U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment

Rice Lake

National Wildlife Refuge

Mille Lacs

National Wildlife Refuge

Rice Lake

National Wildlife Refuge

Mille Lacs

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions;

set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and,

identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations

and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and

maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 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.

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people.

Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rice Lake and

Mille Lacs

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval

Walt Ford

Refuge Manager

Concur:

Date

Jame . each

~Area3.~

Nita M. fuller rn

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System

//-,:9 -07

Date

/1· SO· 2tJ~ 1

Date

Appr Charles M. Wooley Wt-W~cting Regional Director

yn Thorson Date

Regional Director

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 2

Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ..................................................................................... 2

 The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................ 4

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................ 4

Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................................... 4

Compatibility Policy .............................................................................................................................. 5

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................................... 5

Other Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Establishment and Purposes of the Refuges ............................................................................................... 5

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 5

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................... 6

Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 6

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................... 6

Refuge Goals ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 8

Habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Wildlife-dependent Recreation ..................................................................................................... 8

Cultural Values .............................................................................................................................. 8

Administration and Operations ..................................................................................................... 8

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................................... 8

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 9

Meetings and Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 9

Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Rice Lake NWR ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Management of Rice Lake ............................................................................................................ 9
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Management of Former Crop Field and Hay Field Areas ............................................................ 10

Management of Forests .............................................................................................................. 10

Wilderness Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 10

Indian Community Activities ....................................................................................................... 10

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 10

Wildlife-dependent Recreation ................................................................................................... 11

Sandstone Unit ................................................................................................................................... 11

Operation ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Mille Lacs NWR .................................................................................................................................. 11

Common Tern Management ........................................................................................................ 11

Preparation of the CCP ............................................................................................................................... 11

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

Area Description ........................................................................................................................................ 12

Ecological Context .............................................................................................................................. 12

Socioeconomic Context ...................................................................................................................... 12

Historical Context ............................................................................................................................... 15

Pre-Historical .............................................................................................................................. 15

Historical ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Associated Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 16

Bird Conservation Initiatives .............................................................................................................. 16

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

Climate ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Water and Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 17

Refuge Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Plant Communities .............................................................................................................................. 20

Forest ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Bog ............................................................................................................................................... 20

Grassland ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Aquatic ........................................................................................................................................ 23

Fish and Wildlife Communities .......................................................................................................... 24

Birds ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Mammals ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................................................ 24

Fish .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Mussels and Clams ..................................................................................................................... 24

Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................... 25

Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 25

Wildlife Species of Concern ........................................................................................................ 25

Threats to Resources ................................................................................................................................. 25
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................. 25

Rice Lake NWR ............................................................................................................................ 25

Mille Lacs NWR .......................................................................................................................... 25

Contaminants ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Climate Change Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 29

Observed Climate Trends ................................................................................................................... 30

Scenarios of Future Climate ............................................................................................................... 30

Midwest Key Issues ........................................................................................................................... 30

Reduction in Lake and River Levels ............................................................................................. 30

Agricultural Shifts ....................................................................................................................... 30

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ..................................................................... 31

Administrative Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 31

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................. 31

Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................................... 33

Current Management ................................................................................................................................. 33

Habitat Management ......................................................................................................................... 33

Wetland Management ................................................................................................................ 33

Bog Management ........................................................................................................................ 34

Forest Management .................................................................................................................... 34

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 34

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................... 34

Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................................... 34

Hunting ........................................................................................................................................ 35

Fishing ......................................................................................................................................... 35

Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography .............................................................. 35

Environmental Education ............................................................................................................. 35

Harvesting Wild Rice ................................................................................................................... 35

Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species Management ........................................................................... 35

Animal Species ............................................................................................................................ 35

Plant Species ............................................................................................................................... 36

Archaeological and Cultural Values ................................................................................................... 36

Special Management Areas ...................................................................................................................... 37

Research Natural Area ....................................................................................................................... 37

Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................. 37

Conservation Easements .................................................................................................................... 39

Private Lands ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Current Staff and Budget ........................................................................................................................... 39

Staff .................................................................................................................................................... 39

Budget ................................................................................................................................................. 39

Volunteers .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Partnerships ............................................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 4: Refuge Management ................................................................................................................. 41

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 41

Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 41

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................... 41

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................................... 56

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................. 58

New and Existing Projects ......................................................................................................................... 58

Future Staffing Requirements .................................................................................................................... 60

