

observation.

5. Open the closed area south of County Road 26 

(keep it closed to hunting) and create a primitive hiking trail that merges with the North 

Country Trail.

6. Develop an all-season hiking trail from the 

Tamarac Lake ski trail.

7. Develop accessible trail and observation area 

at Chippewa site. 

8. Promote birding on the Refuge in coordination 

with the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail which 

includes wildlife observation on the Refuge, 

birding festival and publications. 

9. Modify the Refuge web site to include current 

and accurate information about wildlife observations and opportunities available to the pubScoping out wildlife at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: 

L. Kramer
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

lic. Link the Refuge web site to other 

important wildlife observation web sites.

10.Maintain 5 miles of hiking trails.

11.Maintain 8 miles of groomed ski trails.

12.Maintain viewing platforms with scopes and 

interpretive panels.

13.Provide guided photo opportunities and/or 

workshops.

14.Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for wildlife observation. and photography through a survey of visitor satisfaction. 

15.Work with local units of government on the 

development of regional trails that link to the 

Refuge.

16.Promote undisturbed and undeveloped shorelines.

17.Add a restroom facility at Pine Lakes ski trail 

parking lot.

Objective 3.5. Interpretation

Annually provide no fewer than 2,000 personal 

interpretive experiences per year to create connections between people and the rich mosaic of 

wildlife and habitats found within the forestprairie transition zone of western Minnesota 

and an understanding of wildlife management 

activities on the Refuge. 

Rationale

Tamarac NWR has a long history of providing 

interpretation opportunities for thousands of visitors each year. Through the use of brochures, 

kiosks, articles, web sites, and interpretive programs, the Refuge interprets the value of wildlife 

and their habitats to current and potential visitors. 

Interpretive products will be dynamic, of quality, 

and will articulate the importance of Service lands 

to local and national conservation efforts. 

The Refuge staff will strive to provide opportunities focused on the objectives in this plan, so that the 

public will understand future management activities 

and provide support. 

Strategies

1. Identify three to five interpretive themes for 

the Refuge that will guide development of 

interpretive programs and products.

2. Continue to provide interpretive programs, 

events, festivals, tours for Refuge visitors, 

with a message that emphasizes habitat diversity, natural patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

3. Conduct at least two special events, 8-12 Refuge tours, and 12-24 programs on-site to interpret the Refuge, its habitat diversity, natural 

patterns and processes, and wildlife management.

4. Add interpretive panels to the Old Indian 

Trail.

5. Maintain and update interpretive signs/panels 

on nature trail and viewing platforms. 

6. Provide and maintain kiosks that orient visitors and help interpret habitats, wildlife, management, and regulations (Figure 16 on page 

78). 

7. Replace dated Refuge orientation slide show 

to new video format and offer a variety of wildlife-related videos for the visiting public. 

8. Update Visitor Center Exhibits to enhance the 

overall message to reflect the importance of 

the Refuge including dynamic media that 

highlight the latest research activities.

9. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for interpretation through a survey 

of visitor satisfaction. 

Objective 3.6. Environmental Education

Annually provide no less than 6,000 environmental education experiences per year to create 

connections between students and the natural 

resources of the Refuge. The experiences will 

also promote an understanding of habitat diversity, natural processes and wildlife management.

Rationale

 Few opportunities for guided outdoor experiences for children exist within a 60-mile radius of 

the Refuge. Tamarac NWR plays an important role 

in several area communities in providing experiences to connect children and nature. Tamarac 

NWR has an expanding environmental education 

Wildlife observation deck along the Blackbird Auto Tour. Photo 

Credit: J. Ditmar
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

program. Since 2005 the environmental education 

contacts on the Refuge have tripled. In 2009, 5,605 

on-site environmental education visits by school 

groups occurred on the Refuge. The Refuge routinely turns away school groups due to the lack of 

staff available to conduct environmental education 

activities. The Refuge currently has two staff to 

handle all responsibilities of the visitor services program, including promoting and conducting environmental education, interpretation and volunteer 

management. Along with local partners, Tamarac 

NWR has surveyed local communities to determine 

a niche for educational programming for grade levels and communities that have the least amount of 

environmental education support available. This 

focus of target grades allows Refuge staff to provide 

the most effective educational program with the 

resources available.

All school curriculum directly relates to Refuge 

management activities and it will meet the state of 

Minnesota environmental education graduation 

requirements while addressing the Minnesota environmental literacy scope and sequence. In order to 

keep it fresh and dynamic, the curriculum will be 

continually evaluated and improved in concert with 

area teachers.

See Figure 16 and Figure 17 on page 79 for an 

overview of future visitor facilities. 

Strategies

1. Encourage programming and use of facilities 

for environmental education activities for area 

schools, universities, community groups, and 

other Refuge visitors, with a message that 

emphasizes habitat diversity, natural processes, and wildlife management.

2. Regularly evaluate programs to ensure they 

are meeting the needs of the community as 

well as addressing Refuge management activities.

3. Train volunteers to assist or lead educational 

activities for classrooms.

4. Develop operational definition of success and 

measures for environmental education. 

5. Encourage partnerships with local schools, 

community groups and surrounding agencies.

6. Provide teacher workshops. 

7. Create an educational shelter/classroom on 

the Refuge. 

8. Secure funding through partnerships for busing for those schools that do not have the ability to assume those costs on their own with an 

emphasis on determined target grades.

Objective 3.7. Refuge Access and Secondary Uses

Throughout the life of the plan, evaluate opportunities for new access to the Refuge and recreational uses not defined by the NWRS 

Improvement Act of 1997. All public access and 

secondary uses must be compatible with the 

mission of the Refuge.

Rationale

The NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 identifies 

six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation that receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in planning and management of the Refuge System. Other 

uses can occur but must support a priority public 

use or not conflict with priority public uses. No use 

of a national wildlife Refuge can detract from 

accomplishing the purposes of the Refuge or the 

mission of the System. Tamarac NWR supports various forms of nature-based outdoor recreation that, 

while not exactly wildlife-dependent, may well be 

compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and contributes to public appreciation and enjoyment of it.

Issues identified during development of this CCP 

included a proposed North Country Natural Scenic 

Trail to run through the Refuge, desire for access to 

the Ottertail River for canoeing, firewood cutting, 

horseback riding on Refuge roads, and snowmobile 

and all-terrain vehicle use in county road right-ofways.

Strategies

1. Coordinate with Becker County through the 

recreational plan process to eliminate Snowmobiles and ATVs on County Roads within or 

immediately adjacent to Refuge boundary. 

2. Prohibit horse-back riding on the Refuge.

3. Continue to permit firewood cutting but modify program to allow cutting only in areas that 

complement Refuge management objectives. 

Priority cutting areas will be identified and 

guidelines and special conditions for permits 

will be established.

4. Picnicking – convert the Chippewa site to an 

interpretive site.

Objective 3.8 Outreach

Throughout the life of the plan, increase local 

community support and appreciation for fish 

and wildlife conservation and endorse the Refuge’s role in conservation.

Rationale

The Refuge considers its neighbors and visitors 

to be very important. The Refuge is an asset to the 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Figure 16: Future Visitor Services Facilities –Spring and Summer, Tamarac NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Figure 17: Future Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter, Tamarac NWR
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

community and the continued support of the community is essential. It is important that the Refuge 

continues efforts to build and maintain open communications with neighbors to let them know the successes, challenges, and opportunities in 

conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation. In 

an ideal setting, the objective would be to achieve an 

appreciation of the value and need for fish and wildlife conservation among a larger percentage of the 

population living around the Refuge.

The success in achieving the objective would be 

determined through a survey of the general population. However, for an objective to be useful it must 

be measurable in both a conceptual and practical 

sense. It is not practical to propose that the Refuge 

will conduct a survey of the general population anytime in the next few years, because the approvals 

and costs are beyond the likely resources of the Refuge. As an alternative, the objective reflects the 

assumption that community leaders reflect and help 

form the attitude within the community. By evaluating the opinions of community leaders, there will be 

a surrogate measure of our desired outcome within 

the guidelines of the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Strategies

1. Upgrade and maintain the Refuge’s website.

2. Write and distribute no fewer than 20 news 

releases each year that increase the public’s 

understanding and knowledge of the Refuge 

management activities, key natural resources 

and its programs. 

3. Maintain regular contact with community 

leaders through presentations and conversations.

4. Continue participation in community networks 

including the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, 

Lake Country Scenic Byway and local community chambers, etc.

5. Explore new outreach efforts with local communities.

Objective 3.9 Volunteer Programs and Partnerships

Annually recruit no fewer than 5,000 donated 

volunteer hours on the Refuge.

Rationale

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by 

the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1988, 

authorized the Service to accept volunteer services. 

Congress reauthorized the Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act in 2004, affirming its desire to involve Americans as stewards of 

our nation’s natural resources and wildlife. Whether 

through volunteers, refuge support groups, or other 

important partnerships in the community, refuge 

personnel seek to make the refuge an integral part 

of the community. Volunteers and partners of Tamarac NWR become advocates for Refuge management activities and provide vital assistance in 

fulfilling the Refuge mission.

Strategies

1. Recruit, orient and train volunteers to assist 

with a variety of Refuge projects including visitor services programs, habitat restoration, 

biological programs and maintenance tasks.

2. Train volunteers to provide Refuge tours, lead 

environmental education activities, and assist 

with interpretive and outreach programs.

3. Initiate and nurture relationships with volunteer and Refuge support groups including the 

Tamarac Interpretive Association. Monitor, 

support and evaluate these groups with the 

goal of enhancing Refuge activities.

4. In cooperation with the Tamarac Interpretive 

Association, maintain quality interpretive and 

educational material offered for sale in the 

Tamarac Wildlife gifts and Bookshop that 

enhance wildlife watching.

Objective 3.10. Archeological, Cultural, and Historic 

Protection

Over the life of the plan, avoid and protect or 

mitigate against disturbance of all known cultural, historic, or archeological sites.

Rationale

Cultural resources are an important facet of the 

country’s heritage. Tamarac NWR, like all national 

wildlife refuges, remains committed to preserving 

archeological and historic sites against degradation, 

looting, and other adverse impacts. The guiding 

principle for management derives from the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, 16 

U.S.C. 470 et seq. and the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 47011-

mm, which establish legal mandates and protection 

against identifying sites for the public, etc. The Refuge must ensure archeological and cultural values 

are described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. It is also 

essential that new site discoveries are documented. 

In order to meet these responsibilities, the Refuge 

intends to maintain an open dialogue with the 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) and 

to provide the RHPO with information about new 

archeological site discoveries. The Refuge will also 

cooperate with federal, state, and local agencies, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

American Indian tribes, and the public in managing 

cultural resources on the Refuge.

Strategies

1. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground 

disturbing projects and protect known archeological, cultural and historic sites.

2. Explore partnership opportunities with White 

Earth Band for cultural interpretation projects.

3. Within 10 years of CCP approval and with the 

assistance of the RHPO, develop a step-down 

plan for surveying lands to identify archeological resources and for developing a preservation program to meet the requirements of 

Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act.

4. Identify and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all historic properties 

including those of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

5. Contract with cultural resources firms specializing in Minnesota to conduct Phase I surveys 

prior to undertakings that could adversely 

affect historic resources.

6. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of 

ancient human remains, follow instructions 

and procedures indicated by the RHPO.

7. Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

8. Inspect the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the 

RHPO changes in the conditions.

9. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and activities.

10.Continue accessioning, cataloging, inventorying, and preserving the museum collection at 

the Refuge.

Objective 3.11. American Indian Cultural Practices

Opportunities to engage in American Indian 

cultural practices will be available at the level 

offered in 2009.

Rationale

The Refuge is rich in both historic and pre-historic American Indian cultural traditions. Both the 

Dakota (Sioux) and Ojibwe (Chippewa) Indians used 

the resources of the current Tamarac NWR and 

surrounding lands during historic times. Today, 

members of the White Earth Band travel to the Refuge to practice rice harvesting, hunt deer and 

gather natural products.

Strategies

1. Continue cooperating with the White Earth 

Band for the harvest of wild rice and furtrapping as per the Collier Agreement.

2. Follow habitat objectives to ensure long-term 

wild rice production is sufficient to allow for a 

successful harvest during most years.

3. Consult with the White Earth Band and other 

tribes with a historic interest in the area for 

interpretation and environmental education of 

American Indian history.

4. Work with the White Earth Band to reduce or 

eliminate leech harvest on specific water bodies to curb negative impacts.

5. Incorporate cultural history messages into 

programs, exhibits and other media with an 

emphasis on use of the Refuge landscape 

throughout time.

6. Develop an oral cultural history to preserve 

the “community memory” about the area.

7. Provide education and training opportunities, 

such as internships, for local youth, including 

tribal youth, in natural resource management.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Tamarac NWR and 

Wetland District. The ability to enhance wildlife 

habitats and to maintain existing and develop additional quality public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the 

Service. The Refuge and District will continually 

need appropriate operational and maintenance 

funding to implement the objectives in this plan.

This section provides a brief description of the 

highest priority Tamarac NWR and Wetland Management District projects as chosen by the Refuge 

staff.

Tamarac NWR Operating Needs and Visitor 

Facility Enhancement Projects

Enhance Environmental Education and Interpretive 

Capacity and Capability

Construction of an environmental education facility will serve more than 10 rural Minnesota communities where interaction with environmental science 

institutions is limited. Teachers, volunteers and Refuge staff are engaged and ready to expand the educational opportunities at Tamarac NWR, but need a 

facility for students to process their observations 

and include children of all learning and physical 

abilities. 

Each year children from more than 10 rural 

school districts participate in environmental education and stewardship projects on the Refuge. As a 

partner with educational institutions, Tamarac 

NWR ensures these school programs adhere to 

national science standards and graduation standards as set forth by the Minnesota Department of 

Education. The programs have become so popular 

with local schools that capacity has been exceeded. 

The small visitor center on site can only host 

between 25 and 50 children and there are no facilities for conducting meaningful hands-on activities 

including laboratory projects or specimen examination. A typical school field trip includes 100-150 children or the whole grade at that school. The pavilion 

would be utilized in conjunction with the visitor center, 25 miles of trails and natural resources of the 

43,000 acre Refuge to provide learning stations for 

the full grade of students at the school. A pavilion 

would provide the space for these investigative 

activities that bring a deeper understanding to the 

science they are exploring.

There is growing concern that members of the 

public will be unprepared for increasing environmental responsibilities in the coming years. As environmental issues and programs become more 

complex and pervasive we need to nurture our youth 

for the challenge. Connecting children and nature 

develops an environmentally literate community 

able to make decisions about the environment based 

on science and contribute as stewards of our federal 

lands. Additionally, research shows that children's 

learning capabilities are heightened when placed in 

an outdoor educational environment. The outdoor 

experential learning environment stimulates creative thinking, promotes superior motor fitness, 

improves problem solving skills and increases selfesteem and happiness. 

Estimated Cost - $500,000. Strategy 3.5.7

Installing a boat launch pad at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Provide Public Safety, Security and Resource Protection 

Through Increased Law Enforcement Capability

Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to protect wildlife, lands, facilities, employees and the general public on the 43,000-acre Tamarac NWR. 

Currently the station has one dual function officer. 

Directors Order No. 155 requires the Service to 

reduce dependency on dual-function Refuge officers 

and progress towards a full-time officer workforce. 

A full-time officer would be able to do more regular 

and intensive law enforcement on the Refuge and 

Wetland Management District throughout the year. 

The Refuge is responsible for managing and monitoring easements throughout a five county District 

extending from Tamarac NWR north to the Canadian border, distance of approximately 175 miles. 

Tamarac NWR has experienced a steady increase in 

public use and recreation and is now exceeding 

85,000 visitors annually. Hunting violations, off-road 

vehicle use, littering and traffic violations are 

increasing on Refuge lands. Additionally, the population growth in the surrounding communities is 

placing additional strain on wildlife habitats and 

trust resources. A full-time officer would be able to 

better build more cooperative relationships with 

neighboring enforcement agencies. Half of Tamarac 

NWR is within the original boundary of the White 

Earth Indian Reservation. This officer would 

include the enforcement of all fishing, hunting and 

non-consumptive use regulations as well as coordinating/enforcing leeching, ricing, and trapping 

rights exercised by members of the White Earth 

Indian Reservation. This would require close coordination with Tribal Conservation Officers and Police. 

Estimated Cost – $150,000. Strategies 3.1.11(Refuge) and 3.2.2 (District)

Develop Strategic Forest Management Program

Hire a full-time Forest Ecologist to develop a forestry program that is ecologically, economically, and 

socially responsible as a means of sustaining the 

integrity of Tamarac NWR’s forest ecosystems and 

the human communities dependent upon them. This 

individual would develop management plans to 

ensure the restoration, preservation, protection and 

enhancement of the Refuge forest resources. The 

individual would perform systematic forest surveys 

and inventories, conduct site evaluations, and oversee forest regeneration activities. In the early 1890s 

loggers harvested most of the area’s giant red and 

white pines. Settlers followed the loggers. Attempts 

to farm met with little success due to marginal soils, 

many wetlands and dense forests. These activities 

dramatically changed the landscape. This is a key 

position to ensuring the biological integrity of Tamarac NWR’s forest resources. 

Estimated Cost - $120,000. Strategy 2.5.1

Develop a New Audiovisual Program at Tamarac NWR 

Visitor Center

Develop a new audiovisual program for use as an 

interpretive tool in the visitor center auditorium 

using state of the art equipment and technical 

expertise. The Refuge’s current audiovisual program is nearly 25 years old and does not accurately 

depict Service or Refuge information including its 

biological programs. The audiovisual program is 

unquestionably the highlight of the Visitor Center 

experience and serves as an extremely important 

interpretive and education tool. Approximately 

85,000 people visit the Refuge each year to enjoy the 

scenic beauty and abundant wildlife including Trumpeter Swans, Bald Eagles and wolves. 

Estimated Cost - $120,000. Strategy 3.4.7

Update Visitor Center Exhibits

Enhance the overall message of the visitor center 

to reflect the biology of the Refuge including the latest research activities. The current visitor center 

exhibits highlight Tamarac NWR’s wildlife species 

and their habitats but do not interpret the management, research and ongoing programs associated 

with them. Through the collection and display of 

video and interactive exhibits incorporating the latest technology, visitors will gain a better understanding and appreciation of Tamarac NWR’s role 

in fulfilling the mission of the Service. Annually 

Tamarac NWR’s visitation exceeds 85,000. The Refuge is situated at the convergence of three continental biomes – tall grass prairie, eastern deciduous 

and boreal forests, offering tremendous opportunity 

to view a diversity of wildlife and habitats. Visitors 

are attracted not only locally, but from North 

Dakota-Minnesota metropolitan communities of 

Fargo and Moorhead located 50 miles west. The 

estimated metropolitan population is 200,000. 

Estimated Cost - $60,000. Strategy 3.4.8

Hydrological Geomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Tamarac 

NWR Lakes and Rivers

Conduct a comprehensive hydro-geomorphic 

assessment of the lakes and streams of Tamarac 

NWR. Since Refuge establishment in 1938, the 

aquatic ecosystems within the Refuge have been 

altered through water control structures, dikes and 

road construction. This assessment would evaluate 

ecosystem restoration and management options by 

comparing historic conditions to present-day conditions. Through this assessment the structure, function and ecological processes that are needed to 

restore the wetland communities would be identified, as well as the limitations of restoration management. Tamarac NWR sits at the top of two 

watersheds that flow into the Red River of the 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

North. This information would also provide valuable 

data for use in the Red River Valley Flood Management planning efforts. 

Estimated cost - $80,000. Strategy 2.12.4

Aquatic Resources and Water Quality Investigation

Hire a seasonal biological technician. Tamarac 

NWR is situated at or near the top of two major 

watershed (Buffalo and Ottertail) within Minnesota; 

therefore, most people presume that water quality 

remains in pristine condition. However, a baseline 

water quality survey conducted by the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency recommended that several lakes be included on the “impaired waters” list 

(303d list), although further data would be needed to 

complete an assessment of the lakes. There are 21 

natural lakes and three rivers within the Refuge, yet 

little is known about the ecology and water quality 

of these habitats, nor how these aspects affect trust 

resources. The project would support multiples 

studies, surveys and investigations that would collect information on biotic and abiotic resources of 

these systems, including aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, fish, waterbirds and water quality, all of 

which would be used to measure long term changes 

in aquatic systems. 

Estimated cost - $88,000. Strategy 2.12.4

Climate Change Adaptations for Biodiversity 

Conservation at Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR’s location at the convergence of 

three major biomes (boreal forest, eastern deciduous forest and tall grass prairie) make it well suited 

for studying the impacts of climate change and identifying options for land managers to mitigate negative impacts. Implement a long-term, adaptive 

management driven monitoring program of upland 

and wetland plant communities, as well as the fauna 

of these communities. Habitat management activities will be tailored to adaptation actions such as 

resistance, resilience and facilitation strategies promoting native plant communities in the face of a 

changing climate. Emphasis will be placed on, but 

not limited to, the long-term viability of upland conifers and wild rice wetland systems. Additionally, 

interpretive programs will be developed for delivery 

on the Refuge showcasing the significance of climate 

change on Refuge resources. Interpretive signs and/

or other medium such as brochures will be developed. 

Estimated costs: $100,000 Strategy 2.2.5 

Wetland Management District Operating 

Needs Projects

Enhance Wetland Management District

Hire one full-time wetland district manager to 

plan, organize, and implement management actions 

and provide oversight on 45 conservation easements 

within the Refuge’s five-county Management District. This position would engage, coordinate, and 

partner with state and local government officials 

and conservation interest groups to further the Service’s conservation mission, including future acquisitions of fee title and easements. Oversight of a 

vigorous and successful Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, including supervision of the private 

lands biologist, would also be the responsibility of 

this position. There is currently no staffing on the 

five-county – 6,500,000 acre management district 

and active management and partnership development has been limited. Natural resource deterioration, habitat fragmentation, and lost community 

partnership opportunities will continue to occur 

without active management involvement. 

Estimated cost: $120,000. WMD Strategy 1.3.1

Survey FSA Easements

Survey the boundaries of the 14 FSA (formerly 

FmHA) easements on Tamarac WMD. Most of the 

FSA easements were not sufficiently surveyed when 

the Service acquired the management responsibilities and are in need of resurvey. In addition, some 

easements were not surveyed at all. Consequently, 

law enforcement operations are jeapordized and 

valuable habitats threatened. Landowners do not 

have accurate knowledge of the boundaries of these 

easements and in many cases are altering the protected habitats. Without clear documentation of the 

easement boundary, law enforcement does not have 

a defensible case in court. 

Estimated cost - $126,000. WMD Strategy 1.2.3

Future Staffing Requirements

Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will 

require changes in the organizational structure of 

the Refuge and District. Existing staff will direct 

their time and energy in new directions and new 

staff members will be added to assist in these areas. 

The following are organizational charts and tables of 

the current staff of the Refuge and District, Fiscal 

Year 2010, as well as staff needed to fully implement 

this plan by Fiscal Year 2025 (Figure 18 and Table 6 

on page 85). 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe specific 

actions that support the accomplishment of Refuge 

and District objectives. The management plans 

identified in Table 7 will be reviewed, revised, or 

developed as necessary to achieve the results anticipated in this draft CCP. 

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishment of Tamarac 

NWR and WMD goals, objectives, and strategies. 

The objectives outlined in this draft CCP need the 

support and the partnerships of federal, state and 

local agencies, non-governmental organizations and 

individual citizens. This broad-based approach to 

managing fish and wildlife resources extends 

beyond social and political boundaries and requires 

a foundation of support from many. Tamarac NWR 

and WMD will continue to seek creative partnership 

opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.

Notable existing partners include the Tamarac 

Interpretive Association, Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, University of Minnesota, Natural Innovations, RMB Laboratories, and Ducks 

Unlimited. 

Wilderness Review

We reviewed Refuge lands outside of the designated wilderness area for suitability as additional 

wilderness. This evaluation is presented within 

Chapter 3. No additional lands were found suitable 

for designation as wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic 

basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team whose purpose will be to visit Tamarac 

NWR and the Wetland Management District and 

Figure 18: Current Staffing Chart (2010), Tamarac NWR and WMD

Table 6: New Staff Required to Fully Implement 

the CCP by 2025, Tamarac NWR and WMD

Position FTEs

Law Enforcement Officer 1.0

Forest Ecologist 1.0

Wetland Management District Manager 1.0

Total 3.0
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

evaluate current Refuge activities in light of this 

plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge 

management, including direction, accomplishments 

and funding. The goals and objectives presented in 

this CCP will provide the baseline from which this 

field station will be evaluated. 

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for Tamarac NWR and the Wetland 

Management District is meant to provide guidance 

to Refuge managers and staff over the next 15 

years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document and several of these strategies contained in this plan are subject to such things as 

drought, floods, windstorms and other uncontrollable events. Likewise, many of the strategies are 

dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because of all these factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if 

necessary, revised to meet new circumstances.

Table 7: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Tamarac NWR

Step-down Management Plan Plan Completed/ 

Updated

Anticipated 

Revision

Wilderness Management Plan 1987 2012

Visitor Services Plan X 2012 

Hunting Plan 1990 2013 

Law Enforcement Plan 1984 2012 

Furbearer Management & Trapping 

Plans

1994 2011

Tamarac

Habitat

Management

Plan

Marsh & Water Management Plan 1992

Forest Management Plan 1994

Grassland Management Plan 1990

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1992

Fisheries Management Plan 1991

Fire Management Plan 2001 2010

Cultural Resources Management Plan X 2016

Safety Plan 2009 2012

Disease Control Plan 1987 2017
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Introduction and Background

The Tamarac Wetland Management District 

(Tamarac WMD), established in 1987, stretches 

over 10,600 square miles in Beltrami, Cass, Clearwater, Hubbard and Koochiching Counties (Figure 

19 on page 88). The Tamarac WMD is responsible 

for administering 8,908 acres of wetland and conservation easements distributed throughout these five 

north central Minnesota counties. The Tamarac 

WMD is one of eight wetland management districts 

within Minnesota (Figure 19 on page 80). In addition to easement enforcement and management 

activities, Tamarac WMD personnel also perform 

consultation roles for Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Farm Bill programs, restore wetlands on private 

lands, and render technical assistance to landowners who desire to enhance wildlife habitat on their 

property. As the Tamarac WMD possesses no land 

in fee title, it presents the paramount challenge of 

working effectively with private landowners to 

achieve Service and District goals. 

District Purposes

Tamarac Wetland Management District was 

established in 1987...

 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to 

“... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate 

sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) 

District Vision

Tamarac Wetland Management District is a 

picturesque canvas of a natural landscape transitioning from boreal peatlands to mixed forests 

of aspen, birch and pine. This diverse landscape 

affords the District unique opportunities to 

develop innovative partnerships centered on 

habitat restoration and water quality improvements. The District working with landowners 

and partners will strive to maintain healthy ecological systems providing habitat continuity 

beyond boundaries to support a diversity of 

wildlife. The District will serve as a model of 

land stewardship and restoration practices 

while providing demonstration sites for scientifically proven wildlife and natural resource conservation techniques. 

Planning Background

Issues and alternatives were developed for the 

Tamarac WMD in tandem with Tamarac NWR. For 

a complete description of the process, please see 

Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP. The issues identified 

related to the WMD are: 

 Land Acquisition

 Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program

 Habitat Restoration Direction

 Invasive Plants

 Management Emphasis 

District Environment and Current 

Management

District Environment 

The landscape of the Tamarac WMD is comparable to Tamarac NWR in many ways in that it is 

Red fox kits. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Figure 19: Location of Tamarac WMD in Relation to Other FWS Lands
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Figure 20: Overview of Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

largely forested, sharing many of the same habitat 

cover types, and replete with lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The environment, however, is significantly 

different in a number of respects, such that it supports extensive conifer dominated peatlands, 

intense agricultural areas, and excessive development for recreational purpose. 

The District stretches across five north central 

Minnesota counties, over 170 miles north to south, 

and 115 miles east to west. Each county bears 

unique characteristics. Koochiching County abuts 

the Canadian border and represents the second 

largest county in the state. The land surface is predominately flat with swampy peat based soils where 

glacial Lake Agassiz was at its deepest point. The 

northern portions of the county are broken in places 

by Precambrian bedrock. The land is mostly forested, divided by a number of major rivers, but few 

lakes. Agricultural use and development is minimal. 

Beltrami County is similar in that it is generally 

level and primarily forested, but possesses an abundance of lakes, including Upper and Lower Red 

Lake which cover about 280,000 acres. There a two 

basic physiographic regions: the lake plain of glacial 

Lake Agassiz over the north half, consisting of 

broad and flat lacustrine soils and beach ridges; and 

the moraine-outwash complex overlaying the south 

half, a level to hilly region bearing sandy to loaming 

glacial till. The county economic industries of tourism, timber, and farming have considerably altered 

the natural landscape. To the south, Clearwater 

County is comprised of a great variety of landforms 

and soil types. Forestry is the dominant land use, 

despite significant agricultural fragmentation. High 

wetland densities abound across the county. Hubbard County to the east is likewise heavily forested 

and replete with lakes in the northern two thirds of 

the county. The southern portion is founded in a 

mostly sandy loam glacial till and supports a long 

agricultural tradition. Cass County shores up the 

south end of the district. Its topography ranges 

from flat to rolling. The landscape is pockmarked by 

over 500 interconnected lakes and waterways. The 

county is composed of a variety of landforms and 

soil types. Agriculture is less prevalent and favors 

pasture and hay production. 

The District landscape conforms to three major 

watershed basins: most of Clearwater and Beltrami 

Counties drain into the Red River basin; Koochiching flows into the Rainy River basin; and Hubbard 

and Cass Counties run-off into the Upper Mississippi River basin. The District feeds 16 of Minnesota’s 81 major surface watersheds.

Current Wetland Management District 

Programs: Where We Are Today

The Tamarac WMD is nestled along the western 

edge of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province in 

northwestern Minnesota. While no lands have been 

acquired in fee-title, the Tamarac WMD does manage or oversee 22 wetland easements (4,836 tract 

acres) and 23 former Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) inventory properties (4,072 acres) 

within its five-county management area. 

Wetland easement tracts are legal boundary 

descriptions that encompass wetlands protected 

from draining, filling, leveling, and burning activities. Wetland easements are recorded as tract acres 

to account for increases in wetland surface area and 

to afford the Service some control over drainage 

activities within the tract boundary that impact 

easement wetlands. Former FmHA inventory properties fall into two general categories: conservation 

easements and deed restrictive covenants. Conservation easements protect both upland and wetland 

acres where the Service reserves restoration, habitat management, and enforcement rights. On deed 

restrictive covenants, the Service bears no management rights, but does ensure compliance with 

restrictive covenants and possesses the right to reenter, restore, or repossess the property upon a covenant breach. 

Extensive patches of open land and thousands of 

wetlands pock- mark and fragment the northern 

hardwood and boreal forest landscape of the District. Tamarac WMD private land activities have 

focused principally on wetland restoration. As much 

as possible, wetlands have been restored to historic 

A Marsh Wren sings. Photo Credit: Jim Williams
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

water levels to regain natural hydrological functions. Upland habitat improvement projects such as 

grassland establishment, the development of woodland stewardship plans, and wildlife benefiting grazing systems have been confined to FmHA 

conservation easement lands. Woodland management plans have generally centered on managing 

forest stands with little emphasis on ecological plant 

communities and natural processes. 

Habitat Restoration and Management

The Tamarac WMD has restored more than 1,100 

drained wetlands over the past 20 years. The bulk of 

this work has occurred in Clearwater County. Valuable partnerships are periodically forged with the 

Minnesota DNR, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, county soil and water conservation districts, and sportsmen clubs in support of the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW). The 

PFW program has been, and continues to be the 

essential tool to restore degraded wetland habitat, 

as well as key in establishing the Service’s presence 

and priorities across this large geographic area. 

Former crop fields on FmHA conservation easements have been sown to low diversity stands of 

both native and non-native grasses and exotic forbs. 

These seed mixes grew fast in a variety of soil types, 

controlled weeds, minimized annual maintenance 

needs, and provide effective, although not ideal, 

waterfowl nesting cover. A number of grazing plans 

have been developed which largely limit grazing 

duration and intensity on easements where grazing 

rights are retained by the landowner. Annual grazing dates generally run July 15 to September 1 to 

protect nesting waterfowl and ensure adequate vegetation re-growth for winter cover needs of resident 

wildlife. Little forest management has occurred 

except on state owned FmHA easement tracts.

Wetlands

Both restored and unaltered wetlands on private 

and easement lands are maintained at predicted 

natural water levels wherever possible. In the case 

of restoration, this is normally achieved by installing 

fixed-crest water control structures. Restoration 

techniques most commonly employed include the 

construction of earthen dams or “ditch plugs”, 

installation of corrugated metal pipe structures, and 

placement of riprap spillways to control humaninduced surface drainage. Clemson leveler devices 

are sometimes embedded into earthen dams to neutralize beaver activities that over-inundate wetland 

basins and suppress important aquatic plant communities. Due to logistical constraints, active water 

level manipulation is not conducted. Allowing wetland water levels to bounce according to variable 

precipitation events, yields the best collective benefits for waterfowl, wading birds, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic mammals. While used little to date, 

prescribed fire can play an important role in maintaining these aquatic ecosystems.

The District also participates in water quality 

partnerships to improve riparian and stream habitat 

on private lands.

Grasslands

Grassland management has been limited to 

FmHA easement lands and fall into two general categories: abandoned cropland and hayland that has 

reverted or is being maintained as tame grass and 

exotic broadleaf plant communities; and former 

agricultural fields that have been re-seeded to variable mixes of native big bluestem and switch grass, 

and non-native wheat grasses, birdsfoot trefoil, red 

clover, and alfalfa. On a few state-owned FmHA 

easements, more diverse stands of native grasses 

and forbs have been established and are maintained 

through the use of prescribed fire. Landowners 

retain limited haying and/or grazing rights on many 

privately owned FmHA easements, that when exercised, does offer some management benefits by 

repressing noxious weeds and invigorating grasses. 

These practices, however, are commonly carried out 

too long or too intensely for ideal habitat maintenance. With landowner cooperation, attempts to 

modify their operations with modern, science-based 

practices are being employed that improve wildlife 

habitat, but also satisfy agricultural business needs. 

The Tamarac WMD PFW program has not engaged 

in any grassland management projects on private 

lands to date.

Forests

During the FmHA inventory property transfer 

period of the 1990s, Tamarac WMD staff co-developed with USDA officials a number of woodland 

stewardship plans. These plans are generally single 

A wetland restoration project gets under way. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

or co-dominant species oriented and in need of revision. On state owned deed restricted easements, 

where the Service maintains only conservation oversight, limited select cutting for wood products has 

occurred. Historically, the Tamarac WMD PFW 

program has not actively pursued forest improvement projects on private lands, but opportunities 

abound for future involvement.

Wetland Management District Public Recreation, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation

All lands and projects administered by the Tamarac WMD are privately or state owned. Whether 

under easement or a PFW agreement, landowners 

completely control public access and use. Landowners are permitted to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, 

bird watching, and wildlife interpretation, in accordance with state regulations. While staff is not an 

active participant, Clearwater County conducts 

environmental education work-shops at a facility on 

the Lawrence FmHA conservation easement which 

they own. Their programs center on fostering good 

soil, water, and wildlife resource stewardship.

Wetland Management District Goals, 

Objectives and Strategies

Future Management Direction: Where We 

Want To Go Tomorrow

The planning team developed goals and objectives for three management alternatives at Tamarac 

WMD. These alternatives include:

 Alternative 1: Restoration and Management of 

Habitat that Expands Beyond Migratory Bird 

Benefits by Incorporating Natural Ecological 

Processes Where Possible 

 Alternative 2: Pre-settlement Ecological Processes

 Alternative 3: Current Management Direction 

(No Action)

The Environmental Assessment (Appendix A) 

describes and evaluates each alternative. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative and it forms the 

basis for the Tamarac WMD CCP. The goals, objectives and strategies are presented on the following 

pages. The planning team established goals for 

major management areas, objectives for achieving 

those goals, and the specific strategies that will be 

employed by Tamarac WMD staff. The goals are 

organized into the broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and people.

Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Alternative 1: Restoration and Management of 

Habitat that Expands Beyond Migratory Bird Benefits by Incorporating Natural Ecological Processes 

Where Possible.

Goal 1: Wildlife

Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to habitats naturally occurring within the 

Tamarac WMD with special emphasis on Service 

Regional Conservation Priority Species

Objective 1.1

Within 3 years of plan approval, assimilate 

available information on avian presence and 

abundance within Tamarac WMD and identify 

focal areas and strategies for habitat improvement projects and land and easement acquisition that delivers maximum benefits for 

waterfowl and other Resource Conservation 

Priority (RCP) species.

Rationale

Protection and enhancement of migratory bird 

habitat is the primary purpose of the Tamarac 

WMD. 

Strategies

1. Research, acquire, and incorporate existing 

migratory bird data from sources such as Minnesota Waterfowl Breeding Pair Counts, 

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes, Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas surveys, etc., into 

the Tamarac WMD database system. Process 

baseline migratory bird data and carry out 

priority area assessments within the Tamarac 

WMD to direct program actions. 

2. Develop guidelines from acquired migratory 

bird information that will focus conservation 

actions and facilitate adaptive management 

strategies.

Restored wetlands provide resting areas for migratory 

waterfowl. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Goal 2: Habitat

To protect, restore, and enhance wetland and upland 

habitats, mimicking natural ecological processes where 

possible, within the Tamarac WMD for the benefit of 

RCP species

Objective 2.1 Wetland Restoration

Restore or enhance on average at least 60 acres 

of degraded wetlands on private lands per year 

to benefit waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife.

Rationale

Tamarac WMD activities have focused primarily 

on private land habitat restoration that benefits 

waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. As 

much as possible, wetlands have been restored to 

natural water levels that will fluctuate in reaction to 

seasonal and annual precipitation variations.

Strategies

1. Use the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) 

and Small Wetland Acquisition Programs 

(SWAP) to expand restoration and protection 

of crucial waterfowl habitats. Emphasize habitat restoration, enhancement, and acquisition 

actions around core wetland complexes which 

may include establishing or increasing secure 

nesting cover to elevate migratory bird productivity.

2. Identify, prioritize, and leverage funding for 

wetland improvement projects through 

diverse and innovative partnerships with governmental agencies, conservation organizations, civic groups, and private landowners.

3. Emphasize wetland conservation work within 

impaired waters or high priority watersheds 

that collectively accrues wetlands values for 

wildlife, water quality, flood abatement and 

recreational use and compliment state, county, 

or watershed and conservation organization 

priorities.

4. Assess, prioritize, and pursue enhancement 

and protection of the most imperiled shallow 

lakes in the Tamarac WMD, particularly those 

supporting critical wild rice resources. 

5. Map and assess drained wetland resources, 

ownership, and restoration opportunities, 

forming a comprehensive database for strategic management planning.

6. Evaluate wetlands restored through the PFW 

Program, pursue extensions to expired habitat 

development agreements, and generate new 

habitat restoration opportunities.

7. Working through partnerships, improve riparian and stream habitats within the District. 

Objective 2.2 Wetland Management

Maintain hydrological function of wetlands, currently totaling more than 4100 acres, under 

easement or PFW agreements. Acreage maintenance will increase annually as additional 

lands are restored and preserved.

Rationale

Inspection, maintenance, and enforcement activities are crucial to maintaining wetland investments 

and values. Routine landowner contacts and building good relationships generate partnerships, new 

opportunities, natural resource stewardship, and 

compliance.

Strategies

1. Annually inspect all easement wetlands 

through aerial reconnaissance or ground 

checks for conservation reservation compliance. Attempt to review all restored wetlands 

under an active PFW agreement once every 5 

years to assess restoration effectiveness, wetland condition, wildlife use, fish impacts, and 

agreement compliance.

2. Recognize existing or potential fish impacts to 

wetlands on private and easement lands, and 

where feasible, employ restoration techniques 

or existing water control structures alterations to minimize fish impacts to wetland systems.

3. Include wetland habitats in prescribed burning plans on conservation easements and 

highly significant private land projects where 

Working with a private landowner. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

excessive woody encroachment is degrading 

critical wetland habitat.

4. Carry out the incorporation of the PFW program application into the GIS database system for efficient planning and management of 

PFW projects and easements. 

Objective 2.3 Grassland Establishment and 

Management

Judiciously select sites sustaining dynamic wetland complexes for potential establishment of 

grassland communities. Strive to compose a 

grassland unit with a large patch size and 

diverse assembly of native grasses and forbs.

Rationale

Grassland management has been limited on Tamarac WMD. Some abandoned cropland has reverted 

to tame grass and exotic broadleaf plant communities or has been re-seeded with low diversity mixes 

of native and non-native vegetation on easement 

lands. Where grazing and haying rights are retained 

by easement landowners, grassland enhancement 

may be the best option to provide benefits for 

migratory birds. There are also opportunities to 

establish diverse grasslands on private lands.

Strategies

1. Renovate conservation easement grasslands 

with diverse mixes of native grasses and forbs 

where other management alternatives are 

infeasible.

2. Use soils, historical documentation, and other 

information to evaluate potential sites for the 

establishment grasslands on private lands that 

will benefit wetland/grassland RCP species. 

Cost share assistance for grassland restoration on private lands will require a minimum 

block size of 40 acres and the presence of a significant wetland complex.

3. Work with landowners and the USDA to 

develop and implement rotational grazing systems on conservation easement and private 

lands that will improve the quality of grasslands and recruitment of related RCP species.

Objective 2.4 Forest Management

Identify, prioritize, and implement forest conservation projects based on land capabilities 

that yield the highest benefits for Regional and 

Tamarac WMD priority species.

Rationale

Historically, Tamarac WMD programs have concentrated on managing habitats for wetland dependent wildlife species. The District has had limited 

participation in forest improvement projects, however, opportunities abound to benefit forest dependent RCP species. A number of woodland 

stewardship plans developed for some former 

FmHA properties, are now out-dated and require 

revision.

Strategies

1. Acquire knowledge of the geographical distribution of Tamarac WMD landscape features 

such as basic land cover types, land use and 

ownership, watersheds, and other key spatial 

attributes to direct conservation actions.

2. Complete the development and manage the 

WMD- GIS database system.

3. Use Upper Midwest Great Lakes Land Conservation Cooperative and other partners to 

investigate, identify, and prioritize forest habitat enhancement projects that benefit RCP 

species viably residing within the Tamarac 

WMD. 

4. Work with partners to develop and complete 

one PFW project per year that benefits early 

successional habitat or interior forest migratory birds of District priority. 

Objective 2.5 FmHA Conservation Easement Planning 

and Management

Within 5 years of approval of this plan, develop 

or update and implement habitat management 

plans on 16 FmHA conservation easements to 

benefit RCP species of Regional and District 

priority.

Rationale

Few FmHA conservation easements within the 

District possess habitat management plans and 

those that do are out-dated. Site-specific planning 

and management implementation is essential to 

restoring and maintaining these important conservation lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Strategies

1. Conduct condition assessments of plant community attributes on conservation easements 

and prioritize disturbance treatment needs to 

recover key lost ecosystems components. 

2. Implement various management actions such 

as prescribed burning, mowing, or shearing on 

conservation easements that maintain disturbance dependent habitats. Remove rock piles 

and other unnatural hostile predator habitat 

that threaten waterfowl production.

3. Where the Service only oversees a restrictive 

deed covenant, work closely with the easement 
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

owners to employ habitat development and 

enhancement practices that compliment Service goals for RCP species.

Objective 2.6 Exotic Plant and Animal Control. 

Promote the eradication or control of invasive 

plants and animals impacting native habitats on 

easement lands by using a variety of methods 

including biological agents, chemical controls, 

burning, mowing, grazing, and re-establishing 

native vegetative communities. Target species 

include spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, purple 

loosestrife, Canada thistle, common tansy, wild 

parsnip, and common buckthorn.

Rationale

Invasive species are considered one of the greatest threats to natural ecosystems. Executive Order 

13112 – Invasive Species, dated February 3, 1999, 

directs Federal agencies to use relevant programs 

and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to control 

populations of such species, monitor invasive species 

infestations accurately and reliably, and promote 

public education on these species and methods to 

address them. Numerous exotic plants and pathogens have been identified in the District, with many 

being invasive. More invasive species are predicted 

to arrive in the area in the future. 

Strategies

1. Develop a prioritization matrix that will identify invasive species of concern and strategies 

to minimize impacts that degrade Tamarac 

WMD habitats projects.

2. Participate in county weed management cooperatives that focus on controlling the spread of 

invasive plants threatening priority District 

habitats. Advocate for the use of non-chemical 

methods such as biological and cultural controls.

3. Provide technical assistance to landowners 

who bear noxious weed control responsibilities, emphasizing non-chemical alternatives 

such as, mowing, grazing, use of biological 

agents, or the application of Service-approved 

low toxicity herbicides.

4. Identify and inventory invasive species on 

FmHA conservation easements. Employ various control or eradication methods for species 

that fall under Service management responsibility. 

5. Employ the use of Clemson leveler devices to 

manage nuisance beaver activity negatively 

impacting wetland ecosystems, upland habitat, and personal property on easement and 

private lands.