Partnership Opportunities .......................................................................................................................... 60

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................................. 60

Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 61

Archeological and Cultural Values ..................................................................................................... 61

Plan Review and Revision .......................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ...................................................................................... 63

Appendix B: Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 67

Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern .............................................................................................. 71

Appendix D: Species Lists ......................................................................................................................... 79

Appendix E: Rice Lake NWR Biological Surveys ............................................................................... 127

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................... 131

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements ............................................................................................... 133

Appendix H: Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 143

Appendix I: Distribution List .................................................................................................................. 147

Appendix J: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................. 151

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment .................................................... 155
List of Figures

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Figure 1: Location of Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lac NWR ............................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Conservation Lands Near Rice Lake NWR ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Location of Mille Lacs NWR ............................................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Historic Vegetation, Rice Lake NWR .............................................................................................. 13

Figure 5: Historical Vegetation, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR ............................................................. 14

Figure 6: Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Units, Rice Lake NWR ..................... 18

Figure 7: Lake Mille Lacs Water Levels, 1995-2005 ..................................................................................... 19

Figure 8: Current Landcover, Rice Lake NWR ................................................................................................ 21

Figure 9: Current Landcover, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR ................................................................. 22

Figure 10: Facilities, Rice Lake NWR ............................................................................................................... 32

Figure 11: Special Management Areas, Rice Lake NWR ................................................................................ 37

Figure 12: Conservation Easement Areas, Rice Lake NWR ............................................................................ 38

Figure 13: Staffing Chart, Rice Lake NWR ...................................................................................................... 40

Figure 14: Future Desired Landcover, Rice Lake NWR .................................................................................... 42

Figure 15: Future Desired Landcover, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR ...................................................... 48

Figure 16: Current and Future Visitor Services Facilities, Rice Lake NWR ..................................................... 51

Figure 17: Rice Lake NWR Hunt Units ............................................................................................................. 53

Figure 18: Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Hunt Units ............................................................................... 54
List of Tables

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

Table 1: Wildlife Habitat and Species Relationship for Species of Management 

Concern, Rice Lake NWR (including the Sandstone Unit) and Mille Lacs NWR ............................... 26

Table 2: Trapping Statistics, Rice Lake NWR .................................................................................................. 36

Table 3: 5-Year Annual Operating and Maintenance Funding ......................................................................... 40

Table 4: Existing Staff and Proposal Additional Staff, Rice Lake NWR .......................................................... 60

Table 5: Step-down Management Plans, Rice Lake NWR ............................................................................... 61
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

This document is a comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) for Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) and Mille Lacs NWR in east-central Minnesota. Both refuges are administered by the staff at 

Rice Lake NWR. Because the administration of the 

refuges draws from the same resources, it makes 

sense to consider their management together. 

Mille Lacs NWR is the smallest refuge in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes 

more than 545 refuges. The 0.57-acre Refuge consists of two islands, Hennepin and Spirit, in Mille 

Lacs Lake, and is about 30 air miles southwest of 

the Rice Lake NWR office (Figure 1). The islands 

are covered with jumbled rock, boulders, and 

gravel. Hennepin Island is managed as a nesting 

colony for the State-listed threatened Common 

Tern. Spirit Island is used by other colonial nesting 

species including Ring-billed Gulls, Herring Gulls, 

and Double-crested Cormorants. 

The 20,253-acre Rice Lake NWR is a mosaic of 

lakes, marshes, forests, and grasslands that provide 

a variety of habitats for migrant and resident wildlife. Abundant natural foods, particularly wild rice, 

have attracted wildlife to the area for centuries. The 

Refuge is especially noted for its fall concentrations 

of Ring-necked Ducks, which often number over 

150,000 birds. Other important migrants include 

Mallards, Wood Ducks, Canvasback, Canada Geese, 

and Woodcock. White-tailed deer, black bear, river 

otter, beaver, Sandhill Cranes, Bald Eagles, Ruffed 

and Sharptail Grouse inhabit the Refuge. Songbirds, raptors, and nearly all other species associated with the bogs and forests of northern 

Minnesota, including gray wolves and an occasional 

moose, are also found on the Refuge.

Rice Lake NWR includes the 2,045-acre parcel 

known as the Sandstone Unit (Unit), located 

approximately 40 miles southeast of the main part of 

the Refuge near the town of Sandstone, Minnesota. 