Objective 2.7 Acquisition

Pursue opportunities to acquire critical habitat 

for Service trust resources through fee title or 

easement purchase, where PFW program 

agreements and other natural resource agency 

programs are insufficient to fulfill perpetual 

protection needs.

Rationale

As of 2010, no lands have been acquired in feetitle and no additional easements have been conveyed since the 1990s within the Tamarac WMD. 

There are opportunities for growth. Where critical 

habitat is threatened and other program options are 

not viable, acquisition provides an invaluable tool for 

perpetual protection.

Strategies

1. Develop landscape based strategies for acquisition of easements or fee-titled lands that 

profit RCP species, support local and state 

clean water initiatives, improve shallow lake 

ecosystems, abate forest fragmentation, and 

restores wildlife corridors.

2. Establish goal acres for each Tamarac WMD 

county for easement and Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) acquisition and incorporate 

into the Tamarac WMD HMP.

3. Acquire a minimum of one perpetual easement 

or one WPA per year over the next 15 years. 

Continue to identify and pursue opportunities 

to purchase additional wetland easements in 

the Tamarac WMD. 

Wood Duck drake. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Goal 3: People

Build relationships and partnerships with people and 

organizations to promote ecologically sound land stewardship.

Objective 3.1: Environmental Education, Interpretation 

and Outreach

The majority of rural landowners and partners 

within the Tamarac WMD will be aware of the 

opportunities for habitat restoration and management offered by the Service.

Rationale

Environmental education, interpretation and outreach are important and valuable activities for landowners, neighbors and visitors to WMD lands. We 

should embrace opportunities to use the restored 

habitats on the WMD to demonstrate sound wildlife 

conservation techniques and land stewardship.

Strategies

1. Build a partnership with the Clearwater 

County Soil and Water Conservation District 

(SWCD) to enhance their soil and water stewardship education program, promote Tamarac 

WMD programs, and generate support for 

Service trust resource objectives. The Lawrence FmHA Conservation Easement is used 

as a land conservation demonstration site and 

activity center for the SWCD’s education program. Assist the SWCD in pursuing grant 

opportunities to upgrade and enhance their 

educational facility and program.

2. Educate and engage TIA in Tamarac WMD 

management and outreach activities. Explore 

partnership opportunities for restorations, 

grant programs, and volunteer stewardship 

projects. 

3. Promote greater public awareness and support of the Service's mission and Tamarac 

WMD objectives through a variety of media 

including website, literature distribution, 

newspaper, radio, TV, and interpretive presentations to target audiences. 

4. Inform and involve private easement owners 

in management planning so they appreciate 

and support Tamarac WMD objectives to 

restore, enhance, and protect Federal trust 

resources through ecologically sound natural 

resource management practices. 

5. Tamarac WMD staff will conduct a minimum 

of one environmental education, interpretive, 

or outreach activity per year in the District.

Objective 3.2 Enforcement

The Tamarac WMD will inspect all easements 

as well as future acquired lands each year to 

ensure the perpetuation of entrusted wildlife 

resources and government property. Violations 

that involve theft, damage, alteration, or 

destruction of wildlife, habitat, or government 

property will be immediately addressed and 

resolved within one year from the date of detection.

Rationale

Refuge officers need to enforce the conservation 

provisions and restrictive covenants attached to 

Federal wetland easements and former FmHA 

inventory lands within the District. Conservation 

provisions primarily restrict agricultural use and 

development on easement lands. Enforcement operations are crucial to preserving these important natural resources.

Strategies

1. Tamarac WMD staff will inspect easements 

and any future acquired lands at least once 

annually through aerial reconnaissance or 

ground checks to confirm compliance and 

identify contraventions.

2. Hire a full-time Refuge law enforcement officer whose duties will be shared by the refuge 

and Tamarac WMD.

3. Relocate or survey, and post all former 

FmHA conservation easement boundaries to 

solicit landowner compliance with easement 

reservations and to facilitate any needed litigation.

Objective 3.3 Partnerships

The Tamarac WMD will cooperate and partner 

with USDA, Minnesota DNR, tribal government, and conservation organization on initiatives that further Service goals for migratory 

birds and other Regional RCP Species.

Rationale

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishment of Tamarac 

WMD goals, objectives, and strategies. The objectives outlined in this draft CCP need the support 

and the partnerships of federal, state, tribal, and 

local agencies, non-governmental organizations and 

individual citizens. This broad-based approach to 

managing fish and wildlife resources extends 

beyond social and political boundaries and requires 

a foundation of support from many entities. Tamarac WMD will continue to seek creative partnership 

opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Strategies

1. Hire one full-time wetland district manager to 

plan, organize, and implement management 

actions and provide oversight on all Service 

easements within the District. This position 

would engage, coordinate, and partner with 

state and local government officials and conservation interest groups to further the Service’s conservation mission, including future 

acquisitions of fee title and easements.

2. Use operational and grant funding to cost 

share a variety of habitat improvement projects within the District.

3. Render technical assistance to state and Federal agencies involving programs such as 

RIM, WCA, CRP, WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and 

other Farm Bill responsibilities that advance 

Service population and habitat goals for Federal trust resources.

4. Pursue or contribute to partnerships that 

enhance or preserve vulnerable and critical 

resources of Service importance. Examples of 

potential conservation partnership projects 

include riparian restoration, fish passage, 

remnant native prairie preservation, shallow 

lake enhancement, and white pine forest restoration.

Plan Implementation

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of the Tamarac WMD. 

The ability to enhance wildlife habitats will require a 

significant commitment of staff and funding from 

the Service. The Refuge and District will continually 

need appropriate operational and maintenance 

funding to implement the objectives in this plan. 

Chapter 5 provides a brief description of the 

highest priority Tamarac NWR and WMD projects 

as chosen by the Refuge.

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

for Tamaïac National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management

District, Minnesota

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet

the conservation goals of Tamarac National V/ildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management

District. The EA examined the environmental consequences that each management altemative

could have on the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA evaluated four alternatives for the

future management of Tamarac NWR and three altematives for Tamarac WMD.

The altemative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative I . The preferred

altemative would encourage a future trend toward wildlife habitats that arenative to the arca and,

maintained, where feasible, by natural processes. The preferred alternative also includes

increased opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation. V/ildlife needs always receive priority when in

conflict with visitor seryices.

The alternative selected for the wetland district is Alternative L The preferred altemative will

result in a more active and growing district. Wildlife resources of concern will be identified and

targeted for protection and enhancement. Growth of the WMD will include fee and easement

acquisitions as funding is available. Priority will be given to core areas, corridors and critical

sites.

For reasons presented above and below, and based on an evaluation of the information contained

in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative 1

as the management alternatives for Tamarac NWR and Tamarac'WMD is not a major federal

action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the

meaning of Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Additional Reasons:

1. Future management actions will have a neutral or positive impact on the local economy.

2. This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species.

Supporting References :

Environmental Assessment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B: Glossary

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

 Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to 

achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Anthropogenic

Of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of 

human beings on nature.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any 

other use on a refuge that will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Service or the purposes of the 

refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Cultural Resources

“Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- that have cultural value to some 

kind of sociocultural group ... [and] those nonmaterial human social institutions....” Cultural 

resources include historic sites, archeological 

sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and 

structures.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and species composition 

of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components 

are interrelated.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem that includes all 

ecological, social and economic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through 

the Endangered Species Act as being in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The local extinction of a species that is no longer 

found in a locality or country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Goals

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

Interjurisdictional Fish

Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of 

one or more states, for which there is an inter-
Appendix B: Glossary

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

state fishery management plan or which migrates 

between the waters under the jurisdiction of two 

or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and 

other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Objectives

A concise statement of what we want to achieve, 

how much we want to achieve, when and where 

we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for 

the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Scoping

A process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed by a comprehensive conservation 

plan and for identifying the significant issues. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state 

and local agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals.

Seral

A phase in the sequential development of a climax 

vegetation community.

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A category of 

biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Threatened Species

Those plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register.

Undertaking:

“A project, activity, or program funded in whole 

or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a federal agency, including those carried out by 

or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out 

with federal financial assistance; those requiring 

a federal permit, license or approval...,” i.e., all 

federal actions.

Vegetation

Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life 

in an area.

Vegetation Type

A category of land based on potential or existing 

dominant plan species of a particular area.

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains 

water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that 

are inundated by surface or ground water for a 

long enough period of time each year to support, 

and that do support under natural conditions, 

plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Wildlife Diversity

A measure of the number of wildlife species in an 

area and their relative abundance.

Water Birds

This general category includes all birds that 

inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and other wetlands at some point during the year. The group 

includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and 

swans, and other birds such as loons, rails, 

cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, 

shorebirds and passerines that nest and rely on 

wetland vegetation. 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Appendix C: Species Lists

Reptile and Amphibian Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR.............................. 106

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR ............................................................. 107

Butterflies Occurring on Tamarac NWR................................................................. 124

Fish Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR ............................................................. 125

 

 
106

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Occurrence of Reptiles, Amphibians, Tamarac NWR Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance Speci

Statu

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Proteidae Open water Rare Blue-spotted Sala- mander Ambystoma laterale Ambystomatidae Marsh/wetland, Upland deciduous forest OccasionalTiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Ambystomatidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Uncommon

American Toad Bufo americanus Bufonidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Common

Cope's Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysocelis Hylidae Marsh/wetland, Upland deciduous forest OccasionalGray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Hylidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Abundant

Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer Hylidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Abundant

Western Chorus Frog

Pseudacris triseriata Hylidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Common

Northern Leopard Frog

Rana pipiens Ranidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

grass

Common

Mink Frog Rana septentrionalis Ranidae Open water, Marsh/wetland OccasionalWood Frog Rana Sylvatica Ranidae Marsh/wetland, Upland 

deciduous forest

Abundant

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Chelydridae Open water, Marsh/wetland Common Minneso

Special Concern

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Emydidae Open water, Marsh/wetland Abundant

Prairie Skink Eumeces 

septentrionalis

Scincidae Upland grass Occasional

Red-bellied Snake Storeria 

occipitomaculata

Colubridae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Common

Common Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis Colubridae All habitats except open water Abundant
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 

Common Loon Gavia immer Gaviidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread c c c ✔ 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Podicipedidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread c c a ✔

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Podicipedidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated o o 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Podicipedidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated u u u ✔

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Podicipedidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r

Western Grebe Aechmophorus 

occidentalis

Podicipedidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r r

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Pelecanidae Open water Widespread u c u Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Phalacrocoraci- dae Open water Widespread c u u 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Ardeidae Marsh/wetland Isolated u u u ✔ 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Ardeidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r r 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Ardeidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread a a a ✔

Great Egret Casmerodius albus Ardeidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r r

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Ardeidae Upland grass Isolated r r rGreen Heron Butorides virescens Ardeidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated u u u ✔

Black-crowned Night Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax Ardeidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r r 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Cathartidae Development, Upland 

grass

Widespread u u u
108

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Anatidae Open water, r r Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Anatidae Open water o o 

Canada Goose Branta canadennsis Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland, Upland 

grass

Widespread

a

a

a r ✔ 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread

u

u

u r ✔ 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Anatidae Open water Isolated

u

u

Wood Duck Aix sponza Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland, Upland deciduous forest

Widespread

a c a

✔ 

Gadwall Anas strepera Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u

u

u

American Wigeon Anas americana Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u

u

u

American Black Duck Anas rubripes Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u r u

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Anatidae All Habitats Widespread

a c a r ✔ 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland, Upland 

grass

Widespread

a c a

✔ 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u r u

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated o r u 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u o u

✔

Canvasback Athya valisineria Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated

u r u

✔ 

Redhead Athya americana Anatidae Open water Isolated

u r u

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Ring-necked Duck Athya collaris Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread a c a ✔

Greater Scaup Athya marila Anatidae Open water Isolated r rLesser Scaup Athya affinis Anatidae Open water Isolated u r u Black Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Anatidae Open water Isolated rLong-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Anatidae Open water Isolated rBufflehead Bucephala albeola Anatidae Open water Isolated u r u ✔Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Anatidae Open water, Upland 

deciduous forest

Isolated u u u ✔

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Anatidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland, Upland deciduous forest

Widespread c u c ✔

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Anatidae Open water Isolated u uRed-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Anatidae Open water Isolated u uRuddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Anatidae Open water Isolated o r oOsprey Pandion haliaetus Accipitridae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated u u u ✔

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Accipitridae Open water, Upland 

coniferous and deciduous forest

Widespread c c c r ✔ 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Accipitridae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass, Upland shrub

Isolated u u u ✔ 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Accipitridae Upland deciduous forest Widespread u u u ✔

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Accipitridae Upland deciduous forest Widespread u o o r ✔Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Accipitridae Upland deciduous forest Isolated r r r r 

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
110

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Accipitridae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated

u

u o ✔ 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus Accipitridae Upland deciduous forest Widesrpead c u c ✔Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Accipitridae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass, Upland shrub

Isolated r r 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Accipitridae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub, Marsh/wetland

Widespread c u c ✔

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Accipitridae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Upland shrub

Isolated

u

u r

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Accipitridae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Upland 

shrub

Isolated r r r

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Accipitridae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland,Upland shrub

Widespread c u c ✔

Merlin Falco columbarius Accipitridae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass, 

Marsh/wetland

Isolated r r

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Accipitridae Open water, upland 

grass, Marsh/wetland, Upland shrub

Widespread o o 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Accipitridae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Upland 

shrub

Isolated r r

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix Phasianidae Upland grass Isolated r r r rRing-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Phasianidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r o r

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Phasianidae Upland deciduous forest Widespread c u c u

✔

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Phasianidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass Widespread c u u u ✔Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis

Rallidae Marsh/wetland Isolated o o o 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Rallidae Marsh/wetland Isolated u u u ✔

Sora Porzana carolina Rallidae Marsh/wetland Isolated u u u ✔American Coot Fulica americana Rallidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread c o a ✔

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Gruidae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass

Isolated r r r ✔

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Charadriidae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass

Isolated r r

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Charadriidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Isolated r rSemipalmated Plover Charadrius 

semipalmatus

Charadriidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Charadriidae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass

Widespread c u c ✔

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r rSolitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r rSpotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated o o oUpland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Scolopacidae Upland grass Isolated r r Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Scolopacidae Open Water Isolated r rSemipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
112

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated o r o Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Isolated r rPectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass

Isolated r r

Dunlin Calidris alpina Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r rStilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus 

scolopaceus

Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland. 

Upland grass

Widespread c u u ✔

American Woodcock Scolopax minor Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland, Lowland shrub, Upland 

grass, Upland shrub

Widespread c u c ✔ 

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Scolopacidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r rFranklin's Gull Larus pipixcan Laridae Open water Widespread o o Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Laridae Open water Widespread o oRing-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Laridae Open water Widespread c c cHerring Gull Larus argentatus Laridae Open water Widespread u o uCaspian Tern Sterna caspia Laridae Open water Isolated u o uCommon Tern Sterna hirundo Laridae Open water Isolated o r u 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Laridae Open water Isolated u u u ✔ 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Laridae Open water Widespread c c c ✔ 

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Columbidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Widespread c c c ✔

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

Cuculidae Upland deciduous forest, Lowland shrub Isolated

u

u o ✔ 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Cuculidae Upland deciduous forest, Lowland shrub Isolated o o r

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio Strigidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated r r r rGreat Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Strigidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest, Upland grass and shrub

Widespread

u

u

u

u

✔

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Strigidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r r

Barred Owl Strix varia Strigidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous and coniferous forest

Widespread

u

u

u

u

✔

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Strigidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous and coniferous forest

Isolated r r r

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Strigidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub, 

Marsh/wetland

Isolated r r r 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Strigidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r r 

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Aegolius acadicus Strigidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Caprimulgidae Upland grass and 

shrub, Marsh/wetland

Isolated

u

u

u

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Caprimulgidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Isolated r r r 

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
114

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Apodidae Open water during migration, Develop- ment Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Trochilidae Upland deciduous for- est Widespread c c c ✔Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Alcedinidae Open water, Marsh/

wetland

Widespread c u

u

✔

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Picidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated o o o r Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Picidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated

u

u

u

u

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Picidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated c u

u

✔

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Picidae Upland deciduous forest Widespread c c c c ✔Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Picidae Upland deciduous forest Widespread

u

u

u

u

✔

Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Picidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Isolated r rBlack-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Picidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Isolated r rNorthern Flicker Colaptes auratus Picidae Upland deciduous forest Widespread

a c a r ✔ 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Picidae Upland deciduous forest Widespread

u

u

u

u

✔

Olive-sided Fylcatcher Contopus cooperi Tyrannidae Upland and lowland 

coniferous forest

Isolated o o o 

Eastern Wood-Peweee Contopus virens Tyrannidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c c c ✔

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Tyrannidae Lowland coniferous forest Isolated r r

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Tyrannidae Lowland deciduous 

forest, Lowland shrub

Isolated

u

u r ✔

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailii Tyrannidae Lowland shrub, 

Upland shrub

Isolated r r r

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Tyrannidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c c c ✔Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Tyrannidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c c c ✔Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Tyrannidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated c c c ✔Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Tyrannidae Upland grass, Upland 

brush

Isolated r r r

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Tyrannidae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/wetland Widespread c c c ✔Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Laniidae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Isolated r r 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Laniidae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Isolated

u

u

u

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Vireonidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Vireonidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Vireonidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c u c ✔Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Vireonidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Vireonidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c a c ✔Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Corvidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated r r r

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
116

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Corvidae Upland deciduous for- est Widespread c u c c ✔ Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Corvidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Isolated o o oAmerican Crow Corvus 

brachyrhynchos

Corvidae Upland deciduous forest, shrub and grass Widespread

a c a

u

✔

Common Raven Corvus corax Corvidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Isolated r r u

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Alaudidae Upland grass Widespread

u o u r

Purple Martin Progne subis Hirundinidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub, Marsh/wetland

Isolated c c u

✔

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Hirundinidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub, Marsh/wetland, Open water

Widespread c c c ✔

Northern Roughwinged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Hirundinidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Open water

Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Hirundinidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Open water

Isolated

u

u

u

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota

Hirundinidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Open water

Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Hirundinidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland, Open water

Widespread c c c ✔

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla Paridae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Widespread c c c a

✔

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica Paridae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated r r r

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Sittidae Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

u

u

✔

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Sittidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Widespread c c c a

✔

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Certhiidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous and coniferous forest

Isolated u u u u

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Tryglodytidae Upland shrub Isolated u u u ✔Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Tryglodytidae Lowland deciduous 

forest, Lowland shrub

Isolated u u u ✔

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Tryglodytidae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass

Isolated c c c ✔ 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Tryglodytidae Marsh/wetland Isolated c c c ✔

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Regulidae Upland coniferous forest Isolated c c rRuby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Regulidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Isolated c c

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Sylviidae Lowland deciduous 

forest

Isolated u u

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Turdidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub and deciduous forest

Widespread c c c ✔

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Turdidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated r r

Veery Catharus fuscescens Turididae Upland deciduous forest Widespread c c c ✔Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Turididae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated u u

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Turdidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated u uHermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Turdidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Isolated u u u ✔

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Turdidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated u u u ✔ 

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
118

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Turdidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Isolated r American Robin Turdus migratorius Turdidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest, 

Upland grass

Widespread

a

a

u r ✔

Gray Catbird Drumetella 

carolinensis

Mimidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c c c ✔

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Mimidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Isolated

u

u

u

✔

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Sturnidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub, Development

Widespread o o o o

American Pipit Anthus rubescens Motacillidae Upland grass Isolated o uBohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Bombycillidae Upland coniferous 

forest, Upland brush

Isolated

u o o

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Bombycillidae Upland shrub, grass 

and deciduous forest

Isolated

u

u c o

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Parulidae Upland shrub and 

deciduous forest

Isolated o o o

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Parulidae Upland shrub and deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

u

✔ 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Parulidae Upland shrub and 

deciduous forest

Isolated c r c

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Parulidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Isolated c cNashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Parulidae Upland and lowland 

coniferous forest

Isolated c u c ✔

Northern Parula Parula americana Parulidae Upland and lowland 

coniferous forest, 

Upland deciuous forest

Isolated

u o u

✔

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Parulidae Lowland shrub, 

Marsh/wetland

Widespread c c u ✔

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Parulidae Upland deciduous for- est Widespread c c c ✔Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Parulidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated u u

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Parulidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated u u

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Dendroica caerulescens

Parulidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Isolated r r

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Parulidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Widespread a r aBlack-throated Green Warbler

Dendroica virens Parulidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Isolated u u u ✔

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Parulidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Isolated u o u ✔

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Parulidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated c u c ✔

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Parulidae Lowland coniferous 

forest, Marsh/wetland, Upland grass

Isolated c c

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Parulidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated u u

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Parulidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated c c

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Parulidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous forest

Isolated o r o 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Parulidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated c u c ✔American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Parulidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c c c ✔

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
120

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Parulidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated c c c ✔ Northern Waterthrush Seiurus 

noveboracensis

Parulidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous forest

Isolated

u

u

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Parulidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous forest

Isolated o r o 

Mourning Warbler Oporornis phiadelphia Parulidae Upland and lowland 

deciduous forest, Lowland shrub

Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Parulidae Marsh/wetland, Lowland shrub, Upland 

grass

Widespread c c c ✔

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Parulidae Lowland shrub, Lowland and upland 

deciduous forest

Isolated

u

u

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Parulidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u r u 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Thraupidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Emberizidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Isolated r rEastern Towhee Pipilo 

erythrophthalmus

Emberizidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Isolated

u

u

u

✔

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland shrub Isolated c c rChipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Widespread c c c ✔

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Isolated c c c ✔

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Isolated

u

u

u

✔ 

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Isolated u u u ✔

Lark Sparrow Chondestes 

grammacus

Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub

Isolated u o o ✔

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

Emberizidae Upland grass, Upland 

shrub, Marsh/wetland

Isolated u u u

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus 

savannarum

Emberizidae Upland grass Isolated u u r 

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus 

henslowii

Emberizidae Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland

Isolated r r r 

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus 

leconteii

Emberizidae Marsh/wetland Isolated u u u 

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Ammodramus nelsoni Emberizidae Marsh/wetland Isolated r r 

Fox Sparrow Passerella illiaca Emberizidae Upland deciduous and 

coniferous forest

Isolated c c

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Emberizidae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Widespread a a c ✔

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Emberizidae Upland shrub Isolated u uSwamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Emberizidae Marsh/wetland Isolated c c u ✔White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Emberizidae Upland shrub, Upland deciduous forest Isolated c u c ✔Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Emberizidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Isolated u u

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Emberizidae Upland shrub, Upland deciduous forest Isolated u uDark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Emberizidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest

Widespread c c u

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Emberizidae Upland grass Isolated o o r

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
122

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Emberizidae Upland grass Isolated o o u Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinalidae Upland shrub, Upland deciduous forest Isolated r r r rRose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Cardinalidae Upland deciduous for- est Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Cardinalidae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Isolated c c u

✔

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Icteridae Upland grass Isolated

u

u

u

✔ 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Icteridae Marsh/wetland, 

Upland grass, Upland shrub

Widespread

a

a

a r ✔

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Icteridae Upland grass Isolated r r r Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Icteridae Upland grass Isolated

u o u 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Icteridae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Isolated

u

u

u

✔

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Icteridae Lowland coniferous 

forest, Lowland shrub

Isolated

u

u r

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus 

cyanocephalus

Icteridae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Isolated

u o u

✔

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Icteridae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest, upland grass

Isolated c c c r ✔

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Icteridae Upland deciduous for- est, Upland grass Isolated c c c ✔Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Icteridae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Isolated r r 

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Icteridae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c u

u

✔

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Fringillidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated r r u

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Fringilidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated c u c u

✔

House Finch Carpodacus 

mexicanus

Fringilidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Widespread c u c u

✔

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Fringilidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated o r u

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Fringilidae Upland coniferous 

forest

Isolated o r u

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Fringilidae Upland and lowland 

shrub, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Isolated o o o

Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Fringilidae Upland and lowland 

shrub, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Isolated r r

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Fringilidae Upland coniferous 

and deciduous forest, Upland shrub

Isolated

u

u c u

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Fringilidae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Widespread c c c u

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes 

vespertinus

Fringilidae Upland deciduous forest Isolated

u o u

u

House Sparrow Passer domesticus Passeridae Upland shrub, 

Upland grass

Widespread

u o o o

Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution

Abundance Breeding 

Confirme

Sp Su Fa Wi 
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Occurrence of Butterfly Species, Tamarac NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Papilionidae Upland grass

Canadian Tiger Swallowtail Papilio canadensis Papilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest

Mustard White Pieris napi Pieridae Upland and lowland deciduous and coniferous forest, Lowland shrub, Upland grass

Cabbage White Pieris rapae Pieridae Upland grass

Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice Pieridae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme Pieridae Upland grass

Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus Lycaenidae Marsh/wetland

Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides Lycaenidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Eastern Tailed-Blue Everes comynatas Lycaenidae Upland grass

Spring Azure Celastrina ladon Lycaenidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland, Upland coniferous forest

Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele Nymphalidae Upland grass

Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona Nymphalidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Northern Crescent Phyciodes selenis Nymphalidae Upland grass

Question Mark Polygonia 

interrogationis

Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/wetland

Eastern Comma Polygonia comma Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/wetland

Gray Comma Polygonia progne Nymphalidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest, 

Marsh/wetland

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa Nymphalidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

White Admiral Limenilis arthemis Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass

Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala Nymphalidae Upland grass

Monarch Danaus plexippus Nymphalidae Upland grass

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass

Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia 

egeremet

Hesperiidae Upland Grass, Upland shrub

Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan Hesperiidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass, 

Marsh/wetland

Dion Skipper Euphyes dion Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland

Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Fish Species Occurring on Tamarach NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution Abundance Special 

Status

Bowfin, Dogfish Amia calva Amiidae Open water Blackbird Occasional

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Cyprinidae Open water Buffalo, Egg, Ottertail River, LostAbundant

Horneyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Common

Golden Shiner Notemigonus 

crysoleucas

Cyprinidae Open water Egg River, Blackbird, 

Lost, Pine, Two Island

Common

Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Occasional

Blackchin Shiner Notropis hetarodon Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Blackbird, Lost, Two 

Island

Common

Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Blackbird, Lost, Wauboose

Common

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Cyprinidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Rare

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Rare

Weed Shiner Notropis texanus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Rare

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Cyprinidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Rare

Northern Redbelly 

Dace

Phoxinus eos Cyprinidae Open water Buffalo, Ottertail 

River

Common

Bluntnose Minnow Pimaphales notatus Cyprinidae Open water Egg River Uncommon

Flathead Minnow Pimaphales promelas Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

all fishing lakes except 

Two Island

Abundant

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River Abundant

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys 

cataractea

Cyprinidae Open Water Ottertail River Occasional

Creek Chub Semotilus 

atromaculaus

Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Abundant

White Sucker Catostromus 

commersoni

Catostomidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

all 6 fishing lakes

Common

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Ictaluridae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

all 6 fishing lakes

Abundant

Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis Ictaluridae Open water Ottertail River, Blackbird, Lost, Tamarac, 

Wauboose

Uncommon

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Ictaluridae Open water Ottertail River, all 6 

fishing lakes

Common

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus Ictaluridae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Tamarac

Uncommon

Northern Pike Esox lucius Esocidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

all 6 fishing lakes

Abundant

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Umbridae Open water Buffalo, Egg, Ottertail RiverAbundant

Banded Kilifish Fundulus diaphanus Fundulidae Open water Egg River, Blackbird Rare
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Gasterosteidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Blackbird, Lost

Abundant

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Centrarchidae Open water Ottertail River Common

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Centrarchidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Blackbird

Common

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Centrarchidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

all fishing lakes except 

Two Island

Common

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Centrarchidae Open water Egg,Ottertail River, 

Blackbird, Tamarac, 

Two Island, Wauboose

Abundant

Hybrid Sunfish Lepomis sp X 

Lepomis sp

Centrarchidae Open water Buffalo, Ottertail 

River, Blackbird, Lost

Common

Largemouth Bass Micropterus 

salmoides

Centrarchidae Open water Ottertail River, Blackbird, TamaracCommon

Black Crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus

Centrarchidae Open water Egg River, Lost, Tamarac, WaubooseCommon

Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Percidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Blackbird, Lost, Tamarac, Two Island, Wauboose

Abundant

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Percidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, 

Lost, Wauboose

Common

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Percidae Open water All Rivers, all 6 fishing 

lakes

Abundant

Log Perch Percina caprodes Percidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Occasional

Walleye Sander vitreus Percidae Open water Blackbird, Lost, Tamarac, WaubooseCommon Fed-RCP

Fish Species Occurring on Tamarach NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution Abundance Special 

Status
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Soricidae Upland deciduous and coniferous 

forest, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Common

Hayden's Shrew Sorex haydeni Soricidae Upland Grass, Marsh/wetland Common

Water Shrew Sorex palustris Soricidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon

Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus Soricidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Uncommon

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Soricidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Occasional

Short-tailed 

Shrew

Blarina brevicauda Soricidae Upland and lowland deciduous and 

coniferous forest, Upland grass, Marsh/

wetland

Common

Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Talpidae Marsh/wetland Uncommon

Little Brown 

Myotis

Myotis lucifugus Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous 

forest, Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/

wetland

Uncommon

Northern Myotis Myotis 

septentrionalis

Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous forest Occasional

Eastern PipistrellePipistrellus 

subflavus

Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous forest Uncommon

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/

wetland, Upland deciduous forest

Occasional

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/

wetland, Upland deciduous forest

Occasional

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/

wetland, Upland deciduous forest

Occasional

Eastern 

Cottontail

Sylvilagus 

floridanus

Leporidae Upland and lowland shrub, Upland 

grass

Common

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Leporidae Upland deciduous and coniferous 

forest, Lowland coniferous forest

Common

White-tailed 

Jackrabbit

Lepus townsendii Leporidae Upland grass Rare

Eastern 

Chipmunk

Tamias striatus Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous 

forest, Upland shrub

Common

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Sciuridae Upland coniferous forest forest Common

Woodchuck Marmota monax Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common

Richardson's 

Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus 

richardsonii

Sciuridae Upland grass Rare

Thirteen-lined 

Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Sciuridae Upland grass Abundant

Franklin's 

Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus 

franklinii

Sciuridae Upland shrub Occasional

Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Sciuridae Upland deciduous forest Rare

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus

Sciuridae Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Abundant

Northern Flying 

Squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus Sciuridae Upland and lowland coniferous forest, 

Upland deciduous forest

Occasional

Plains Pocket 

Gopher

Geomys bursarius Geomyidae Upland grass Common

Beaver Castor canadensis Castoridae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/

wetland, Open water

Abundant

Western Harvest 

Mouse

Reithrodontomys 

megalotis

Cricetidae Upland grass Occasional

Prairie Deer 

Mouse

Peromyscus 

maniculatus bairdii

Cricetidae Upland grass Common

Woodland Deer 

Mouse

Peromyscus 

maniculatis gracilis

Cricetidae Upland deciduous forest Common

White-footed 

Mouse

Peromyscus leucopus Cricetidae Upland deciduous forest Common

Southern Redbacked VoleClethrionomys 

gapperi

Cricetidae Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Common

Meadow Vole Microtus 

pennsylvanicus

Cricetidae Upland grass Common

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Cricetidae Upland grass Rare

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Cricetidae Open water, Marsh/wetland Common

Southern Bog 

Lemming

Synaptomys cooperi Cricetidae Lowland coniferous forest, Marsh/

wetland

Occasional

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Muridae Upland grass, Development Occasional

House Mouse Mus musculus Muridae Upland grass, Development Occasional

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse

Zapus hudsonicus Zapodidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Occasional

Woodland 

Jumping Mouse

Napaeozapus 

insignis

Zapodidae Lowland coniferous forest Occasional

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Erethizontidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Abundant

Coyote Canis latrans Canidae Upland deciduous and coniferous 

forest, Upland shrub and grass

Rare

Gray Wolf Canis lupus Canidae Upland and lowland deciduous and 

coniferous forest, Upland shrub and 

grass

Uncommon

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Canidae Upland shrub and grass, Upland 

deciduous forest

Common

Gray Fox Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus

Canidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Rare

Black Bear Ursus americanus Ursidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance
Appendix C: Species Lists

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Raccoon Procyon lotor Procyonidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass, 

Marsh/wetland

Abundant

Fisher Martes pennanti Mustelidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon

Ermine Mustela erminea Mustelidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass Uncommon

Long-tailed 

Weasel

Mustela frenata Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub 

and grass

Common

Mink Mustela vison Mustelidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass, Upland 

deciduous forest

Abundant

Badger Taxidea taxus Mustelidae Upland grass Rare

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub 

and grass

Abundant

River Otter Lontra canadensis Mustelidae Open water, Upland deciduous forest Abundant

Mountain Lion Felis concolor Felidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Rare

Bobcat Lynx rufus Felidae Upland and lowland deciduous forest Uncommon

White-tailed 

Deer

Odocoileus 

virginianus

Cervidae Upland and lowland deciduous and 

coniferous forest and shrub, Upland 

grass, Marsh/wetland

Abundant

Moose Alces alces Cervidae Upland and lowland deciduous and 

coniferous forest and shrub, Upland 

grass, Marsh/wetland

Rare

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance

Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern
132

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently Breeding on Refuge Transient Species Migratory Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa

Birds

Canada Goose (resident)

✔ Lake Hig

con

Trumpter Swan

✔

✔ Lake

✔

T

✔ Min

high origsite

Wood Duck

✔ Forest

✔

Mallard

✔ Wetlands

✔

Blue-winged Teal

✔ Wetlands

✔

Ring-necked Duck

✔ Wetlands

Lesser Scaup

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔ Con

histRef

Common Loon

✔ Lake

✔

✔ BC

Plan (mo

Red-necked Grebe

✔ Wetlands

✔ BC

Plan 

American Bittern

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔ BC

Plan 

Least Bittern

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔ BC

Plan 

Great Blue Heron

✔ Wetlands 3 ne

Bald Eagle

✔ Open lands

T

✔

✔

✔ Min

spe

Red-shouldered Hawk

✔ Forest

✔

✔

✔ Min

spe
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Broad-winged Hawk

✔ Forest BC

stew

Yellow Rail

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔

✔ BC

Pla

Virgina Rail

✔ Wetlands

✔ BC

Pla

Sora Rail

✔ Wetlands BC

Pla

American Woodcock

✔ Shrubland/

Forest

✔

✔ BC

Pla

Forster's Tern

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔

✔ Min

speWat

Black Tern

✔ Wetlands

✔

✔ BC

Pla

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

✔ Forest

✔ BC

stewreg

Downy Woodpecker

✔ Forest

Hairy Woodpecker

✔ Forest

Northern Flicker

✔ Shurbland/

Forest

✔ BC

spe

Pileated Woodpecker

✔ Forest

Eastern WoodPewee

✔ Forest

✔ Sign

(NR

Least Flycatcher

✔ Forest

✔ BC

stew

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
134

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Great Crested Flycatcher

✔ Forest

Red-eyed Vireo

✔ Forest

American Crow

✔ Open lands Nui

pre

Sedge Wren

✔ Wetlands/

Grasslands

✔

✔ BC

stew

Veery

✔ Forest

✔ BC

spe

Wood Thrush

✔ Forest

✔

✔ BC

reg

Blue-winged Warbler

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

✔ Hyb

win

Golden-winged Warbler

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

✔

✔ BC

constewof gMin

Black-throated Green Warbler

✔ Forest BC

reg

Blackburnian Warbler

✔ Forest BC

reg

Pine Warbler

✔ Forest

Black & White Warbler

✔ Forest

American Redstart

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

Ovenbird

✔ Forest

✔ Sign

(NRinte

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Connecticut Warbler

✔ Tamarac

✔

✔ BC

spe

Mourning Warbler

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

BCreg

Scarlet Tanager

✔ Forest

Eastern Towhee

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

Swamp Sparrow

✔ Wetland

✔ BC

stew

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

✔ Forest

✔ BC

stewreg

Indigo Bunting

✔ Shrublands

/Forest

Brown-headed Cowbird

✔ Open lands/

Forest

Nuipar

Purple Finch

✔ Forest BC

spe

MammalsGray Wolf

✔ Forest

T

✔

✔ Fed

Minspe

Red Fox

✔ Open lands Nui

pre

Raccoon

✔ Forest Nui

pre

Fisher

✔ Forest Inv

furb

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
136

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Northern River Otter

✔ Lake Inv

furbpre

Striped Skunk

✔ Open lands Nui

pre

Canada Lynx

✔ Forest

✔

✔ Fed

Minspe

Bobcat

✔ Forest Inv

furb

White-tailed Deer

✔ Open lands/ 

Forest

Higconman

Franklin's Ground Squirrel

✔ Grassland

✔ Stew

popreg

Beaver

✔ Wetlands Nui

wild man

Porcupine

✔ Forest Nui

tree pop

ReptilesSnapping Turtle Wetlands

✔ Min

spe

AmphibiansNone listed at this time

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

FishesFathead Minnow

✔ Wetlands

✔ Nui

watshri

Common Carp

✔ Lake Nui

degpre(sou

Walleye

✔ Lake

✔ DN

pro

Lake Sturgeon

✔ Lake

✔ DN

adjastat

Muskellunge

✔ Lake DN

SpidersNone listed at this timeInsectsPoweshiek Skipper

✔

✔ Min

spe

MollusksNone listed at this timePlantsWild Rice

✔ Imp

& Ncon

Leafy Spurge

✔ Inv

nec

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
138

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Spotted Knapweed

✔ Inv

nec

Purple Loosestrife

✔ Inv

nec

Goblin Fern

✔ Min

spe

Native Plant CommunitiesRed and White Pine communitiesJack Pine Communities

a. Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Species in Greatest Conservation Needb. BCR = NABCI Bird Conservation Region

Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR (Continued)

Species Presence on the Refuge Habitat Federal Status State Status 

Currently 

Breeding 

on Refuge

Transient 

Species Migratory

Not 

Presently 

on Refuge Unknown

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Region 3 

Conservation 

Priority 

Species

Endangered 

(E) or 

Threatened 

(T)

Special 

Concern

Species in 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Needa
Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

 Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Albert, D. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. United States Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station., St. Paul, MN.

Almendinger, J.E. 1988. Lake and groundwater 

paleohydrology: A groundwater model to 

explain past lake levels in west-central Minnesota. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota.

Carson, T.L. 2002. the effects of sedment nutrient 

variation, water depth, and emergent aquatic 

perennials on wild rice (Zizania palustris) production at the Rice lake National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, USA.

Crozier, G.E. and G.J. Niemi. 2003. Using patch and 

landscape variables to model bird abundance 

in a naturally heterogeneous landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:441-452.

Dai, X., Boutton, T. W., Hailemichael, M., Ansley, R. 

J., Jessup, K. E. 2006. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Response to Fire in a Temperate Mixed-Grass Savanna. J Environ Qual. 35: 

1620-1628.

Devine, B. 1999. Clear-cut mission: communities 

unite to free native landscapes from the grip 

of invasive species. Nature Conservancy 

49:12-17.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The 

birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural 

history of North American birds. Simon and 

Schuster Inc., New York.

Engstrom, F.B. and D.H. Mann. 1991. Fire ecology 

of red pine (Pinus resinosa) in northern Vermont, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 21:882-889

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of 

landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Frehlich, L.E. and P.B. Reich. 1996. Old growth in 

the Great Lakes region. Pp. 144-160 in M.B. 

Davis, ed., Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and recovery. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.

Frehlich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK.

Green. J., 1995. Birds and Forest, a Management 

and Conservation Guide. State of Minnesota,

Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota. 182 pages.

Hale, C.M. 2004. Ecological consequences of exotic 

invaders: interactions involving European 

earthworms and native plant communities in 

hardwood forests. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest 

Resources, St. Paul, MN

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and 

control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10:328-

337.

Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 

NJ.

Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, B.J. Hale and E.K. 

Sutherland. 1999. Atlas of current and potential future distributions of common trees of 

the eastern United States. U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General 

Technical Report NE-265.

Johnson, W.C., B.V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R.A. Voldseth, G.R. Guntenspergen, D.E. Naugle 2005. 

Vulnerability of northern prairies wetlands to 

climate change. BioScience 55: 863-877.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species 

umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849-856.
Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 

New York, NY.

Matteson, S., A. Paulios, G. Bartelt, G. Butcher, D. 

Sample, J. Fitzgerald, G. Niemi, J. Hanowski 

and R. Howe. In Review. Partner’s in Flight 

Conservation Plan for the Boreal Hardwood 

Transition (Physiographic Area 20 and Bird 

Conservation Region 12, USA).

McAndrews, J.H. 1996. Postglacial history of prairie, savanna and forest in northwestern Minnesota. Torry Botanical Club, Memoir 23(2): 

1-72.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2005. Sources 

of mercury pollution and methylmercury

Contamination of fish in Minnesota. Pollution prevention and sustainability fact sheet #4-06. 3 

pp. On the Internet at http://

www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/p-p2s4-

06.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2006. 

Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare:

An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division 

of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources.

Noss, R. F. and J. M. Scott. 1997. Ecosystem protection and restoration: the core of ecosystem 

management. Pages 239-264 in M. A. Boyce 

and A. W. Haney, eds. Ecosystem management: concepts and methods. Yale University 

Press, New Haven, CT.

Rich, T. D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. 

Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S.Butcher, 

D.W. Demarest and E.H. Dunn. W.C. Hunter, 

E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, 

A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, 

C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. 

Partners in Flight North American landbird 

conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Ithaca, NY.

Root, T. L. and S. H. Schneider. 1995. Ecology and 

climate: research strategies and implications. 

Science 269:334-339.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. 

Rosenzweig and J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and 

plants. Nature 421:57-60.

Sallabanks, R. and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Accomodating 

birds in managed forests in North America: a 

review of bird-forestry relationships. USDA 

Forest Service PSW-GTR-191.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2005. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

results and analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 

6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD.

Schroeder, Richard L., Wayne J. King, and John E. 

Cornely. 1998. Selecting habitat management 

strategies on refuges. Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR – 1998-003. 

U.S. Geological Survey.

Seymour, R.S. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Principles of Ecological Forestry. Ch. 2 (p. 22-61) 

In: Managing Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. M.L. Hunter, Jr., editor. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 

Simberloff, D. 1997. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passé in 

the landscape era. Biological Conservation 

83:247-257.

Stevenson, I.R. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. Climate 

change and constraints on breeding. Nature 

406:366-367.

Tester, J.R. 1995. Minnesota’s Natural Heritage: An 

Ecological Perspective. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 332 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Tamarac 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services 

Review Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. A Cultural 

Resources Reconnaissance of Tamarac 

National Wildlife Refuge, 1977, Phase 1. Prepared by Clifford W. Watson and Jerry W. 

Oothoudt, Terra Archaeological Services, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

United States Forest Service. 2003. Regional Forester Sensitive Animals.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Banking on 

Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 2007. Division of Economics,U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish 

and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities: Region 3. Fort Snelling, MN.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA. 94 pages.

United States Census Bureau 2005. http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. 

www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. 

Washington, D.C. August 2007.

Zicus, M.C., D.P. Rave, J. Fieberg, J. Giudice, and 

R. Wright. 2005. Minnesota’s ring-necked 

ducks: a pilot breeding pair survey. Pages 137-

158 in P.J. Wingate, R.O. Kimmel, J.S. Lawrence, and M.S. Lenarz, editors. Summaries of 

wildlife research findings 2004. Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

 Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to 

any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water 

of the United States.

Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a 

federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including 

the closing of areas, federal or non federal, to the 

hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715 et 

seq. 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et 

seq. (1934)

Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a federal permit or license. The 

Service and state agency recommend measures 

to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to 

mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable protection 

measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources 

to the Nation and to require equal consideration 

and coordination of wildlife conservation with 

other water resources development programs. It 

also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of 

lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Also known as 

the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) 

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age 

or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds 

of the Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl 

habitat. A 1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas,’ 

which may be acquired without the limitations 

and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Also 

known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 

461 et seq.

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic 

sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935)

Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or 

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d 

(1948)

Provides that upon a determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a state agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. 

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (1962)

Allows the use of refuges for recreation when 

such uses are compatible with the refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are 

available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the 

President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was 

directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 

U.S.C. 460 et seq.

Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and 

other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq. (1966)

Establishes as policy that the federal government 

is to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

nation's prehistoric and historic resources. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires federal agencies to consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation 

programs, and requires each federal agency to 

establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et 

seq.

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq. 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq. 

Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the federal government to 

ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 

U.S.C.469-469c

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as 

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)

Each federal agency shall provide leadership and 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to 

(1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review 

of Federal Programs)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to state planning agencies for 

review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 

1996, 1996a (1976)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve American Indian religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 

U.S.C. 742a 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 

16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, 

7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981)

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 

U.S.C. 3901 et seq.

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of 

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other 

essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other federal and state agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990)

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a federal 

government priority and directs all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd 

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. Section 6 requires the Service to 

make a determination of compatibility of existing, 

new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The Act also directs the administration of the 

Refuge System to ensure the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the System. According to the U.S. FWS Service Manual 

(601 FW3) this refers to the maintenance of existing elements, and where appropriate the restoration of lost or severely degraded elements. 