The majority of the Unit is upland forest with 

smaller components of grassland, forested wetland, 

shallow marshes, bogs, and riverine wetlands. The 

State-designated Wild and Scenic Kettle River 

traverses the west side of the Unit, creating spectacular bluffs and rock outcroppings. The State and 

Aitkin County manage significant lands in the vicinity of Rice Lake NWR. Figure 2 illustrates these 

conservation lands that have both wildlife and recreational value. 

In the following sections we present our organizational, legal, and policy background. Then, we 

describe the establishment of the Refuge, its history, purpose, vision, and goals. In Chapter 2 we 

describe the process we used in planning. Chapter 3 

describes the Refuges and our current management. In Chapter 4 we describe how we intend to 

manage for the next 15 years. In Chapter 5 we 

Rice Lake at Rice Lake NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

describe how we expect to accomplish our plan in 

terms of projects, staff, and more detailed planning. 

We use the appendices to present detailed information not included in our narrative. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), the primary federal 

agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats. The Service 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 such as wetlands. The 

Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The mission of the Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people.

Figure 1: Location of Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lac NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

Figure 2: Conservation Lands Near Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

 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 more than 545 refuges covering more than 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, 

and insects. As a result of international treaties for 

migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929, many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways, from their northern nesting grounds to their 

southern wintering areas. Refuges also play a vital 

role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is Aransas National 

Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter 

habitat for the Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most 

endangered predators.

Refuges also provide unique wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities for visitors. When public 

uses are deemed compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places where people can 

enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and environmental 

interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, 

wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental 

education programs. Nationwide, approximately 

39.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges 

in 2003. 

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 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. 

Revised goals for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System were adopted on July 26, 2006, and incorporated into Part 601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (601 FW 1). The goals are:

# 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 

o b se r v a t i o n a n d p h o t o g r a ph y, a n d 

environmental education and interpretation). 

# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Legal and Policy Guidance

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 CCPs is one of those mandates. The Act 

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. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires the 

Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health and to identify the 

archeological and cultural values of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. The Act deals with compatibility of uses on refuges and directs the Secretary 

of Interior to issue regulations for compatibility 

determinations. The Act also directs that compatible 

wildlife-dependent uses should be facilitated. Since 

passage of the Act, the Service has adopted policies 

that implement direction of the Act.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Compatibility Policy

Service policy says that no uses for which the 

Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on 

a unit of the Refuge System unless it is determined 

to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in 

the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of 

like uses, that is signed by the manager and the 

Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service 

region. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health Policy

The Service is directed in the Refuge Improvement Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System are maintained for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans...” The biological integrity policy helps define and clarify this 

directive by providing guidance on what conditions 

constitute biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels; guidelines for determining how and when 

it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines in dealing with external threats to biological 

integrity, diversity and health.

Other Guidance

In addition to the Refuges’ establishing executive 

orders, authorizing legislation, and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

several Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern administration of the Refuge. Appendix C contains a partial list of the legal mandates 

that guided the preparation of this plan and those 

that pertain to Refuge management activities.

Establishment and Purposes of 

the Refuges

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Conservationists were concerned about low duck 

populations during the Dust Bowl years of the 

1930s. One strategy to help the populations was to 

provide for and protect ducks on their southern 

migration. Rice Lake historically, and even during 

the drought years, had large populations of migrating waterfowl. Thus, the area was identified as one 

of the first to be purchased in an attempt to stem 

the decline of waterfowl populations.

Franklin D. Roosevelt established Rice Lake 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge by Executive Order in 

1935 “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Following initial land 

purchases, using NIR Wildlife Refuges Funds (also 

known as the $6 Million Fund) and Duck Stamp 

Funds, early development of the Refuge was accomplished using Civilian Conservation Corps labor 

(Camp BS-3, Company 2705). A Presidential proclamation changed the name of the Refuge to Rice 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1940.

The Sandstone Unit (Unit) was initially acquired 

by the United States in 1932 for the purpose of 

establishing a federal prison. The Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Prisons, administered the Sandstone Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) on a 

portion of the original 2,885-acre acquisition from 

1939 to 1949 and again from 1959 until the present. 

In 1969, the Department of Justice declared 2,405 

acres of the FCI surplus to their needs. On February 18, 1970, 2,240 acres were transferred to the 

Department of Interior for inclusion within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. In April 1986, the 

Service transferred 195 acres of the Unit to the City 

of Sandstone as part of a three-way exchange 

between the City of Sandstone, the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Total area for the Unit is 

currently 2,045 acres.