Integrity pertains to biotic composition, structure, and function at genetic, organismal, and 

community levels. Diversity includes protection 

of the broad variety of living organisms, genetic 

distinctions, and community compositions. Environmental health recognizes the importance of 

both biotic and abiotic features and processes in 

the System. The standard of measure for each of 

these terms is defined using historic conditions, 

or conditions and processes present prior to substantial anthropogenic changes, as indicated by 

the best available science and sound professional 

judgment.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998, 

16 U.S.C. 742a 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife 

refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. 

(1968)

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic 

and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Treasury and General Government Appropriations 

Act, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 

2763, 2763A–125

In December 2002, Congress required federal 

agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The 

amended language is included in Section 515(a). 

The Office of Budget and Management (OMB) 

directed agencies to develop their own guidelines 

to address the requirements of the law. The 

Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to 

prepare separate guidelines on how they would 

apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” 

to address the law.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service 

to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and 

Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation 

programs, and requires each federal agency to 

establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance 

of archeological resources on federal and Indian 

land; and other matters. Section 10 requires 

establishing “a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 

requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for 

surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act requires 

protection of all archeological sites more than 100 

years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for 

the National Register) on federal land, and 

requires archeological investigations on federal 

land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes 

serious delays on a project when human remains 

or other cultural items are encountered in the 

absence of a plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans 

to free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid 

blocking access, and to enter into early consultation.

Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

 Appendix G: Collier Agreement

 
Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150
Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151
Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152
Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Archeological Investigations................................................................................................................................ 156

Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking................................................................................................................... 158

Environmental Education, Interpretation and Outreach ................................................................................ 160

Firewood Cutting (non commercially) Timber Harvest (Commercial).......................................................... 163

Sport Fishing ......................................................................................................................................................... 166

Hunting................................................................................................................................................................... 169

Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................................................................. 172

Research ................................................................................................................................................................. 174

Trapping of Furbearers........................................................................................................................................ 176

Tamarac Wetland Management District

Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................. 179

Native Grassland Seeding and Weed Control ................................................................................................... 181

Prescribed Grazing................................................................................................................................................ 183

Haying and Mowing .............................................................................................................................................. 186

Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds....................................................... 189

Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-way Projects and Full Restoration......................................... 191

Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest............................................................................................................................ 193
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Archeological Investigations

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938...

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Permitted archeological investigations on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge are 

those requested by archeologists who are not performing the investigation for Refuge management 

purposes (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act). Rather, permitted archeologists 

are pursuing their own or institutional research or 

are working for other parties that will be conducting 

activities on Service land, or as requested by the 

Governor of Minnesota or Chairwoman of White 

Earth Reservation, and similar third party activities 

on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Where is the use conducted? Permits can be for 

anyplace on Service owned lands, but each permit is 

for specific lands (i.e., no general archeological permits are authorized).

When is the use conducted? Permitted investigations can occur at any time of the year although usually not during the winter. Investigations may be as 

short as a few hours or go on for months, depending 

on the research objective. These permitted investigations occur on the Refuge because this is where 

the resource is found or where the resource could be 

disrupted.

How is the use conducted? Archeologists request 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 

permits or Antiquities Act permits to conduct "Surveys and limited testing and limited collections on 

lands identified" and "Excavation, collection and 

intensive study of specific sites described" on Refuge land. Permits are issued by the Regional Director to qualified archeologists. The ARPA permit, 

along with a detailed project description, are submitted to the Refuge Manager for issuance of a special use permit to archeologists prior to 

investigation. The special use permit will define 

allowable dates and times for the investigation, and 

other management controls.

Why is the use being proposed? Archeological 

investigations are not priority public uses on 

National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement 

Act of 1997. However, allowing access to the Refuge 

for this activity will serve to protect vulnerable 

resources through identification of location and 

assessment of condition.

Availability of Resources: 

The Refuge has resources available to administer 

this use. This activity will require the Refuge Manager to develop and issue a Special Use Permit and 

random inspections of the project area. ARPA/

Antiquities permits are received by the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer and issued by the 

Regional Director as part of normal duties.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Impacts from routine pedestrian surveys, soil 

coring, shovel tests, and land form analysis are limited to short-term disturbance to wildlife using the 

immediate area and disruption of vegetative cover 

for growing season on an extremely small area 

affected by shovel tests.

Impacts from a large scale excavation are potentially longer term (several growing seasons) with 

associated wildlife disturbance impacts affecting 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

animals in the immediate area and vegetation cover 

disruption severe enough to require site re-grading 

and reseeding of the area to desired native species.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Refuge goals and objectives, 

archeological investigations can only occur under 

the following stipulations:

1. Applicant must obtain a Special Use Permit 

issued by the Refuge Manager. The Special 

Use Permit is to prescribe administrative or 

management restrictions required by the 

Refuge Manager.

2. Permittee will shore up walls of test pits and 

trenches in accordance with OSHA standards; 

will flag, barricade, and sign testing areas as 

necessary to prevent injury to the public; will 

refill shovel tests as soon as excavated and 

data recorded including replacing the vegetative plug to restore original conditions; will 

backfill excavations as soon as data recording 

is completed and seed the surface with a grass 

or other vegetative mix approved by the Refuge Manager.

3. Predetermined stipulations on ARPA/Antiquities permits and the requirements in 43 

CFR Part 7, "Protection of Archaeological 

Resources: Uniform Regulations," contain 

protective measures to be accomplished by 

archeologists.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. It 

promotes public stewardship of natural resources 

and helps the Refuge meet its goals and objectives. 

It does not materially interfere with or detract from 

the Service’s ability to meet the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies; including Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, 

National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and 

Refuge goals and objectives. These activities are 

compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating this activity does not alter the Refuge's ability to 

meet habitat goals and it helps support several of 

the primary objectives of the Refuge.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938:

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Non-commercial harvest of 

mushrooms, nuts and berries for human consumption, primarily chokecherries, high bush cranberries, raspberries, acorns, hazelnuts and morel 

mushrooms.

Where is the use conducted? These activities may 

occur throughout the 42,738 acres of the Refuge. 

Approximately 50 people participate in this activity 

annually, and most access areas adjacent to existing 

roads and trails. 

When is the use conducted? Mushroom, nut and 

berry picking are authorized year-round in the Visitor Use Area (that part of the Refuge south of 

County Road 26) and in the Sanctuary Area (that 

part of the Refuge north of County Road 26) September through February. However most of the 

activity is concentrated during the few weeks when 

the fruits ripen.

How is the use conducted? This is an activity that 

is often done in conjunction with other activities that 

are wildlife dependent, such as wildlife observation 

and photography. Access to harvest sites is accomplished by walking from a designated parking area, 

public roadway or trail. All harvesting is done by 

hand.

Why is the use being proposed? Mushroom, nut 

and berry picking are traditional outdoor activities 

that bring families to the Refuge. It allows them to 

collect wholesome, healthy foods while enjoying the 

natural environment. 

Availability of Resources:

There is little or no cost to administer this program. It occurs in conjunction with other public uses 

and participation is low.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Historically, public participation in mushroom, 

nut and berry picking has been low and future participation is also expected to be low. Most activity 

occurs adjacent to existing roads and trails, therefore disturbance to wildlife will be minimal. The relatively few mushrooms, nuts and berries harvested 

will not significantly reduce the food source for wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations.

Justification:

This use has little impact to wildlife or habitat 

since it is recreational in nature and few people participate. In addition, a relatively small portion of the 

Refuge is accessed by mushroom, nut and berry 

pickers, because most Refuge trails are not open to 

motorized vehicles. Ocular estimates of picked over 

areas reveal a very low percentage of total fruit 

picked, so no appreciable effect on wildlife mast is 

anticipated. This activity provides hours of enjoyable recreation and promotes a positive image of the 

Refuge. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education, Interpretation 

and Outreach

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938...

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Environmental education is a 

process designed to develop a citizenry that has the 

awareness, concern, knowledge, attitudes, skills, 

motivations and commitment to work toward solutions of current environmental problems and the 

prevention of new ones. Environmental education 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System incorporates on-site, off-site, and distance learning materials, activities, programs, and products that 

address the audience’s course of study, the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

management purposes of the field station. Environmental education integrates the station messages 

with the audience’s program such as integration 

with school curriculum, with scout badge requirements or with Elder Hostel seminar requirements. 

Environmental education tends to be longer in duration, often times involving pre- and post-visit discussions and multiple station visits. Interpretation is a 

communication process that forges emotional and 

intellectual connections between the interests of the 

audience and the inherent meanings in the resource 

(i.e., more than information). Interpretation occurs 

in less formal activities with Refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, signs, brochures, elements of special events, and tours. Outreach is a 

two-way communication between the Service and 

the public to establish mutual understanding, promote involvement, and influence attitudes and 

actions, with the goal of improving joint stewardship 

of our natural resources. Examples of outreach 

include news releases, newsletters, websites, off-site 

displays, and participation in community partnerships.

Where is the use conducted? Environmental education and interpretation activities may occur offsite or on-site throughout the Refuge, but are most 

likely to occur in the vicinity of the headquarters, 

Visitor Center, wildlife drive, trails and roads. Visitors are greeted with a variety of interpretive displays and signs as they traverse the trails, wildlife 

drive, and observation platforms or explore the Visitor Center. The Refuge also maintains a website 

that provides interpretive information. Environmental education and interpretive programs are 

given upon request to schools and other groups visiting the Refuge. Back-country tours and interpretive programs are offered weekly during the spring 

and summer months and monthly during the winter. 

Special events are conducted throughout the year. 

Off-site activities consist of teacher workshops, participation in special events, and the sharing of wildlife education trunks. University natural resource 

classes may conduct in-depth explorations of the 

Refuge habitats.

When is the use conducted? The Refuge Visitor 

Center is open year-round Monday through Sunday 

from May 15th to October 15th and Monday 

through Friday the rest of the year and hosts 65,000 

visitors annually. Interpretation occurs, throughout 

the year, whenever a visitor reads a sign, brochures 

or the Refuge website. Environmental education 

activities typically occur when school is in session, 

concentrated in the spring and fall months, but our 

winter programming is growing. Most activities 

occur during daylight hours.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

How is the use conducted? All environmental 

education and interpretation activities are conducted with the Refuge's primary goals, objectives, 

and habitat management requirements as the guiding principles. Activities done under these restrictions allow the Refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and provide for the safety of visitors. All programs include a description of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. All of the interpretive programs 

address at least one of a number of wildlife conservation issues such as management, watershed, habitat, wildlife, endangered species, invasive species, 

etc. The environmental education programs not only 

address Refuge management goals but integrate 

audience needs such as school curriculum requirements.

Why is the use being proposed? Permitting this 

activity is consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and helps accomplish 

Refuge goals and promotes understanding, appreciation, and support for its mission.

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $250,000 is required to properly 

administer this program. This includes a full time 

public use specialist, a visitor center manager/volunteer coordinator and seasonal Park Ranger. In addition, staff time is required for periodic maintenance 

and improvement of Refuge interpretive signs, 

trails, observation platforms and visitor center displays.

Trained volunteers and interns provide an integral part of the Refuge’s environmental education 

and interpretation program. They staff the Visitor 

Center daily, host special events, lead or co-lead 

interpretive and environmental education programs, and assist Refuge staff with a variety of 

other needs. Interns and volunteers are trained 

annually to conduct programs with minimal staff 

oversight.

Every effort is made to meet each request for 

environmental education and interpretive programs. However staff and funding shortages have 

curtailed programs and the number of requests 

often exceeds our resources. Based on a review of 

the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding 

to administer this program, at its reduced level, and 

ensure compatibility with the purpose for which the 

Refuge was established. Strategies to improve the 

environmental education and interpretive program 

have been identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A seasonal Park Ranger (0.5 

FTE) may be added in the future if these strategies 

go forward.

The Refuge has identified a need to build a facility for environmental education purposes. The facility can also be used by conservation organizations, 

such as the North Country Trail Association, Izaak 

Walton League, or Boy Scouts for meeting space. 

Currently, the typical school field trip is 120 students (two half-day trips with 60 each). The Refuge 

Visitor Center does not have the capacity to accommodate a group of that size. Visiting schools do not 

have alternative facilities during inclement weather 

and must crowd into the visitor center. The CCP 

recommends some strategies to improve the environmental education program and increase visitor 

use. A construction project of $500,000-plus has 

been identified in the CCP for this purpose. Additionally, the Refuge will seek to add a Park Ranger 

(1.0 FTE) if visitation increases. The annual cost of 

this position is estimated at $80,000.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Environmental education and interpretation are 

not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occasional incidents 

like flushing wildlife (e.g., deer and waterfowl). 

Restrictions on locations for environmental education and interpretation and the numbers of users 

will assure minimal disturbance to wildlife and other 

public use activities. 

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies, including: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, 

National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and 

the Refuge goals and objectives. These activities 

comply with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating these activities does not alter the Refuge's ability to meet habitat goals and it helps support several 

of the primary objectives of the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, 

environmental education and interpretation can 

only occur under the following stipulation:

Environmental education and interpretation 

activities will only take place when and where they 

pose little or no threat to wildlife. The impacts of 

any activity that occurs outside of designated public 

use areas will be evaluated for its impacts on wildlife 

and for alternative locations. All activities will occur 

under the guidance of a Refuge staff member, volunteer or trained teacher to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal vegetation damage, and 

minimal user conflict between other public uses.

Justification:

Environmental education and interpretation are 

priority public uses for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. By facilitating 

these uses on the Refuge, we will increase visitor’s 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, 

which will lead to increased public stewardship of 

fish and wildlife and their habitats on the Refuge 

and in general. Increased public stewardship will 

support and complement the Service's actions in 

achieving the Refuge purposes and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Firewood Cutting (Non-commercial)/Timber 

Harvest (Commercial)

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938...

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? The Refuge will allow the cutting and removal of trees (firewood cutting/tree harvest) from the Refuge by third parties for the 

purpose of improving forest diversity and health for 

wildlife benefits through thinning, creating openings, removal of invasive tree species, road/trail 

maintenance and public safety. This covers all wood 

removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of 

the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, etc.). Harvest may 

include standing and fallen trees for personal-use 

firewood, and commercial timber harvest. 

Where is the use conducted? The scope of the 

activity will be determined by the management 

objective for the area and by the quantity and quality of available wood. Harvest sites will vary in size 

from a portion of an acre up to several hundred 

acres depending on the site and management objectives. Timber harvest will be conducted on any portion of the Refuge other than the Wilderness Area, 

Research Natural Areas, and the Old Growth Area 

(bounded by the Blackbird Auto tour Loop). Firewood cutting will generally occur along trails, roads, 

and firebreaks and wherever there is a need to 

remove hazard trees. 

When is the use conducted? Depending on the 

goals and objectives of the timber harvest, activities 

could occur during any season. For instance, if the 

objective is to promote red and white pine regeneration, scarification of the soil is required and this is 

best done during the growing season. On the other 

hand, lowland conifer sites have soils that are prone 

to rutting. Management activities in this forest type 

should only occur during the winter when the 

ground is frozen. In the end, management activities 

should occur when they meet silvicultural objectives, would not adversely impact other ecosystem 

processes (e.g., water and soil quality, etc.), and 

would facilitate access and afford protection to 

underlying cultural resources, soils and vegetation.

Most often, wood removal activities for the purposes of firewood, occurs October through March 

when there is a personal need and when the ground 

is frozen and access is easy. 

How is the use conducted? Firewood cutters are 

issued a Special Use Permit on a “first come, first 

serve” basis. Commercial harvesting is awarded 

through a bidding process. Both processes are overseen by the Refuge Manager and his/her designee, 

usually the Refuge Forester or Refuge Biologist. 

The number of people participating in either activity 

varies from year to year depending on need, the 

funding constraints, and to some extent for commercial operations, the market interest. The number of 

permittees typically varies from zero to ten. The 

areas open to tree harvest and management strategies are specified in the Refuge Forest Management 

Plan (initial plan dates from 1955). Firewood cutting 

permits will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Equipment used for harvest may range from 

chainsaws and axes, to traditional logging equipment such as feller-bunchers and log skidders. 

Access may be by horse teams, car and trailer, pickup truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging 

equipment including semi tractor-trailer combina-
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

tions. Differences in scope and necessary equipment 

will occur depending on the amount and type of 

wood available for removal.

Why is the use being proposed? The management 

of Refuge forests using commercial and non-commercial mechanical means and other methods is 

administered in accordance with wildlife and ecosystem management principles and ongoing research 

and land management demonstrations. This activity 

will only occur where the Service has determined 

that a management need exists to remove wood. 

Wood removal may be done following storm events 

and where trees are encroaching on hiking trails, 

fire breaks and/or roads, open marshes, grassland 

areas, jack pine savanna restoration areas, or 

degrading earthen water impoundment structures. 

Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as defined 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, but rather serves as a management instrument for ensuring Refuge priority 

habitat goals are being addressed. 

Availability of Resources:

Planning, issuing permits, and monitoring a wood 

product harvest program would require a commitment of staff hours. Periodic and small-scale harvest 

operations can be adequately administered with 

existing staff resources. Based on past activity, we 

estimate that administering a small timber harvest 

program will require from $1,000 to $2,000 in staff 

salary costs. Large-scale operations affecting many 

acres will require additional time for planning and 

permit administration and oversight required (bid 

process, bonding, permittee selection, inspection of 

field work, etc.) All harvest sites are marked with 

flagging tape or paint by Refuge staff. By permitting a wood products harvest, the manager has identified a management need and will have secured and 

prioritized the necessary station resources. In the 

past, the Refuge has issued approximately 5 to 10 

permits annually for this activity, charging a $10 

permit fee. Any permit fees or timber sale receipts 

will not off-set costs since these funds are deposited 

in general accounts and not returned to the Refuge. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies the long-term need for 1 FTE Forester.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

In permitting this type of activity, the potential 

exists to directly impact wildlife by displacement of 

animals from localized areas due to disturbance, or 

crushing of ground nests as a result of access for 

this activity. These impacts are easily avoided by 

timing of the activity in accordance with site specific 

characteristics.

Indirect impacts to wildlife and Refuge goals will 

occur as a result of removing woody vegetation. In 

nearly every instance, these impacts will be positive. 

The removal of woody vegetation facilitates native 

habitat restoration efforts on the Refuge and 

improves habitat for grouse, deer, gray wolves, 

eagles, and neotropical birds. In some cases, the 

removal of trees along roads, trails, and dikes is necessary because of the hazard to users from dead 

trees, blow down or ice damage. 

Potential site disturbances could include 

decreased aesthetics, soil erosion/compaction, water 

temperature change along wooded streams, 

destruction of ground cover, creation of weed seed 

beds, introduction of invasive species, and increased 

sedimentation due to runoff in nearby wetlands. 

These impacts can be minimized by leaving buffer 

strips near streams, wetlands and roadways, and by 

timing of the activity and requiring equipment be 

cleaned prior to entering the Refuge. As much as 

possible, existing roads or trails will be utilized to 

limit the amount of clearing required to access the 

desired location.

The no-action prescription for the Wilderness 

Area, Research Natural Areas, and Old Growth 

Area promote habitat sites for cavity nesters and 

forest interior wildlife. Minimal site disturbance 

results from this prescription since equipment for 

wildfire suppression is the only heavy equipment 

that would be used on these sites.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, 

firewood cutting/timber harvest can only occur 

under the following stipulations:
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

1. Each timber harvest requires compliance 

with a Special Use Permit (SUP). The SUP 

stipulates the applicable requirements for the 

Forest Management Plan.

2. An SUP will be issued to minimize or eliminate site specific impacts, to meet specific 

habitat and related wildlife objectives and to 

contribute to the purposes of the Refuge.

3. All timber harvesting is monitored by the 

Refuge Forester or equivalent Refuge Specialist for compliance to the SUP.

4. No cutting operations will be permitted from 

April 1 through July 15 if nesting birds are 

known to use the site.

5. Standing cavity trees which are actively being 

used by wildlife will be marked and protected.

6. Vehicle access for wood removal will be limited to existing trails or restricted to the frozen ground period when rutting and damage 

to growing vegetation would occur.

7. Commercial equipment must be cleaned prior 

to entering the Refuge.

Justification:

In accordance with the missions of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, and the Biological Integrity Policy, this use 

has been determined compatible provided the above 

stipulations are implemented. This use allows for 

the conservation, management, and restoration of 

the wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans by promoting ecological integrity and 

historic forest conditions that are now poorly represented.

The diverse forest community that existed prior 

to Refuge establishment has been adversely altered 

by forest clearing and settlement. The current forest is even aged, growing old, and in many cases not 

regenerating itself. Prescribed forest management 

practices, including harvest, are important elements 

of reversing this trend. Using third parties to 

accomplish harvest is efficient, and is one of a number of potential tools to conserve, restore, or rehabilitate forest stands. Harvest will only be done to 

meet specific forest health and wildlife objectives as 

outlined in the Forest Management Plan.

The removal of dead trees reduces fuel buildup 

and the severity of potential wildfires. Openings created by woodcutting allow light to penetrate and 

stimulate the understory growth which increases 

browse production, woodland diversity and offers 

protection to desirable conifer plantings. Any direct 

impacts on wildlife production (take, disturbance, 

etc.) can be largely avoided by timing the activity so 

that it does not coincide with the breeding/production season.

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access for 

wood removal purposes are potentially significant, 

but also easily avoided. Ground disturbance in some 

areas may actually be desirable due to an improved 

seedbed that may result. Access to and from these 

areas will need to be carefully controlled (via special 

use permit) to avoid impacts such as rutting and 

increased sedimentation in area wetlands due to 

run-off. If existing roads are not present, access can 

be restricted to periods of frozen ground to avoid or 

minimize impacts to underlying cultural resources, 

vegetation and soils.

Other indirect impacts are generally considered 

positive and thus do not materially interfere with or 

detract from the purpose of the Refuge or the 

National Wildlife Refuge System missions. The 

removal of trees at strategic locations will benefit 

habitat restoration. Individuals participating in the 

wood harvest program will be under special use permits with site specific stipulations to ensure 

resource protection and achievement of management goals. Control of woody species encroachment 

on wetland and grassland habitats is a necessary 

management activity and directly supports the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Sport Fishing

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938...

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Sport fishing as an activity conducted by the general public under regulation 

authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement.

Where is the use conducted? The Refuge allows 

fishing on North Tamarac, Wauboose, Two Island 

Lakes, Lost, Blackbird and Pine Lakes. Bank fishing on the Ottertail River is permitted 50 yards on 

either side of the Ottertail River bridges on County 

Roads 26 and 126. 

When is the use conducted? Fishing on North 

Tamarac, Wauboose and Two Island Lakes is open 

year-round. Blackbird and Lost lakes are open from 

the spring opening day of the Minnesota state walleye/northern pike season (mid-May) through Labor 

Day. Pine Lake is open to fishing from December 1 

to March 31. Bank fishing on the Ottertail River is 

open year-round.