Coyote. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

Lands for Rice Lake NWR were acquired under 

the original Executive Order, The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, the Refuge Recreation Act, and 

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife and Other Purposes. The 

authority of An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife and Other Purposes 

was used to transfer the Sandstone Unit from the 

Department of Justice to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service policy states that when refuge land is 

acquired it takes on the purpose of its acquisition 

authority plus the purposes outlined in the authorities used to acquire previous land for the same refuge. The Refuge's purposes thus include:

# “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife” (Executive Order 

7221).

# “an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds” 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

# “(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreational development, (2) the protection of 

natural resources, (3) the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened species” 

(Refuge Recreation Act).

# “carrying out the national migratory bird 

management program” (An Act Authorizing the 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, 

or Other Purposes).

# “... for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. § 

742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may 

be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude 

...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act 

of 1956).

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge

The two islands that make up Mille Lacs NWR 

were given national designation in separate orders. 

Woodrow Wilson set aside Spirit Island with Executive Order 2199 on May 14, 1915, as Mille Lacs Reservation. On October 13, 1920, Wilson enlarged the 

reservation by the addition of Hennepin Island 

under Executive Order 3340. The two islands were 

to constitute a “preserve and breeding ground for 

native birds” – its purpose. In the very same 1940 

proclamation that renamed Rice Lake Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge as Rice Lake NWR, Mille Lacs 

Reservation was changed to Mille Lacs National 

Wildlife Refuge, located within the boundaries of 

Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (Figure 3).

Refuge Vision

The vision for the Refuge provides a simple statement of the desired future condition of the Refuge. 

From the vision flow more specific goals that lead to 

even more detailed and measurable objectives. We 

considered the purposes of the Refuges and the mission of the System as we envisioned what Rice Lake 

NWR could offer future generations of wildlife and 

people. Our visions for the refuges are:

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Rice Lake NWR will be an area treasured by 

neighbors and visitors alike for its bountiful wild 

rice, clean water, well-managed forests, abundant 

wildlife and wildlife recreational opportunities. A 

towering canopy of red and white pine will intermingle with aspen stands, majestic old growth 

oak forests, and tamarack-spruce bogs. This 

mosaic of northern forest types will support a 

great diversity of neotropical migrants, mammals 

and unique plant species. The bogs will be free of 

invasive brush species and home to countless 

marshbirds, amphibians and species not commonly seen. Rice Lake will be the prominent natural wild rice producing lake in the state. In the 

fall, people will be captivated by the sight of rice 

heads swaying in the wind as far as the eye can 

see and the sounds of hundreds-of-thousands of 

ducks, geese and swans feasting on the bounty. 

American Indians will hand-harvest the rice from 

their canoes, passing on a tradition to the next 

generation. Visitors will understand the importance of the Refuge, not only for the wildlife but 

for its history. They will feel welcome, oriented 

and relish the serenity at hand. 

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge

Mille Lacs NWR will be a cornerstone in maintaining the Common Tern population in the Great 

Lakes Region. Caspian Terns, Ruddy Turnstones, Sanderlings, Dunlin, Least Sandpipers, 

and Semipalmated Sandpipers, will continue to 

use this small but important Refuge for resting 

and feeding during their lengthy migration. Hennepin Island will be managed in a manner that 

demonstrates scientifically proven techniques in 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Figure 3: Location of Mille Lacs NWR 1

1.Source: Department of Natural Resources, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, 2007.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Common Tern production while Spirit Island will 

be managed in a way that balances the needs of 

colonial nesting birds. Management will be in 

cooperation with the Mille Lacs Band and Minnesota DNR.

Refuge Goals

Considering the purposes of the refuges and our 

vision for the future, we have established the following goals for Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR.

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat

The Refuge will contain a diversity of habitats 

typical of historical north-central Minnesota.

Wildlife

Fish and migrating and resident wildlife populations on the Refuge will be naturally diverse, 

healthy, and self sustaining.

Wildlife-dependent Recreation

Visitors will enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation 

and they, along with residents of the local community, will appreciate the value and need for fish and 

wildlife conservation.

Cultural Values

The American Indian community and the Refuge 

will preserve American Indian cultural values 

through communication, consultation, and cooperation.

Administration and Operations

Funding, staffing, facilities, and public support 

will be sufficient to accomplish the purposes, vision, 

goals, and objectives of the Refuge.

Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge

Wildlife

An optimum nesting population of Common 

Terns will exist on Hennepin Island and we will 

know the productivity and chronology of species 

using Spirit Island.

Purpose of the Plan

This CCP describes the management direction 

for Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR for the 

next 15 years. The refuge manager and staff will use 

the plan as a reference document when developing 

work plans and making management decisions. The 

plan provides guidance and rationale for our management direction.

The plan enhances the management of the Refuges by:

# Providing a clear statement of desired 

conditions.

# Ensuring management is consistent with laws, 

policies, and plans.

# Ensuring consideration of preservation of 

historic properties is part of Refuge 

management and planning.

# Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the 

general public an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the 

Refuges.

# Establishing continuity in Refuge management.

# Providing a sound basis for budget requests.

Sunflowers. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Meetings and Involvement

The planning process for this CCP began in 

December 2004. Initially, members of the regional 

planning staff and Rice Lake NWR staff identified a 

list of issues and concerns that were associated with 

the management of the Refuge. These preliminary 

issues and concerns were based on staff knowledge 

of the area and contacts with citizens in the community. Refuge staff and Service planners then asked 

Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government 

units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts 

in three open houses.

In April 2005, the public was invited to open 

houses conducted at the Refuge Visitor Center, the 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe District 2 East Lake 

Community Center, which is located one-quarter 

mile north of the Refuge Headquarters, and at the 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Tribal Government Center in Onamia. People were invited through articles 

in the local papers and individual letters to the 

members of the East Lake Community. Seventeen 

people attended the open house at the Visitor Center. Three people attended in Onamia, and seven 

people came to the East Lake Community Center. 

People were asked to provide written comments 

within 30 days. Twenty-six written comments were 

received during the comment period.

Following the public comment period, an additional meeting was held in the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public comments 

and identify concerns from subject specialists.

Issues

Issues play an important role in planning. Issues 

focus the planning effort on the most important topics and provide a base for considering alternative 

approaches to management and evaluating the consequences of managing under these alternative 

approaches. The issues and concerns expressed during the first phase of planning have been organized 

under the following headings.

Rice Lake NWR

Management of Rice Lake

Rice Lake is an important area for migrating 

waterfowl in the fall. Ojibwe Indians have a long tradition of harvesting rice on the lake and will continue harvesting wild rice into the future, as is 

established by way of an official agreement. There is 

less rice than in the past and pickerelweed beds are 

expanding. Since the water control structure was 

Entrance Sign, Rice Lake NWR. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

put on the lake, water levels do not vary as much as 

in the past. We do not have a good understanding of 

cause and effect of rice management in the lake.

Management of Former Crop Field and Hay Field 

Areas

There are numerous old field areas on the Refuge 

that in general are remnants of the pre-refuge farming era. These grassland/brushland areas have been 

maintained by past management practices of grazing and haying and currently are maintained 

through prescribed burning. Historically these 

areas were forested. The largest of these areas is 

referred to as the old crop fields, located on the 

southwest end of the Wildlife Drive. The crop fields 

were cleared and planted to legumes and oats 

between 1958 and 1962 as part of the Canada Goose 

reintroduction program. This area was converted to 

grassland and maintained with haying in the late 

1990s through 2002. This grassland area has been 

maintained with prescribed burning since 2003. 

Grasslands, and grassland-dependent birds, are 

greatly diminished within their historic range. However, the Refuge grassland/brushland areas are only 

minimally successful for high priority breeding 

grassland birds due to their small acreages and negative edge effects (mammalian predators prefer to 

hunt along the edges and increased nest parasitism 

by brown-headed cowbirds). Maintaining the fields 

as open grassland sites provides wildlife viewing 

opportunities popular with visitors. Converting all 

of the old fields to forest would contribute to a large 

block of unfragmented forest and benefit high priority forest bird species.

Management of Forests

The Refuge lands were forest historically. A large 

block of diverse forest will benefit bird species that 

are a high priority for the Service. However, details 

of how to manage forest to meet biological goals 

have not been specified.