How is the use conducted? Fishing is conducted 

in accordance with the state and Refuge-specific 

federal regulations. For that portion of the Refuge 

within the White Earth Reservation, tribal regulations as outlined in the White Earth Conservation 

Code apply. 

Why is the use being proposed? Recreational 

fishing is a priority public use identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

and has traditionally occurred at the Refuge without 

adverse impacts to the purpose for which the Refuge was established. The fishing program is administered to provide recreational opportunities to 

visitors while avoiding negative impacts to wildlife 

and their habitat. The activity will promote local 

tourism and economic trade and enhance Service 

initiatives in the surrounding local communities.

The Refuge was officially opened to sport fishing 

in 1938 and is conducted in accordance with the Refuge Fisheries Management Plan dated November 2, 

1987, and amendment dated December 6, 1991. 

Availability of Resources: 

The cost of administering this program is approximately $20,000 annually. Seventy percent of this 

cost is for staff salary, primarily law enforcement 

patrols to insure compliance with regulations. Refuge law enforcement staff often times must adjust 

their work schedule to weekend details and holidays 

for complete Refuge patrol coverage. The remaining 

expense is incurred by providing and maintaining 

brochures, signs, facilities parking lot/portions of 

road maintenance, including snow removal and lake 

landing ramps. Based on a review of the current 

Refuge budget, there is enough funding to ensure 

administration of this program is compatible with 

the purpose for which the Refuge was established. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies the long-term need for a FTE Law Enforcement Officer.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Sport fishing has not caused any adverse impacts 

to the Refuge, its habitats, visitors or wildlife. Monitoring of fish populations, dissolved oxygen sampling, winter fish rescue, and walleye fingerling 

production are activities the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources has conducted on the Refuge 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

lakes for many years, in some cases dating back to 

1923. Fish surveys have demonstrated no adverse 

impact to fish populations due to recreational fishing. Lakes experiencing fish losses due to reduced 

dissolved oxygen levels from severe winters are 

replenished by moderate stocking of native species.

Concerns over impacts to non-target wildlife 

through excessive disturbance are minimized 

through controlled access and seasonal restrictions. 

Abundant submergent and emergent vegetation 

along lake shorelines limit fishing activity in these 

areas. Sufficient escape cover for flightless waterfowl and broods is available should they be disturbed by fishing activities. Boat landings are single 

ramped, shallow, or primitive which deters large 

boat/motor use. Disturbance to sensitive wild rice 

beds is minimized by not allowing boat fishing on 

the Ottertail River. No motorized access is permitted for ice fishing which minimizes potential stress 

to winter wildlife residents. Use of lead tackle is an 

impact, but to what degree, is largely unknown. 

Education and mandatory use of non-toxic tackle 

will likely be phased in. In the short-term, the Refuge will focus on the use of alternative tackle. 

While no impacts have been observed to date, 

there is potential for infestation of aquatic invasive 

species transported by boats, live wells, and trailers. 

State regulations mandating boats, trailers, 

anchors, and live wells are free of invasive species, 

informational signs posted at all landings, and educational efforts will minimize this impact.

Other concerns, such as litter and fishing line 

entanglement are addressed through public education and regular patrols. 

The fishing program follows all applicable laws, 

regulations and policies; including: 50 CFR, 

National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and 

the Refuge goals and objectives. This activity is also 

compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Conducting this program does not alter the Refuge’s ability 

to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and 

support several primary objectives of the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To 

ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Refuge goals and objectives the activity 

can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. Control access to fishing waters and seasonal 

restrictions.

2. Monitor fish populations to ensure an adequate and diverse fishery.

3. State and/or tribal fishing requirements apply 

on the Refuge.

4. The following Refuge-specific regulations and 

restrictions apply:

5. Fishing is restricted to those areas designated.

6. Bank fishing only along designated roadways.

7. Fishing hours are 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

8. Vehicles are permitted only on designated 

roads and trails where gates are open. Motorized vehicle use on the ice, including snowmobiles and ATVs, is prohibited.

9. No personal possessions may be left overnight on the Refuge, including ice shelters 

and fish traps.

10. Annually review all fishing activities and 

operations to ensure compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations and policies.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This 

use is being permitted as it is a priority public use 

and will not diminish the primary purposes of the 

Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by providing 

renewable resources for the benefit of the American 

public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant 

resources on these lands.

State fishing regulations allow the traditional 

taking of game fish species with rod and reel from 

shore or boat, through the ice, and by using trotlines 

and jugs. Removal of rough fish by spear, archery 

and dip net is allowed, as well as the taking of limited quantities of crayfish, frogs, minnows, leeches 

and turtles for personal use. Currently, the taking 

of crayfish, frogs, minnow and turtles is minimal. 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

Should this activity grow, the Refuge may need to 

monitor the use for impacts to fish, wildlife and habitats.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938:

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? Hunting of game as an activity 

conducted by the general public under regulation 

authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Hunting is currently allowed for 

small game (Ruffed Grouse, gray, red and fox squirrel, snowshoe hare and cottontail rabbit), furbearer 

(red fox, raccoon and striped skunk), big game 

(white-tailed deer), and migratory bird (ducks, 

geese, American woodcock, coot and common snipe) 

on the Refuge. 

Hunting is a traditional activity on the Refuge 

and continues to be very popular. The Refuge experiences roughly 8,000 visitors per year with white 

tail deer hunting remaining the favorite activity. 

Actual hunters may vary year to year depending on 

a number of factors, such as weather conditions and 

animal population cycles. Most hunting for American woodcock is incidental to grouse hunting.

Where is the use conducted? The entire Refuge is 

open to small game, furbearer and deer only hunting except, roughly 1,800 acres, which surrounds the 

Refuge buildings and public use facilities are closed 

to hunting. Migratory bird hunting is restricted to 

two zones – the visitor use area south of County 

Road 26 except for approximately 1,100 acres surrounding Blackbird and South Chippewa Lakes and 

the area north of County Road 143 up to the northern shorelines of Big Egg, Lower Egg, Wauboose 

and Dry Lakes, including Two Island and Carmen 

Lakes.

When is the use conducted? The hunting season 

traditionally begins in mid-September on the Refuge. All hunting activities are in accordance with 

state of Minnesota and White Earth Reservation 

seasons. Some of the more popular species and seasons hunted include the following: Small game – 

(Ruffed Grouse) mid-September to early January, 

(squirrels and rabbits) mid-September through 

February; furbearer (fox, raccoon and skunk) traditionally the last week of October through February. 

An annual youth waterfowl hunt occurs in September, prior to the general waterfowl season. Waterfowl season typically begins on the Saturday closest 

to October 1. The Canada Goose hunting has early, 

regular and late seasons, beginning as early as September 1 and ending as late as mid-December.

The Refuge deer hunting seasons are defined by 

method of take and are set by the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with regular firearms as a 9-day season in mid-November; 

archery typically beginning mid-September through 

December and muzzle-loader hunting occurring 

after the firearm season, late November to midDecember. 

To increase wildlife observation opportunities 

during the hunting season or to minimize conflict 

between user groups, a portion of the visitor use 

area south of County Road 26 and bounded by the 

auto-tour route is delayed for hunting until October 

15. The Blackbird Auto Tour and Old Indian Hiking 

Trail are popular for wildlife photographers and 

nature enthusiasts who want to experience the spectacular fall colors of the area. 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

Tribal hunting seasons generally open two weeks 

prior to state seasons and may extend beyond the 

state seasons.

How is the use conducted? To ensure a quality 

hunt and visitor and staff safety, all hunting activities are in accordance with federal, state, and White 

Earth Reservation, subject to Refuge-specific regulations. Tribal regulations apply only to that portion 

of the Refuge within the White Earth Reservation. 

Hunting activities are intended to meet the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and some 

of the Refuge objectives and management goals 

without adversely affecting the primary objectives 

and mission of the Refuge. Completing this activity 

under a hunting plan allows the Refuge to accomplish its management goals and provide needed 

safety levels for citizens of the area without 

adversely affecting Refuge habitats and wildlife 

populations. Hunting activities can only occur in 

designated areas listed in the Hunt Management 

Plan. A Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure is 

available to inform the public of hunting opportunities and Refuge regulations. State regulations are 

published in the Minnesota Hunting and Trapping 

Regulations Handbook. White Earth Reservation 

regulations can be found in their Conservation Code 

Handbooks.

Support facilities that are available for hunting 

include boat ramps, mowed secondary roads/trails 

for non-motorized access, and parking areas. Persons with disabilities may be granted special permits or exceptions to some hunting regulations.

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is a priority public use identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and it has traditionally occurred at the Refuge without adverse 

impacts to the purpose for which the Refuge was 

established. The hunt program is administered in 

accordance with sound wildlife management principles and the utmost concern for public safety.

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $30,000 is required annually to 

administer the hunting program. Staff support of 

this program cost $20,000. Refuge staff must adjust 

their work schedules to accommodate hunters early 

and late each day and on weekends. Additionally, 

law enforcement officers patrol to ensure compliance with hunting regulations. Overhead expenses 

including signs, leaflets, parking lot/portions of road 

maintenance (snow removal), trail mowing and 

equipment is estimated at $10,000. Based on a 

review of the current Refuge budget, additional 

funding of $21,500 will be required to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage the hunts. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies the long-term need for 1 FTE Law Enforcement Officer.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

This activity has shown no assessable environmental impact to the Refuge, its habitats or wildlife 

species, but the activity is monitored closely for any 

signs of change. Hunting does cause mortality and 

disturbance to those species hunted, but bag limits, 

season dates, and other regulations are set to protect the long-term health of populations. Repeated 

use of an area by boats equipped with “go-devils” 

can damage emergent and submergent vegetation 

beds. Concerns primarily center on the possibility of 

impacting sensitive non-target species through 

excessive disturbance. Visitor safety and law 

enforcement issues are also important. Providing 

restrictions that limit access to specific Refuge locations will minimize disturbance and unsafe vehicle 

access. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occasional flushing of non-target species during the open 

hunting season. Nearly all migratory waterfowl 

have left the Refuge prior to the mid-November 

deer hunt. Law enforcement patrols are conducted 

regularly to ensure compliance with regulations. 

The hunting program follows all applicable laws, 

regulations and policies including: 50 CFR, National 

Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Wildlife 

Refuge System goals and objectives, and Tamarac 

NWR goals and objectives. This activity is also compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Conducting this program does not alter the Refuge’s ability 

to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and 

support several primary objectives of the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives 

the activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. This use must be conducted in accordance 

with state, tribal and federal regulations, and 

special Refuge regulations published in the 

Refuge Hunting Regulations and Public Use 

Regulations brochures.

2. Hunting hours are determined by state regulations except as restricted by Refuge specific 

regulations.

3. Deer harvested must be registered at Minnesota DNR check stations in accordance with 

state regulations.

4. The following Refuge-specific regulations and 

restrictions apply:

5. Hunting hours are restricted to 5 a.m. to 10 

p.m. daily.

6. Use of dogs to hunt furbearers is prohibited.

7. Snowmobiles and ATV’s are prohibited on 

Refuge roads and trails.

8. Shotgun hunters may only use or possess nontoxic shot while hunting migratory birds and 

small game.

9. Parking, blocking, or in any manner restricting access to roads and gates is prohibited.

10. All personal property must be removed at the 

end of each hunt day.

11. Continue annual deer surveys and use of deer 

population modeling by Minnesota DNR to 

ensure population estimates are within target 

levels. 

12. Annually evaluate/monitor hunting methods 

to ensure safety. 

13. Annually review all hunting activities and 

operations to ensure compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations and policies.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This 

use is being permitted as it is a priority public use 

and will not diminish the primary purposes of the 

Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by providing 

renewable resources for the benefit of the American 

public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant 

resources on these lands.

Without a hunting program specifically used as a 

management tool, the Refuge deer population may 

adversely affect plant communities, and hence alter 

ecological diversity and succession. This may result 

in significant negative impacts on both plant and 

other animal communities including some of special 

concern or of Service trust responsibility. This 

impact has been well documented and accepted 

through research over a period of many years. The 

white-tailed deer hunting plan objectives will ultimately result in a deer density of 13 to 18 deer / mi2. 

This deer density will maintain the Refuge deer 

population at the upper limit of a reasonable equilibrium with its environment as estimated for the Laurentian Mixed Forest region.

Migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits 

are established by the states within a framework set 

nationally by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These restrictions ensure the continued well-being 

of overall populations of migratory birds. Hunting 

does result in the taking of many individuals within 

the overall population, but restrictions are designed 

to safeguard an adequate breeding population from 

year to year. The system of Waterfowl Hunting 

Closed Areas on the Refuge provides feeding and 

resting areas for migratory birds during the hunting season. Specific Refuge regulations address 

equity and quality of opportunity for hunters. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

(including means of access)

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938:

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? General public access to observe 

and/or photograph wildlife and Refuge habitats 

including the means of access such as automobile, 

hiking, bicycling, canoeing, kayaking, snowshoeing 

and cross-country skiing. Under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, of 1997, wildlife 

observation and photography are priority public 

uses. 

Where is the use conducted? These activities 

could take place anywhere on the Refuge but most 

often occur in the vicinity of roads and visitor use 

facilities. Within and around the Refuge there are 

approximately 50 miles of county and township 

roadways. Additionally, the Refuge contains nearly 

50 miles of service roads and trails that are open to 

hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. The 

Refuge offers a 5-mile auto-tour drive, a 2.25-mile 

hiking trail, a short interpretive trail, 8 miles of 

groomed ski trails and two observation platforms 

with accessible spotting scopes. Non-motorized 

boating is allowed in Blackbird Lake. 

When is the use conducted? The uses typically 

occur during the daylight hours throughout the 

year. The Refuge is open 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Refuge’s Visitor Center is open year-round Monday 

through Sunday from May 15 to October 15 and 

Monday through Friday the rest of the year. The 

Sanctuary Area includes lands and trails north of 

County Road 26. This area is closed to the public 

from March 1 through August 31 to give wildlife a 

sanctuary during the breeding season. The Visitor 

Use Area south of County Road 26 is available for 

public use year-round.

How is the use conducted? All wildlife observation and photography activities will be conducted 

with the Refuge's goals, objectives and management 

plans as the guiding principles. Activities done 

under these restrictions allow the Refuge to accomplish its management goals and provide for the 

safety of visitors. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily suspended due to 

unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, 

vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. 

County and township roads do not have access 

restrictions. 

Why is the use being proposed? Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997. Allowing access to the Refuge for wildlife 

observation and photography is consistent with 

goals of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

Approximately $50,000 is required to maintain 

the Refuge roads, trails and facilities used by the 

public engaged in wildlife observation and photography. Currently, with the assistance of the volunteers 

and the Tamarac Interpretive Association, there is 

enough staff and funding available to administer 

these activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Wildlife observation and photography cause 

minor disturbance to wildlife. Wildlife quickly 

become accustomed to vehicles along the wildlife 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

drive and non-motorized access is typically along 

established trails or roads. There is temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activity on the 

land. The most likely impact to the Refuge purposes 

would be during the spring and early summer nesting and brood rearing, and during spring and fall 

migration. The Refuge has minimized this impact by 

providing a Sanctuary Area for wildlife during the 

critical use period. Winter activities pose no impacts 

to nesting waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. 

The winter disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. Overall, the disturbance is limited 

to a small portion of the entire Refuge. Blackbird 

Lake is designated non-motorized since it is along 

our auto-tour route which was developed for the 

purpose of wildlife observation. Abundant submergent and emergent vegetation along lake shorelines 

will limit boating activity in these areas. Sufficient 

escape cover for flightless waterfowl and broods is 

available should they be disturbed by canoeing/kayaking activities. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses 

on the Refuge, we will increase visitors' knowledge 

and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead 

to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife 

and their habitats on the Refuge and in general. 

Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service's actions in achieving the Refuge's purposes and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, 

wildlife observation and photography can only occur 

under the following stipulations:

1. The Refuge is open from 5 a.m. to 10 p. m.

2. Motorized vehicles are restricted to designated roadways.

3. All Terrain Vehicles and snowmobiles are 

prohibited.

4. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

5. No photo or viewing blinds may be left over 

night.

6. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage 

to vegetation is prohibited.

7. Horseback riding and bicycling are restricted 

to the Blackbird Auto Tour Route, Bruce 

Boulevard, and county and township roads.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. It 

promotes public stewardship of natural resources 

and helps the Refuge meet its goals and objectives. 

It does not materially interfere with or detract from 

the Service’s ability to meet the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies; including Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, 

National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and 

Refuge goals and objectives. These activities are 

compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating this activity does not alter the Refuge's ability to 

meet habitat goals and it helps support several of 

the primary objectives of the Refuge.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938:

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? The use is research projects 

conducted by Universities and other academic institutions; government agencies such as the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources; Tribal Department of Natural Resources; U. S. Geological Survey 

(USGS); consultants hired by the Service; private 

conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy; and others. Research projects will focus 

on better understanding of Refuge wildlife and habitat resources, provide information to improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history 

information on species of concern.

A Refuge research application, accompanied by a 

written project proposal, is required for review and 

approval before access will be allowed. If approved, 

access to Refuge lands and waters will be limited to 

the least invasive means required to accomplish the 

activities. A formal application and project proposal 

is not required in the case of contractors hired 

directly by the Service. Research will be carried out 

by professors, students, contractors, and Refuge 

staff and volunteers. Researchers will be required to 

provide written reports and make their data available to Refuge staff. Research results will be used to 

assist Refuge staff in making wise management 

decisions and to support adaptive management processes. 

Where is the use conducted? Research activities 

will occur throughout the Tamarac NWRs 42,738 

acres, occasionally on adjoining state lands (Hubbel 

Pond Wildlife Management Area) or on adjoining 

White Earth Band of the Chippewa Reservation 

under cooperative agreements with the White 

Earth Reservation Natural Resources Department.

When is the use conducted? Research may be 

conducted year-round but usually occur from April 

to November. 

How is the use conducted? Research activities 

are managed through the Special Use Permit process and overseen by the Refuge Manager and his/

her designee, usually the Refuge Biologist. All 

research activities will be conducted with the Refuge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as the guiding principles. 

Research may be conducted by foot, vehicle, canoe, 

kayak, boat, airboat, and aerial methods. Marking of 

nests and individual animals may be required. 

Every effort will be made to minimize the impacts of 

research activities on wildlife and their habitats and 

avoid conflicts with public use and management 

activities. A Special Use Permit will be issued for 

each research project that specifies what, when, 

where, and how research may occur on the Refuge.

Why is the use being proposed? Research and 

monitoring information is critical to making sound 

biological decisions in the restoration and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife 

communities occurring on national wildlife Refuges. 

It is needed to measure the successes and failures of 

management efforts. This is an important use with 

long-term benefits that ensures we have the best 

information possible upon which to base management decisions.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Availability of Resources:

Much of the research and monitoring is funded 

by grants, other government agencies, universities, 

or conducted by students and volunteers. Refuge 

staff involvement includes reviewing research proposals, supervising or monitoring research activities, reviewing reports, providing some equipment 

and vehicles, and occasionally participating in field 

work. Staff time is required for development and/or 

review of research proposals/reports, administration of Special Use Permits, supervision of students 

and volunteers, coordination with researchers, 

maintenance of vehicles, specialized equipment and 

facilities (bunkhouse). Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding to 

ensure administration of this program is compatible 

with the purpose for which Tamarac NWR was 

established.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by 

researchers could occur through vegetation sampling, capture and handling of wildlife, observation 

activities, banding, and accessing the study area. It 

is possible that direct or indirect mortality could 

result as a byproduct of research activities. However, the overall impact of allowing well designed 

and properly reviewed research to be conducted by 

non-Service personnel is likely to have very little 

impact on Refuge wildlife populations. If the 

research project is conducted with professionalism 

and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to 

be outweighed by the knowledge gained about an 

entire species, habitat or public use.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives 

the activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. Researchers will submit a study proposal and 

designate a specific area(s) on the Refuge 

where activity is to occur.

2. Each research proposal is evaluated to ensure 

the project(s) gives us a better understanding 

of Refuge wildlife and habitat resources, provide information to improve adaptive management decisions, and increase life history 

information on species of concern.

3. Each research proposal is evaluated to ensure 

the least invasive techniques are used.

4. Researchers must follow their study proposal 

and comply with the provisions of their Special Use Permit.

5. Researchers must coordinate their activities 

with the biological staff and management 

staff.

6. A report must be submitted at the end of each 

field season and at the conclusion of the study.

7. Researchers must make any data collected 

while at the Refuge available for Refuge use.

8. Refuge research activities are evaluated 

annually to ensure that their collective 

impacts do not compromise the goals or objectives of the Refuge and to ensure compliance 

with all applicable laws, regulations and policies.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

Research and monitoring information is critical to 

making sound biological decisions in the restoration 

and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish 

and wildlife communities occurring on national wildlife refuges. It is needed to measure the successes 

and failures of management efforts. This is an 

important use with long-term benefits that ensure 

we have the best information possible upon which to 

base management decisions.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Trapping of Furbearers

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 

Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938:

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” 

Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938

 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act)

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

What is the use? The Refuge allows trapping of 

resident furbearers as a priority activity of the 

White Earth Band, Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota 

and by the public in accordance with state, tribal, 

and Refuge-specific regulations. This compatibility 

determination does not apply to trapping activities 

where the Service awards a contract or permit for 

the removal of animals to facilitate management 

(i.e., predator control of ground-nesting birds or 

protection for water control structures and roadways from flooding or dam blow-out). Trapping is 

not a priority public use, as defined by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Trapping and furbearer management activities 

have evolved since Refuge establishment. During 

1938-1944, no trapping was permitted on the fee 

title Refuge land. The first season was held in 1945, 

and then was closed again in 1946. During 1947-

1968, some trapping was done each year. At least 

through the mid-1960’s, trapping was considered an 

economic activity for the Refuge. Between 1969 and 

1975, the permits were awarded by lottery. Beginning in 1976, only enrolled members of the White 

Earth Band, Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota were 

able to obtain permits. 

The matter of public demand for and opinion of 

trapping on the Refuge was resolved in the early 

1980s when several court decisions were finalized. 

The ruling made it clear that the White Earth Band 

had sovereign rights to harvest fish and wildlife 

within the reservation boundary pursuant to the 

Treaty of 1867. While the Fish and Wildlife Service 

controls access to Refuge lands, those sovereign 

rights are defended and prohibition of trapping on 

the reservation portion of the Refuge is a management alternative available only to the White Earth 

Reservation Tribal Council. 

The southern, non-reservation portion of the Refuge is affected by the Collier Agreement of 1935. 