Wilderness Recommendation

In 1973, a 1,400-acre unit and the 6.27-acre island 

in Rice Lake were recommended for further consideration by the Secretary of Interior for Wilderness 

designation. The recommended areas have been 

managed as de facto wilderness. The Service and 

the Department have taken no action on the recommendation. The proposed Wilderness does not meet 

minimum wilderness standards for size (at least 

5,000 acres of land or of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition). The Wilderness recommendation 

precludes some management activities.

Indian Community Activities

Ojibwe Indians have a long history of use on the 

land and harvesting wild rice is important to the 

Indian community. An easement permits an Indian 

cemetery on the Refuge. Indian ceremonies are held 

on the Refuge under special use permit. Some members of the local Indian community desire more 

facilities and ceremonial opportunities and agreements in perpetuity. Some members also desire 

unrestricted/unlicensed use of Refuge resources. 

There are long-term concerns about the cultural 

impacts caused by Refuge buildings on Indian Point.

Cultural Resources

The Refuge includes pre-historic and historic 

resources of recognized importance. One view is 

that interpreting these resources will bring understanding, appreciation, and improved protection of 

them. Another view is that interpreting resources 

will make them more broadly known and vulnerable 

to destruction. In addition, some people would like 

the recent Indian history of the area interpreted. As 

a pre-eminent conservation agency, the Service has 

Fox Sparrow. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

a responsibility for the protection of the many 

known and unknown cultural resources located on 

Refuge lands. Members of the Ojibwe Tribe have 

requested that the Service remove all buildings 

from Indian Point, which includes two residences 

and all of the Refuge maintenance facilities. Indian 

Point contains the most significant cultural 

resources known to occur on the Refuge.

Wildlife-dependent Recreation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs refuges to facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation. There may be the 

opportunity to increase hunting opportunities, 

although the demand has not been great. Visitors 

want to see more wildlife on the Refuge and want 

more wildlife observation opportunities. The public 

has requested educational programs both on and off 

the Refuge, and they would like staff available on 

weekends, or at least Saturdays. There is an unrealized potential in interpretation and environmental 

education. There is no law enforcement presence on 

Rice Lake NWR, which raises a concern for visitor 

safety. The support for wildlife-dependent recreation is presently maximized under current staff 

and budget.

Sandstone Unit

Operation

Monitoring activities on the Unit are difficult 

because of its distance from the office. Access within 

the Unit is difficult because of damage to roads and 

bisection of the Unit by the Kettle River. Habitat 

management and law enforcement on the Unit are 

below Service standards.

Mille Lacs NWR

Common Tern Management

The emphasis of management on Hennepin 

Island is for the nesting colony of Common Terns, a 

State-listed threatened species. The nesting substrate of gravel is not reliably present because of 

changing water levels and erosion by waves. Gulls 

compete for nesting space on the island and reduce 

tern nesting success. For that reason, a gull deterrent program that was first implemented in 1993 is 

in place and includes destruction of gull eggs and 

placement of an aboveground string grid over the 

southern one-third of the island to prevent gulls 

from landing/nesting. This strategy has had positive 

results.

Preparation of the CCP

The CCP for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs 

was prepared by a team consisting of Refuge and 

Regional Office staff. The CCP was published in two 

phases and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft Environmental Assessment, published as Appendix A in the 

Draft CCP, presented two alternatives for future 

management and identified a preferred alternative. 

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review and comment on June 25, 2007. A Draft 

CCP/EA or a summary of the document was sent to 

more than 250 individuals, organizations, and local, 

state, and federal agencies and elected officials. An 

open house was held on July 10, 2007, at the Rice 

Lake NWR Headquarters following release of the 

draft document. Five people attended the open 

house. We received a total of 15 comment letters and 

e-mails during the 30-day review period. Appendix 

K of the CCP summarizes these comments and our 

responses.

The preferred alternative was selected and has 

become the basis of the Final CCP, which will guide 

management over the next 15 years. It will guide 

the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and it will 

underpin the annual budgeting process through 

submissions to the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Maintenance Management System 

(MMS). Most importantly, the CCP lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and 

people at Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges that will direct day-to-day decisionmaking and actions.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Area Description

Ecological Context

Glaciers formed the major landscape features 

that we see today on the Refuges. Those features 

and climate are dominant determinants of the past 

vegetation of the area. In order to generalize and 

understand the fundamental aspects of the landscape, scientists have classified areas with similar 

geological, soil and climatic characteristics. In the 

Ecological Land Classification for Minnesota, the 

northwestern portion of Rice Lake NWR lies in the 

Tamarack Lowlands subsection, which is generally 

characterized by rolling to flat lake plains, beach 

ridges and ground moraines. The potential vegetation for this area is black spruce bog, white cedartamarack swamp, and aspen-birch forest. The rest 

of Rice Lake NWR lies in the St. Louis Moraines 

subsection, characterized by glacial moraines, rolling hills and small short rivers and large lakes. The 

potential vegetation for the area is aspen-birch forest, and Northern hardwood forest. Mille Lacs 

NWR and the Sandstone Unit lie in the Mille Lacs 

Uplands subsection, which is generally characterized by an ice-molded landscape with irregular 

ground moraines. The potential vegetation for the 

area is white pine-oak forest, white pine-red pine 

forest, and cedar-tamarack swamp.

Francis Marschner (1882-1966) mapped the presettlement vegetation of Minnesota based on Public 

Land Survey notes and landscape patterns. His 

maps provide a more detailed approximation of the 

vegetation in the area of Rice Lake NWR prior to 

European settlement. The reader should use caution in interpreting too much detail into the historic 

vegetation maps because of the scale and base data 

that Marschner used. Marschner’s interpretation 

for the area that is now Rice Lake NWR included 

the following major habitat categories: aspen-birch, 

big woods, conifer bogs and swamps, lake, white and 

red pine and prairie. Maps showing the historic vegetation of Rice Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit 

as interpreted from Marshner’s map are displayed 

in Figure 4 and Figure 5. 

Socioeconomic Context

The population of Aitkin County in 2000 was 

15,301 people. The Minnesota state demographer 

projects that the county population will grow to 

20,370 in 2015 and 22,160 in 2020. In 2000, approximately 2,800 residents were of school age (5 to 19 

years). The estimate for school age residents for 

2020 is about 3,300. The county is sparsely populated with 8.4 persons per square mile. The average 

for Minnesota is 61.8 persons per square mile. The 

ethnic mix for the county’s population is 96.4 percent white, 0.2 percent black or African American, 

2.3 percent American Indian, 0.6 percent Hispanic 

or Latino origin, and 0.2 percent Asian. The percent 

of persons age 5 years or older who speak a lanTwin Lakes, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Figure 4: Historic Vegetation, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Figure 5: Historical Vegetation, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

guage other than English in their home is 3.5 percent. Past population growth is attributed to the 

creation of new manufacturing jobs and immigration of retirees. 

As reported in the 2000 County Business Patterns, Aitkin County had 3,192 employees. The largest employment sectors for the county were health 

care and social assistance (582), retail trade (569), 

accommodation and food services (511), manufacturing (479), construction (226), and wholesale trade 

(192).

“Northeastern Minnesota has traditionally 

lagged behind the state in terms of income and 

Aitkin County historically has the lowest 

income level within the region. Despite diversification of the regional and local economy this 

situation remains unchanged.” (Aitkin County 

Land Management Plan). 

Personal income per capita in 2000 was $20,242 

for the county and $31,935 for the state. The median 

household income was $31,139 for the county and 

$47,111 for the state. The average earnings per job 

was $18,375 for the county and $34,836 for the state. 

The percent of persons below poverty in 1999 was 

11.6 percent for the county and 7.9 percent for the 

state.

Compared to the state, the residents of Aitkin 

County have less formal education. The percent of 

persons age 25 or greater who are high school graduates is 80.4 percent for the county and 87.9 percent 

for the state. The percent of persons age 25 or 

greater with a bachelor’s degree or higher is 11.3 

percent for the county and 27.4 percent for the 

state.

“Tourism is a growing sector of the local economy, and is reflected by the number of second 

homes located on Big Sandy and northern Mille 

Lacs Lakes. Snowmobiling and hunting opportunities also draw significant numbers of tourist 

dollars to the county. Tourism and population 

growth has implications for the Aitkin County 

land base, particularly for public lands.” “The 

in-migration of retirees, along with increasing 

numbers of second home developments, are 

leading to forestland fragmentation on private 

lands.” (SmartWood, 2004). 