That document specifies that furbearer trapping is a 

priority privilege of the White Earth Band on the 

entire Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service can 

restrict trapping off the reservation for biological or 

public safety reasons. The letter of the Collier 

Agreement does not grant exclusive rights or privileges. 

Where is the use conducted? The Refuge is 

divided into seven trapping zones. Special use permits for trapping mink, muskrat and raccoon are 

issued through a bid system. Trappers for nuisance 

beaver are selected by the Refuge Manager. The 

number of individuals that participate in the trapping program varies each year but is usually less 

than ten individuals. 

How is the use conducted? The Trapping Plan 

dated September 18, 1990, amended September 5, 

1991, provides guidance for issuing permits. The 

Refuge is divided into seven trapping zones. Annually, one permit is issued for each zone. The designated permittees are authorized to take beaver, 

mink, muskrat, raccoon, fox, coyote, and badger 

exclusively and only in that zone. The Trapping Plan 

was amended in 1994 to permit the take of otter.

Permits are issued following a random drawing 

conducted by the Refuge and White Earth Biological Department (WEBD) personnel at an agreed 

upon location. Drawing dates are determined annu-
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

ally by mutual agreement of Refuge personnel and 

WEBD personnel. Only enrolled tribal members are 

eligible to apply. Non-tribal members may be 

offered trapping opportunities if the alternate list of 

tribal applicants is exhausted. Also, if the Refuge 

Manager determines that the tribal permittee in a 

zone is ineffective and there is a biological or damage control need to harvest a furbearer species, a 

non-tribal member may be selected to trap.

On those portions of the Refuge lying within the 

reservation boundary (all of zones 1 and 2, and portions of zones 3, 4, and 5), permittees are governed 

by seasons, bag limits, methods of take and license 

requirements established by the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council and Refuge coordination. On 

the remainder of the Refuge (zones 6 and 7, and portions of 3, 4, and 5), regulations of the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are applicable. 

Damage Control Trapping: Under provisions of 

50 CFR 31.14, the Refuge Manager may conduct 

operations to take or destroy animals that are detrimental to the Refuge’s management program or 

that are destroying federal property. Instances for 

exercise of this authority would include control of 

beaver damage to real property such as roads and 

water control structures and control of small 

rodents in and around Refuge buildings. Operations 

may be conducted by Refuge staff or contractor/

permittees as directed by the Refuge Manager. 

When would the use be conducted? The trapping 

seasons for various species of furbearers generally 

runs from September 1 through mid-May. Trapping 

for beaver, red fox and striped skunk occurs 

throughout the year, at times and problem sites 

throughout the Refuge, as directed by the Refuge 

Manager.

Availability of Resources: 

Estimated administrative costs of the program 

are 10 staff days, or about $3,500 of salaries and 

fringe benefits. Approximately 70 percent of that 

time involves administration of the program, including permit drawings, reporting requirements, 

enforcement, and place of locks. The remainder consists of typing permits, answering trapping related 

questions via telephone, email or mail. Administrative costs for the nuisance beaver control activities 

are approximately $2,800 and include administration of special use permit, coordination with trapper 

and reporting.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Control of predators that prey on nesting waterfowl and other ground nesting birds improves success of these birds. Direct impacts to the waterfowl 

production are negligible due to the temporal separation of trapping and nesting activity. Beaver trappers using the Refuge after early March, 

undoubtedly disturb individuals on occasion, and 

cause temporary displacement of waterfowl from 

specific and limited areas. These impacts would be 

occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Any habitat change as a result of the 

physical impacts of trapping activity (trampling, 

etc.) is undetectable and insignificant. 

Although seasons open in September and extend 

into late spring, few permittees actually begin trapping when October waterfowl concentrations are 

present. Few trappers in this area are active before 

mid-November when furs “prime-up”. That, coupled 

with the small number of permittees, results in little 

disturbance of waterfowl. 

Indirect impacts to wildlife production do result 

from the removal of animals under a trapping program. In many instances, these impacts are positive. 

Mink and raccoon are predators on waterfowl at 

various stages in the production cycle. Controlling 

populations of predators on waterfowl has generally 

positive impacts on the Refuge purpose.

The Refuge is saturated with beaver colonies and 

pioneering individuals. At these population levels, 

an increasing number of individuals are interfering 

with water control activities by placing dams at the 

control structures and/or in the delivery ditches, 

hindering the movement of water between managed 

Refuge wetlands. These dams also cause damage to 

the Refuge infrastructure due to the resultant flooding at water control structures. The flooding undermines Refuge and county roadway integrity and 

increases the potential for these areas to washout. It 

is desirable and cost effective to allow a trapping 

program to reduce these populations, thereby 

reducing the Refuge’s annual maintenance costs 

associated with the adverse impacts of beaver activity.

Managing beaver and muskrat populations, at 

reasonable levels, through a trapping program, 

results in positive impacts to waterfowl and other 

aquatic wildlife species by habitat enhancement. 

Muskrats build houses and dens using aquatic vegetation, thus creating openings available for fish, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Beaver dams 

create ponded habitat, and their lodges are also 

associated with openings in aquatic vegetation beds. 

These benefits minimize the need to commit Refuge 

resources to achieve these habitat conditions.

When considering impacts to Refuge purpose, 

impacts of the trapping program obviously include 

those to the furbearer populations themselves. Individual animals are harvested and removed, yet the 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Minnesota DNR indicates furbearer populations are 

stable to increasing. Harvest data derived from 

trapper Fur Catch Reports indicate that trapper 

efficiency has remained fairly constant despite 

fewer total animals trapped. Harvest data best 

reflects the number of trappers, trapping conditions, and fur prices.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Tamarac NWR goals and objectives, trapping of furbearers can only occur under 

the following stipulations:

1. This use must be conducted in accordance 

with state, tribal and federal regulations, and 

special Refuge regulations published in the 

Refuge Hunting Regulations and Public Use 

Regulations brochures.

2. Trappers must obtain a Special Use Permit to 

trap on the Refuge and comply with existing 

Refuge Trapping Regulations.

3. The following Refuge-specific regulations and 

restrictions apply:

4. Refuge is open from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily

5. Snowmobiles and ATVs are prohibited on 

Refuge roads and trails.

6. Parking, blocking, or in any manner restricting access to roads and gates is prohibited.

7. The trapping program is monitored annually 

and trappers will continue to be required to 

report effort and catch.

8. Regulations can be altered or areas closed as 

needed to meet wildlife and habitat objectives.

Justification:

Trapping is not a priority public use on National 

Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

The damage to dike structures, forest and marsh 

habitat within the Refuge from an over-abundance 

of beaver requires control of these populations. A 

limited number of migratory waterfowl are present 

during the majority of the trapping activity and disturbance to resident wildlife is minimal and temporary.

With the decade long decline in the fur market 

and trapping participation, control of furbearer populations are being lost. Trapping assists in maintaining a healthy balance between furbearers and 

habitat, and safeguarding Refuge infrastructure. 

High populations of predator, such as the red fox, 

can decrease nest success of ground-nesting migratory birds, thus compromising a purpose of the Refuge. Other furbearers damage Refuge 

infrastructure such as beaver that plug water control structures. Costs of repair require the Refuge 

to divert resources away from other management 

activities that otherwise meet the purposes of the 

Refuge.

The trapping program, as managed and with stipulations previously described, does not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Service’s ability to 

meet Refuge purposes or the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It does support 

Refuge management objectives and overall, managed furbearer trapping contributes to the purposes 

of the Refuge by maintaining vigor and health of 

furbearer populations and by safeguarding Refuge 

infrastructure critical to habitat for scores of fish 

and wildlife species.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

“... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Allow the establishment of food 

plots on FmHA Conservation Easements to provide 

cover and food sources during harsh winter conditions. Particularly during severe winters, food plots 

are widely recognized as important to maintain populations of resident wildlife.

Where is the use conducted? The use can occur 

throughout the Tamarac Wetland Management District on specific areas identified as critical wintering 

areas for resident wildlife.

When is the use conducted? Food plots are small 

fields of agricultural crops with some or the entire 

crop left standing through the winter. Typically, 

these food plots are maintained for multiple years.

How is the use conducted? The food plots are 

maintained by private easement owners under a 

Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge Manager. 

The use must be carried out in accordance with the 

stipulations listed below. Typically, these food plots 

are maintained multiple years and sometimes 

rotated between locations on the easement for plant 

or insect pest resiliency. Following abandonment, 

food plots are replanted to perennial vegetation. 

The use of food plots also reinforces a shared conservation interest between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the conservation easement owners.

Food plots are not a priority public use as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. Food plots are 

a non-essential but helpful tool to facilitate two priority uses (hunting and wildlife observation) since 

they help maintain high populations of species 

widely viewed as desirable to view and hunt.

Availability of Resources: 

The cost of establishing and managing food plots 

is borne by private landowners, requiring minimal 

Service resources. There is a modest administrative 

cost associated with developing Special Use Permits 

and overseeing compliance. These costs typically 

involve a few hours of staff time annually. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Food plots are approximately 5 acres or less in 

size, generally located on land that has been abandoned from farming. The planting of agricultural 

crops for food essentially eliminates the land for use 

by ground nesting wildlife. The loss of a few acres of 

potential nesting cover would have minimal impact. 

Most grassland bird species generate far better production when nesting in large contiguous blocks of 

grassland. Careful site location of food plots in field 

corners or “out of the way”, odd areas can avoid 

breaking up a large grassland block into smaller 

fragments. Some migratory birds actually benefit 

from the effect of adding more vegetative edges and 

encouraging some annual weed growth in and 

around a grassland block. However, these tend to be 

species whose populations are less imperiled than 

those requiring large grassland blocks. Impacts to 

waterfowl nesting can be reduced but not eliminated 

by locating the food plots strategically and confining 

their use to critical areas. Stipulations identified 

later in this document will prevent critical resources 

such as native prairie remnants or large, contiguous 

blocks of grassland or forest habitat from being 

degraded or destroyed by food plots.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Impacts from herbicide use to establish and 

maintain food plots will be greatly reduced by 

restricting products to zero or low toxicity chemicals. No insecticide use will be allowed on food plots. 

Runoff and erosion are minimized with proper food 

plot topographical location.

Food plots tend to be popular areas for hunting 

and the increased levels of hunting around food 

plots will cause mild increases in wildlife disturbance. These periodic disturbances should be 

mainly limited to autumn and early winter hunting 

seasons and produce no breeding season impacts 

and only minor disturbance impacts to waterfowl.

The cultivating, planting, and chemical application activities associated with food plots creates 

brief episodes of intrusion from agricultural equipment but this disturbance impact to wildlife is small.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Areas for food plots must be identified as critical wintering sites for resident wildlife.

2. Food plots will not have negative impacts on 

critical habitats such as wetlands, native prairie remnants, and continuity of forests.

3. Food plots will be located to avoid grassland 

and forest fragmentation.

4. Allowable species for planting in food plots 

will include: corn, soybeans, sunflowers, 

wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, millet, 

and sorghum.

5. Food plots will be no greater than five (5) 

acres and will occupy no more than 5 percent 

of the total acreage of the conservation easement.

6. No more than one food plot in any year will be 

authorized per easement tract.

7. Chemical use is restricted to the Region 3 

Pesticide Approval list and all chemical label 

requirements and restrictions.

8. The permittee is required to re-seed the food 

plot to native vegetation if/when it is abandoned.

Justification: 

Controlled use of food plots will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA 

conservation easements or the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Food plots can create significant 

interference with conservation easement purposes 

and are thus more stringently controlled to ensure 

that they remain compatible. Allowing the use of 

food plots can lead to higher and more stable resident wildlife populations by reducing catastrophic 

population crashes during severe winters. These 

higher populations facilitate two priority public 

uses, hunting and wildlife observation. The impacts 

to waterfowl and other migratory birds are modest 

based on limiting the size and location of food plots, 

and the stipulations in place. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Native Grassland Seeding and Weed Control

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? This use entails establishing or 

enhancing native grassland communities, through 

seeding and weed control activities, on FmHA conservation easements in the Tamarac WMD. 

Where is the use conducted? Seeding and weed 

control occur on grassland units within the boundaries of FmHA conservation easements. Grassland 

stands vary in size from 8 to 40 acres. 

How is the use conducted? Seeding of native 

grassland species is accomplished by broadcasting 

regional eco-type seed over the last winter’s snow, 

or in spring immediately following a prescribed 

burn. Occasionally a grass drill is used to directly 

inter-seed into the sod of an existing stand of grass. 

Typically, seedbed preparation activities such as 

burning, grazing, or haying are conducted to 

remove litter and residue prior to drilling. Both 

methods can also be employed in mid to late fall 

when a dormant seeding is desired. District staff 

would normally carryout the seed bed preparations 

and seeding. Where normal preparation techniques 

are not feasible, cooperative farming is an excellent 

option to prepare a seedbed. Cooperative farming 

agreements are forged with easement owners or an 

area farmer and normally run three years. A multiyear agreement is needed to generate cooperator 

interest. Because of the extra investment in breaking the grassland sod, herbicide use, rock removal, 

and inevitable wildlife depredation losses, cooperators generally lose money the first year, break even 

the second, and gain a profit in the final year. At 

agreement expiration, the site is left unplowed in a 

clean small grain or soybean stubble and broadcast 

seeded the following spring. The great advantage to 

this method is farming practices control and even 

eradicate noxious weed competition; replenish soil 

nitrogen and other nutrient levels; and delivers 

good soil compaction for seed germination, all leading to faster and more successful native species 

establishment. 

Whichever approach is taken, one application of 

glyphosate herbicide is employed after approximately two weeks of spring re-growth to suppress 

weeds while native species are developing their root 

systems. One or more clipping of emerging vegetation often follows to control annual weeds and biannual thistle species. 

Why is the use being proposed? An almost complete domination of exotic and invasive species has 

emerged on most grassland sites since farming 

abandonment in the 1990s. The predomination of 

noxious weeds and introduced grasses yields minimal wildlife value, while displacing far more beneficial native vegetation. Plumeless and Canada 

thistle, spotted knapweed, quack grass, smooth 

brome grass and Kentucky bluegrass are the most 

common exotic species observed. Stands of nonnative vegetation are low in diversity and bear light 

stem densities that provide fair to poor nesting and 

foraging cover for migratory birds.

Restored or enhanced native grasslands fulfill 

management objectives to benefit migratory bird 

production, particularly ground nesting waterfowl 

and grassland passerines. 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Seeding and weed control is not a priority public 

use, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, but rather serves as 

a management instrument for ensuring District priority habitat objectives are being addressed. 

Availability of Resources: 

Staff time is required to prepare grassland sites 

for seeding, planting, and weed control. Seed is 

acquired from the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District who harvests native prairie seed on an 

annual basis. In some years, the District makes a 

nominal contribution to assist with combine contracting costs. Total expenses may vary from $500 

to $5,000 depending on the size of the grassland site, 

but is within budget constraints with proper planning. Cooperative farming is a desirable option that 

off-sets project costs. Rent payments or in-kind contributions such as seeding and weed control are provided by the cooperator. There is a minor 

investment in terms of time preparing and overseeing farming agreements, however this is well within 

available resources.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Grassland restoration activities generate both 

direct and indirect impacts to wildlife. Direct negative impacts include temporary displacement of 

nesting wildlife from grassland sites due to preparation, seeding, and weed control operations. Farming 

equipment may occasionally destroy a nest, however 

these instances are rare. Glyphosate is mostly nontoxic with no soil residual activity. Wildlife directly 

contacting this chemical could be impacted, but incidents are uncommon. Cooperative farming agreements would temporarily eliminate nesting and 

winter cover for several years. Negative indirect 

impacts would generally involve wildlife disturbance 

by machinery, but would be temporal. Long-term 

impacts are positive. Replacement of non-native 

vegetation or enhancement by establishing diverse 

stands of native grassland species will provide dense 

and structurally diverse habitat benefiting nesting 

and foraging conditions for wildlife.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and the District goals and objectives, grassland restoration and weed control can 

only occur under the following stipulations:

1. Only locally adapted native prairie species 

will be seeded.

2. Weed control will be limited to only the extent 

necessary to promote native seedling germination and bolting. 

3. Herbicide applications must strictly adhere to 

label recommendations and restrictions.

4. Cooperator obligations outlined in a cooperative farming agreement will be stringently 

followed. 

Justification:

Diverse, healthy, weed-free grasslands provide 

critical habitat for wildlife, particularly ground nesting migratory birds. Habitat use disruption for 

establishing or enhancing native grasslands is a significant, but temporary impact. The long-term benefits far outweigh short term losses by eradicating or 

reducing less beneficial exotic vegetation, creating 

more secure nesting cover, attracting a greater variety of migratory birds, and reducing long-term 

maintenance needs thereby eliminating additional 

wildlife disturbances.

This use is a critical habitat management tool and 

does not materially interfere with or detract from 

the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Prescribed Grazing 

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

“...To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Prescribed grazing is the controlled rotation of domestic livestock, normally cattle, between paddocks that improves grassland 

health, species diversity, and represses unwanted 

invasive plants on conservation easements. Grazing 

is a valuable tool where other grassland management methods, such as prescribed burning or haying, are implausible, or on easements where the 

landowner retains the rights to seasonally graze and 

a rotational grazing system is more desirable.

Where is the use conducted? Rotational grazing 

occurs within the boundaries of FmHA conservation 

easements that possess grassy fenced pastures and 

vary in size from 40 to more than 220 acres. Paddocks range from 10 to over 200 acres in size. 

Grazed grasslands consist of either tame grasses or 

seeded tall grass prairie and bear varying degrees 

of shrub encroachment.

When is the use conducted? Grazing activity can 

start in May, and ends around September 1. Grazing 

is confined to one paddock at a time, is of high intensity, but short duration, usually no longer than 8 to 

10 days. Where private landowners maintain annual 

grazing rights on the easement, prescribed grazing 

may continue annually. On easements where the 

landowner does not have grazing rights, grazing to 

meet management objectives may occur every 3 to 6 

years depending on the effectiveness of the treatment.

How is the use conducted? Grazing specialists 

with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) are consulted to develop prescribed 

grazing plans for selected easements. Livestock forage balance assessments are completed for sites 

that require treatment. Grazing agents are typically 

cattle, but can include domestic sheep, goats, and 

horses. The number and size of the livestock determines the desired stocking rate of the producer and 

their forage requirements. The forage capability of 

the site determines the sustainable stocking rate 

and allowable grazing duration. Livestock are 

moved from one paddock to the next when the stubble height of the forage is reduced to 4 inches. The 

grazing period runs 3 to 10 days depending on the 

stocking rate and the size of the paddock. All paddocks must experience a minimum resting period of 

30 days. If the minimum residual stubble height 

cannot be maintained, for instance due to drought, 

the livestock are moved to a sacrificial site off easement for feeding until forage resumes growing. 

Landowners and/or renters are required to enroll in 

the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) for a ten year period, binding them to 

the grazing plan in annual grazing situations.

Watering systems are occasionally needed in certain paddocks where natural water sources are not 

available. In this case temporary watering tanks are 

set up on grassland sites which only require periodic 

treatment. On easements bearing perpetual grazing 

rights, permanent tanks and pads are developed but 

located off the easement. On sites where annual 

grazing occurs, livestock sometimes erode soils and 

reduce water quality when watering from natural 

wetlands and streams. In these situations, armored 

watering ramps are constructed according to NRCS 

practice guidelines, to protect these riparian zones.

Fencing is a mandatory requirement to control 

grazing and will be the responsibility of the cooperating private party. On annually grazed easements, 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

permanent fencing is constructed for paddock formation. Where prescribed grazing is only a periodic 

treatment, temporary single strand electric fencing 

is employed to maintain paddocks and market rate 

grazing fees will be required. Grazing fees are 

charged according to market rates. Market rates 

will be determined annually in consultation with 

USDA on prevailing local grazing rates.

Why is the use being proposed? Rotational grazing is used as a management treatment to stimulate 

the growth of desired grassland species, and repress 

unwanted weeds and the establishment or expansion of woody vegetation into the grassland community.

Grasslands are disturbance dependent communities and require the removal of excessive plant litter 

to maintain their health and vigor. Disturbance 

actions, such as grazing, also keep woody vegetation 

encroachment in check that would otherwise succeed the desired grassland ecosystem.

Grazing is not a priority public use as identified in 

the Refuge Improvement Act. As an economic use of 

Refuge System lands, a compatibility determination 

for grazing is mandatory.

Availability of Resources: 

Grazing agreements are developed by NRCS and 

exhaust no Service resources. A minimal amount of 

Service staff time is required to prepare Special Use 

Permits associated with these agreements. Staff 

also invests a small amount of time monitoring compliance and evaluating the biological effects of grazing, however, this time is negligible since staff must 

monitor other easement compliance requirements 

anyway. All perimeter fences are in place on easements where the landowner retains annual grazing 

privileges. Fencing costs for permanent or temporary fencing, and the construction of watering 

ramps and tanks is cost shared between the cooperator and NRCS. In situations where prescribed 

grazing is being used as a periodic management 

tool, grazing fees are charged according to market 

rates, minus fencing expenses. These funds usually 

off-set the administrative costs invested to manage 

this activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Prescribed grazing, due to its intensity, significantly reduces the height and density of grassland 

vegetation for a short period of time. Depending on 

the number of paddocks, some areas may be grazed 

multiple times during the season. The grassland 

structure will be greatly altered impacting grassland bird species that require tall vegetation for 

nesting and foraging. While some impacts to ground 

nesting species, such as waterfowl, due to displacement and trampling will be incurred, numerous 

nesting studies have revealed very good nesting 

success in grazed areas. Where disturbance grazing 

is only employed periodically, long-term gains of 

improved grassland density and diversity will outweigh any short-term losses. Where grazing is carried out annually, maximum benefits for grassland 

species will not be realized, but is a better alternative to season long over grazing that typically 

results in poor forage recovery, dominance of invasive non-native plant species, succession of woody 

cover types, and soil erosion. 

Other impacts include the suppression of woody 

vegetation. This result is positive, however, since 

encroachment must be minimized in order to 

achieve grassland management goals.

Impacts of fence construction and watering facilities causes disturbance to wildlife and replace some 

habitat, but their requirement is mandatory and the 

effects are temporary and are very short in duration.

In some situations, grazing may not be the only 

technique employed, and rotating in other grassland 

management methods such as burning or haying 

could result in greater ecological benefits.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Unless additional justification is provided, 

grazing will run from May 1 to September 1. 

On easements where the landowner does not 

reserve annual grazing rights, grazing will be 

restricted to a frequency of no more than 

once every 3 years. If factors beyond human 

control, such as drought, occur that prevent 

completion of the rotation, grazing may be 

considered the following year.

2. All fencing and watering facilities costs will be 

borne by the cooperator/landowner.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

3. Forage stubble height may not drop below 4 

inches. Livestock must be moved to the next 

paddock or removed from the conservation 

easement. 

4. No supplemental or sacrificial feeding is permitted on the conservation easement.

5. No insecticides, including insecticidal dusting 

bags, will be used on WPAs or easements.

6. Control and confinement of the livestock will 

be the responsibility of the permittee.

7. If the landowner or cooperator fails to abide 

by the terms of grazing plan, the use will be 

terminated. 

Justification: 

Controlled grazing with domestic livestock will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

purpose of FmHA conservation easements or the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Livestock can be 

proxies for the historic ungulates who once roamed 

and maintained grasslands. Controlled grazing creates temporary disturbances and changes to the 

structure of grassland vegetation and reduces shrub 

and tree encroachment. While these short-term 

impacts result in less than ideal wildlife habitat conditions, the effects are temporal and are far 

exceeded by the long-term benefits and sustained 

objectives of maintaining a healthy and productive 

grassland ecosystem for migratory birds. Prescribed grazing is a feasible alternative or complementary technique to other grassland management 

tools. The grassland community and productivity of 

many migratory birds will not thrive or even perpetuate without periodic disturbance.

Signature: 

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Haying and Mowing

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

 “...To administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Haying or mowing is the cutting 

of noxious weeds for grassland restoration, or the 

cutting, baling, and removal of vegetation for purposes of reinvigorating established grassland habitat on FmHA conservation easements. Easement 

grassland communities fall into two general categories: stands dominated by non-native cool season 

species such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, 

and orchard grass; and seeded tall grass native prairie represented primarily by big bluestem, switch 

grass, and Indian grass. Both native and non-native 

forbs are present in both communities and include 

species of goldenrod, aster, sunflower, and yarrow. 

Haying is typically done through a Cooperative 

Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued 

by the Refuge Manager to an easement owner or 

contractor. Haying is also used to create fire breaks 

for prescribed fire operations. 

Where is the use conducted? Haying/mowing 

occurs on grassland units within the boundaries of 

FmHA conservation easements. Grassland stands 

vary in size from 8 to 40 acres. Haying or cutting for 

firebreaks would involve very small acreages, generally 16 feet in width around the perimeter of these 

fields. 

When is the use conducted? Mowing to control 

annual and perennial weed competition on new 

grassland seedings occurs anytime from late May 

through September. Weeds are generally clipped 

sometime between the flowering and seed formation 

stages of the principle competitors of concern. Frequency of weed clipping depends on seedling 

growth, but may occur several times during the 

growing year and annually up to three consecutive 

years. When haying is utilized as a tool to enhance 

established grasslands, cutting transpires after July 

15 when most ground nests, particularly waterfowl 

have hatched and ends September 1 to allow sufficient time for some re-growth of winter cover. Frequency of treatment ranges from once every three 

to six years. Mowing for purposes of establishing 

fire breaks are generally conducted in the fall prior 

to spring burning activities.

How is the use conducted? Haying is often used 

as a strategy to help establish or maintain grassland 

habitat. In the case of grassland maintenance, cutting is carried out as low to the ground as possible, 

and when combined with racking, removes most of 

the old plant litter thereby stimulating new plant 

growth. For grassland restoration or enhancement, 

haying or clipping is conducted in two different 

ways. Haying is conducted to remove residual plant 

material, a necessity when restoration methods 

involve interseeding into the sod with a grass drill. 

Whether establishing native grass by drilling or 

broadcasting, follow up clipping is employed to 

repress weed growth that competes with the newly 

seeded vegetation. Competing non-native plants are 

clipped just above the tops of the emerging native 

grassland species to reduce shading and prevent 

reproduction of non-desirable plant species. 

Haying and mowing is carried out with standard 

agricultural tractors and implements through Cooperative Farming Agreements, Special Use Permits, 

or station equipment and staff. When baling is 

desired, skid steers and hay trailers are used to load 

and remove the bales.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Why is the use being proposed? Haying or mowing is an effective, often crucial tool for grassland 

management and restoration. Construction of fire 

breaks is essential to controlling prescribed fire 

operations. Healthy grassland ecosystems require 

periodic disturbance to maintain species diversity 

and productivity. Haying is a viable alternative to 

rejuvenating and maintaining decadent grassland 

communities when treatments such as burning or 

grazing are infeasible or impractical. Intermittent 

cutting also prevents shrubs and trees from becoming established, thereby preserving the grassland 

ecosystem. In grassland restoration situations, 

mowing or clipping of weeds and non native grasses 

is often critical to establishment and minimizes herbicide applications. 

Haying is not a priority public use, as defined by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, but rather serves as a management 

instrument for ensuring District priority habitat 

objectives are being addressed. 

Availability of Resources: 

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Needed management staff time is 

already committed and available. Most of the work 

needed to prepare for this use would be done during 

habitat management planning. The decision to use a 

cooperative farmer for haying would require some 

additional time to develop and oversee the needed 

Special Use Permit or Cooperative Farming Agreement, but would be relatively minor and within 

existing District resources. Some of these costs 

would be off-set by hay value paid back by the cooperator.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Haying or mowing result in short-term impacts, 

but long-term benefits to migratory birds and resident wildlife using conservation easements. Shortterm impacts include disturbance and temporary 

displacement caused by noisy heavy equipment. 

Restricting cutting activities to the mid to late summer period could potentially damage late nesting 

efforts by migratory birds, however most nesting 

studies have concluded nest densities during this 

timeframe are very low. Removal of standing 

grasses will also result in the seasonal loss of habitat 

for those species requiring tall vegetation to forage 

and perch. While some vegetation re-growth will 

occur during the fall, winter cover conditions will be 

less than ideal. This condition, however, would not 

occur on an annual basis, but rather on a 3-to 6-year 

treatment cycle. Long-term benefits far exceed any 

short duration impacts. Mowing and haying treatments stimulate the regrowth and vigor of all grassland species yielding higher quality habitat for 

nesting, foraging, and wintering. Additionally, cutting prevents encroachment of woody vegetation 

which will supplant desired grassland species and 

favor nest predator use. While cutting for purposes 

of controlling weeds likewise removes foraging and 

perch site habitat, mowing is carried out at a 

greater height and produces less impacts than haying. Long-term benefits of weed control outweigh 

temporary losses through the perpetuation of highly 

desirable native tall grass species and the control of 

invasive species that displace more beneficial native 

grassland species.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Haying is only permitted between July 15 and 

September 1, and no more than once every 

three years on the same site.

2. Hay bales must be removed from the conservation easement within one week of baling.

3. Haying or mowing must fulfill specific habitat 

related management objectives of the conservation easement.

4. For purposes of controlling invasive plants, 

the cutting head of mowers will be set no 

lower than necessary to remove the majority 

of the target species seed heads.

Justification: 

Haying or mowing will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or the National Wildlife Refuge 

System if carried out under the required stipulations. Haying and mowing is a valuable management 

tool that provides greater long-term habitat benefits 

for reestablished and existing grasslands that otherwise would convert to a non-desired woody cover 

type or become dominated by exotic vegetation. The 

productivity and abundance of federal trust species 

such as waterfowl or grassland obligate species 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

would slowly decline in the absence of haying, mowing or similar treatments on these sites. Grasslands 

are a disturbance-dependent ecosystem that 

requires periodic renovation to maintain their vigor, 

diversity, and the structure necessary for migratory 

bird use. Haying is an effective alternative when 

other management methods are infeasible. 

Signature: 

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Establishing and Maintaining Nesting 

Structures for Migratory Birds

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

 “...To administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? This use pertains to the placement and maintenance of artificial nesting structures for migratory birds. Primary examples 

include bluebird boxes, wood duck boxes, and mallard hen houses, but could include nesting structures for other species. 

Where is the use conducted? Nesting structures 

are typically erected over water or along the edges 

of wetlands in the case of waterfowl, or along open 

fields when attempting to attract bluebirds on 

FmHA conservation easement lands. Other types of 

nesting boxes may be located within interior forest 

areas for other migratory species. 

When is the use conducted? The structures are 

normally installed in late winter or early spring. 

Bluebird boxes are cleaned out at the end of each 

nesting season. Nesting material for waterfowl 

structures is typically checked or added once a year 

during the late winter or early spring.

How is the use conducted? Occasional requests 

for this use originate from easement owners or conservation groups. Approval is granted by the Refuge Manager on a case by case basis through a 

Special Use Permit. Waterfowl nesting structures 

are preferably attached to poles to minimize predation, but occasionally affixed to trees. Bluebird 

boxes are mounted on posts, often in pairs to discourage tree swallow monopolization. 

Why is the use being proposed? In all cases, the 

intent of the permittee is to enhance wildlife populations by providing safe nesting opportunities.

Placing artificial nesting structures on conservation easements is not a priority public use as defined 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The use is a non-essential contributor to 

other priority uses such as wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education.

Availability of Resources: 

Installation, monitoring, and maintenance of artificial nest structures on conservation easements are 

the full responsibility of the permit holder. There is 

a small administrative cost to the Service in terms of 

issuing Special Use Permits, but well within District 

resources. Should cooperators fail to adequately 

maintain the structures, there will be some cost 

associated with removing abandoned structures.

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): 

The installation and maintenance of artificial 

nesting structures offer little if any negative impact 

to wildlife or habitat. In fact, if placed properly and 

maintained, nesting structures can assist in enhancing migratory bird production by providing safer 

nesting sites or opportunities for nesting that otherwise don’t exist. Examples include the placement of: 

wood duck boxes in areas where there are no natural tree cavities; mallard hen houses where there is 

limited nesting cover; and bluebird boxes where 

cavity producing snags and wooden posts have been 

removed. Studies have shown that nest success for 

many duck species is actually higher when utilizing 

artificial nest structures rather than nesting in 

grasslands where they are more susceptible to 

mammalian predation. There is a brief wildlife disturbance caused during placement and maintenance 

of the structures, but it is minor and temporary.
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Approval must be obtained from the Refuge 

Manager through a Special Use Permit prior 

to the activity.

2. The permittee will be required to remove all 

unmaintained nesting structures from the 

conservation easement.

3. The placement of artificial nesting structures 

must benefit Service trust species and compliment management objectives for the conservation easement.

Justification: 

Artificial nesting structures do not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA 

conservation easements or the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Appropriate use of nesting structures can actually contribute to migratory bird 

objectives by providing nesting opportunities that 

are naturally narrow and by reducing nest predation effects. 

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-ofWay (ROW) Projects and Full Restoration

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“...To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use: 

What is the use? Disturbances to FmHA conservation easement uplands for Right-of-Way (ROW) 

projects pertain to maintenance work carried out by 

road authorities and utility companies. Occasionally 

township, county, or utility officials request authority to temporarily work outside their ROW to repair 

or improve the roadway or their utility related facility. This use can cause a disturbance to wildlife and 

damage to upland vegetation, but involves no 

expanded or new ROWs and full restoration of the 

original vegetative community and condition is 

required. 

Where is the use conducted? The use occurs 

immediately adjacent to the road or utility ROW on 

the conservation easement, normally along its 

boundary.

When is the use conducted? ROW work can occur 

anytime from frost out in the spring through fall 

freeze up. The duration of the work ranges from less 

than a day to several months depending on the scale 

of the work.

How is the use conducted? In most situations, the 

use involves accessing, traveling, or turning around 

large mobile equipment on the conservation easement in close proximity to the ROW boundary. Project examples would include culvert installation or 

reshaping of the road ditch and slope. Utility type 

projects might also include tree limbing to facilitate 

power line maintenance.

Why is the use being proposed? Road improvement projects are conducted to improve transportation safety. Utility repair work maintains essential 

services to the local community.

ROW projects are not a priority public use, as 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, but rather represent, in 

most cases, a public safety undertaking, ensuring 

District priority habitat objectives are being 

addressed. 

Availability of Resources: 

There are negligible administrative costs relating 

to Special Use Permit issuance and monitoring that 

is well within station time and budget constraints. 

All habitat restoration requirements and costs are 

the responsibility of the permittee.

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): 

The impacts to the associated uplands of the 

ROW will be minimal and temporary. In most cases 

the impact will consist of the matting of vegetation 

by heavy equipment along the perimeter of the 

ROW. In situations where the sod is unavoidably 

destroyed or trees are removed or limbed, the permittee will replant the original vegetation. Approval 

to destroy vegetation will be limited to sites previously tilled or otherwise disrupted. No native prairie 

remnants, wetlands, or unique communities such as 

white pine, may be impacted. 

Minor impacts from construction work may 

include disturbing and displacing a few migratory 

birds and individual wildlife residents, but will be 

confined tightly along easement/ROW boundaries. 

Roadway disturbances do not generate much 

greater turbulence than that created by the routine 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

passing of motor vehicles. There could be a slightly 

greater disturbance generated by work within utility ROWs that run into the interior of the easement. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All work must be authorized by a Special Use 

Permit. Permit conditions, including full habitat restoration if applicable, must be met.

2. The use must, wherever possible, avoid or 

minimize damage to easement lands. No easement survey monuments may be disturbed.

3. No overnight parking of equipment or materials is permitted on the easement. All conservation easement signs must be reinstalled in 

good condition if removed for construction 

work.

4. No work or vehicle use will be permitted on 

wetlands, native prairie remnants, or areas 

possessing unique or declining communities.

Justification: 

ROWs are present on nearly every FmHA conservation easement within the Tamarac WMD and 

were established prior to the federal government 

acquiring interest in the land. Impacts to easement 

wildlife and their habitats will be slight and temporary under the conditions outlined above. This use 

supports public safety and maintenance of essential 

services to the local community and will not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of 

FmHA conservation easements or the National 

Wildlife Refuge System if the stipulations above are 

followed.

Signature:

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest

Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management 

District (District)

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 “... conservation, management, and restoration 

of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act)

 FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee 

title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002.

Refuge Purpose(s):

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - 

"... purposes of this reservation are the 

preservation and maintenance of the wetland 

and floodplain areas existing....as well as 

protection and enhancement of plant and 

animal habitat and populations."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“...To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.”

Description of Use:

What is the use? The removal of standing or 

fallen trees by private landowners or contractors for 

firewood salvage, forest management, or hazardous 

fuels reduction on FmHA conservation easements. 

This covers all wood removal activities regardless of 

the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, 

etc.). 

Where is the use conducted? On FmHA Conservation Easements. The scope of the activity will be 

determined by the management objective for the 

area consistent with the easement management 

plan and by the quantity and quality of available 

wood. Harvest sites will vary in size from a fractional acre up to 200 acres depending on the site and 

management objectives. Firewood cutting will be 

limited to dead or downed trees and the stipulations 

listed below.

When is the use conducted? Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most 

often, wood removal activities for the purpose of 

firewood salvage will occur September through 

December, while commercial harvest activities 

occur during the winter months when frozen ground 

will facilitate access and afford protection to underlying cultural resources, soils and vegetation.

How is the use conducted? Harvest equipment 

may range from chainsaws and axes, to traditional 

logging equipment such as feller-bunchers and log 

skidders. Sites may be accessed by any passenger 

vehicle, all-terrain-vehicles, snow machine, farm 

tractor, or larger logging transport equipment 

including semi tractor-trailers. Differences in scope 

and necessary equipment will occur depending on 

the amount and type of wood available for removal.

Special Use Permits for firewood salvage are 

issued to easement owners. Commercial harvest 

contracts are awarded through a bidding process. 

The number of people participating in this use varies year to year depending on need and has ranged 

from zero to three firewood permits and one commercial contract in any given year.

Why is the use being proposed? This activity will 

only occur where the Service has determined that a 

management need exists to remove wood. Wood 

removal may be authorized and desirable due to 

damaging storm events, disease outbreaks, excessive beaver kills, threats to earthen water impoundment structures, interference to non-easement 

agricultural operations and structures, or to 

improve forest habitat for migratory birds.

Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, but rather serves as a 

management instrument for ensuring District priority habitat objectives are being addressed. 

Availability of Resources: 

Time required for planning, permit or contract 

issuance, and overseeing a wood product harvest 

program would require the dedication of some staff 

hours, very few in the case of firewood salvage, but 

significantly more when managing a commercial 

level activity. In permitting a wood products harvest, the manager has identified a management 

need and presumably has secured and prioritized 

station resources to that end. Based on past experience, we estimate that administering a small timber 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

harvest program will require from $1,000 to $5,000 

in staff salary costs for commercial grade operations, considerably less for simple firewood permit 

management. Some of these costs will be offset by 

stumpage fees paid by commercial interests if timber is marketable. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

In permitting this type of activity, the potential 

exists to directly impact wildlife by displacing animals from localized areas due to disturbance, or 

unintentionally damaging ground nests as a result 

of motorized access. These impacts are avoided or 

minimized by the timing of the activity in accordance with site specific characteristics and the stipulations listed below. More significant impacts 

involve the temporary loss of habitat due to timber 

removal and damage to understory vegetation by 

heavy logging equipment. These impacts will, however, bear long-term benefits. Ultimately, the infrequent removal of woody vegetation is necessary for 

habitat restoration and management purposes. In 

some cases, the removal or limbing of a few trees 

along roads, trails, agricultural fields, buildings, and 

dikes is necessary to eliminate hazards for easement 

owners.

Access for the purpose of removing wood may 

impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground 

cover, creating weed seed beds, introducing invasive 

species, and increasing sedimentation due to runoff 

in nearby wetlands. These impacts can again be 

avoided by the timing of the activity and requiring 

equipment be cleaned prior to entering the conservation easement. As much as possible, existing 

roads or trails will be utilized to limit the amount of 

clearing required to access the desired location.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was part of the 

Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Tamarac WMD goals and objectives, firewood cutting and timber harvest can only 

occur under the following stipulations:

1. No cutting operations will be permitted from 

April 1 through July 15 if resource priority 

species are known to use the site.

2. Standing cavity trees which are actively used 

by wildlife will be marked and protected.

3. Vehicle access for wood removal will be limited to existing trails, designated ingress/

egress routes that minimize damage to vegetation, or restricted to the frozen ground 

period when rutting and damage to growing 

vegetation would occur.

4. A Special Use Permit will be issued that 

requires special conditions to avoid or minimize wildlife impacts. 

5. Wood cutting permits will be restricted to 5 

cords per year, but may be less depending on 

the size of the site.

6. Commercial equipment must be cleaned prior 

to entering the conservation easement.

7. All wood harvest activities must comply with 

habitat objectives as identified in the easement management plan.

Justification:

The removal of dead trees for firewood reduces 

hazardous fuel buildup and the severity of potential 

wildfires. Timber removal creates openings in the 

forest canopy, increases light penetration, and stimulates restocking of desired tree species, browse 

production, and herbaceous growth. The type and 

extent of wood harvest and required stipulations are 

tailored to meet specific management objectives and 

minimal wildlife impacts. Direct impacts are short 

term and largely avoided by timing the activity so 

that it does not disrupt wildlife production.

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access for 

wood removal purposes are potentially significant, 

but also easily avoided. Access to and from these 

areas will be carefully controlled to avoid impacts 

such as rutting and increased sedimentation in area 

wetlands due to run-off. If existing roads or trails 

are not present, access can be restricted to designated access routes that minimize soil and vegetation damage or to periods of frozen ground to 

protect underlying cultural resources. 
Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Wood removal for purposes of ecological restoration, controlling disease, elimination of fire hazards, 

and cooperating with adjacent land use needs contributes to management objectives and promotes 

easement owner cooperation. Individuals participating in wood harvest activities will operate under a 

Special Use Permit or contract that will possess 

stipulations ensuring resource protection, minimization of impacts to wildlife, and achievement of management objectives. 

This use is a valuable habitat management activity and does not materially interfere with or detract 

from the purpose of FmHA conservation easements 

or the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature: 

Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting) 

Sept. 7, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge:

Archeological Investigations................................................................................................... 199

Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest........................................................................................ 200

Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking...................................................................................... 201

Research .................................................................................................................................... 202

Trapping of Furbearers........................................................................................................... 203

Tamarac Wetland Management District:

Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife..................................................................... 204

Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds.......................... 205

Prescribed Grazing................................................................................................................... 206

Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-Way Projects and Full Restoration........... 207

Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest............................................................................................... 208

Grassland Seeding and Weed Control................................................................................... 209

Haying/Mowing ........................................................................................................................ 210
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

Refuge Appropriate Refuge Uses 

The Service’s Appropriate Use policy describes 

the initial decision process a refuge manager follows 

when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must 

first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking 

a compatibility review of the use and outlining the 

stipulations of the use. 

This policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which describes 

when refuge managers should deny a proposed use 

without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the 

use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. By screening out proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids 

unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the 

process for finding the appropriateness of a use, we 

strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and 

compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use.

Background for this policy as it applies to Muscatatuck NWR is found in the following statutory 

authorities:

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit 

certain harmful activities. The Administration Act 

does not authorize any particular use, but rather 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

uses only when they are compatible. The Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and 

includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of 

public uses on the Refuge System.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k). 

This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an “appropriate incidental or 

secondary use.” 

This policy does NOT apply to:

Situations Where Reserved Rights or Legal 

Mandates Provide We Must Allow Certain Uses.

Refuge Management Activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or 

a Refuge System-authorized agent are designed to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

These activities are used to fulfill a refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission, and are 

based on sound professional judgment. 

Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) are 

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge 

manager must still determine if these uses are compatible.

Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.

States have regulations concerning take of wildlife 

that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We 

consider take of wildlife under such regulations 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager must 

determine if the activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate:

 It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a 

refuge as identified in the Improvement Act.

 It contributes to fulfilling the refuge 

purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or 

goals or objectives described in a refuge 

management plan approved after the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife 

under state regulations.

The refuge manager has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found that it is 

appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to 

evaluate appropriateness can be found on each of 

the appropriate use forms included in this appendix. 

Also included under this condition are ‘specialized 

uses,’ or uses that require specific authorization 

from the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or other permit document. These uses do not include uses 

already granted by a prior existing right. We make 

appropriateness findings for specialized uses on a 

case-by-case basis. 
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Archeological Investigations

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before 

the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

201

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

203

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Trapping of Furbearers

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

204

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

205

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

206

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Prescribed Grazing

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

207

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-Way Projects and Full Restoration

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

208

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

209

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Grassland Seeding and Weed Control

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

210

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Use: Haying/Mowing

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle 

Date: May 4, 2010 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: November 3, 2010 

A compatibility determination is required before the 

use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Appendix J: List of Preparers

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

211

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff: 

 Barbara Boyle, Refuge Manager

 Todd Luke, Deputy Refuge Manager

 Kelly Blackledge, Park Ranger

 Wayne Brininger, Wildlife biologist

 Lowell Deede, Wildlife biologist

Regional Office Staff:

 Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner, Region 3, USFWS

 Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS, Region 3, USFWS

 Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Region 3, USFWS