Historical Context

Pre-Historical 

The earliest evidence of inhabitation by humans 

is dated to the Woodland Tradition (ca. 500 B.C. – 

A.D. 1650), which is characterized by the initial 

appearance of ceramic vessels and the construction 

of earthen mounds primarily by the Dakota (Sioux) 

people. In 1897, Jacob Brower and Edward Bromley 

first mapped the mounds present on what is now the 

Rice Lake NWR and labeled it the “Bromley Lake 

Mounds” (Brower 1910). Brower located and 

mapped 186 mounds in the area extending from the 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Camp east to 

the Indian Point. It is estimated that 114 (61 percent) of those mounds have been destroyed, while 72 

(39 percent) remain intact or partially intact. 

(Johnson, 1990). A subset of the original “Bromley 

Lake Mounds,” presently known as the Mandy 

Lake Mound Group, contains burial mounds in three 

forms: 27 are linear, 22 are conical, and six are oval. 

The distribution or clustering of these varied forms 

is not random and it is probable that the total group 

represents mound construction by different socio/

cultural groups over a considerable period of time. 

(Johnson 1990). The Mandy Lake Group is virtually 

intact and, when combined with the Indian Point 

mound group, they form one of the largest extant 

groups of mounds remaining in Minnesota, and certainly contain the largest number of linear mounds 

in one area. (Johnson 1990). It is believed that these 

people were nomadic and visited Rice Lake to collect maple syrup and harvest wild rice. 

Historical

At the time of Brower and Bromley’s visit in 

1897, Ojibwe (Chippewa) Indians were present on 

the landscape. An Ojibwe village and the East Lake 

Cemetery were located on Indian Point. Sam Yankee and John Aubit (Aubid) were the first Ojibwe to 

have a warranty of deed dated 1904 on the Indian 

Bobcat, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Point. By the 1920s, a village consisting of 20-25 

Ojibwe families developed around Rice Lake (Ollendorf, 2000). These families lived year-round on the 

land, harvesting rice and maple syrup, planting gardens and raising some livestock. In the fall, Ojibwe 

from around the region would travel by foot and 

horse to gather on the shores of Rice Lake and set 

up temporary ricing camps. Rice Lake has the distinction of having had one of the last existing ricing 

camps in the state, if not in the whole wild rice belt. 

The convenience of the automobile and building of 

road accesses to chief ricing waters made it unnecessary to camp overnight at ricing sites. Indians at 

both Rice Lake and Kettle Lake cited the automobile as a cause for the disappearance of camps (Jarvenpa, 1971). Today, members of the Ojibwe people 

harvest rice in accordance with the Collier Agreement (Appendix G) signed in 1935. Each spring a no 

fee Special Use Permit (SUP) is issued that allows 

them to collect maple syrup. The SUP allows them 

to collect syrup in a limited manner and location as a 

means to provide traditional education/instruction 

to Ojibwe youth. They also use the Indian cemetery 

and hold drumming ceremonies on a sacred area of 

the Indian Point. No other tribal activities are regularly conducted as the Refuge lies within the Treaty 

of 1855, which does not reserve the right to hunt, 

fish or gather on the lands or waters that were 

ceded. 

Besides the fur trade, the first large European 

influence on the landscape came with the logging 

industry, which was present around Rice Lake from 

the 1850s until 1911. Timber (initially white pine) 

was cut from around Rice Lake in the winter and 

the logs were skidded to the lake, tied into rafts and 

floated to the Mississippi River, 20 miles to the west, 

upon ice-out. In 1897, the American Grass and 

Twine Company purchased a block of land that is 

now the portion of Refuge north of the Rice River. 

They later became known as the Crex Carpet Company and harvested the marsh grass to manufacture 

carpets until they declared bankruptcy in 1936. In 

1900, Davidson and McRae purchased several thousand acres around Rice Lake that they used for 

ranching until 1917. They were the first to attempt 

to drain Rice Lake with a hand-dug ditch, which 

failed to function. They then sold their interests to 

the St. Croix Land and Lumber Company of Stillwater, Minnesota, which built a sawmill on “Tom’s 

Island,” located near the junction of the Wildlife 

Drive and the South Trail (Johnson, 1945). 

In 1910, a branch of the Soo Line Railroad known 

as the Cuyuna and Iron Range was completed and 

forms much of what is now the Wildlife Drive. The 

branch was abandoned in the 1920s. The following 

years were a mixture of failed farming attempts, 

market hunting and “guided” duck hunts on the 

lake. The drought years of the early 1930s and the 

Great Depression left most of the inhabitants of the 

area without income and unable to pay their taxes. 

Much land went into tax-forfeiture and in 1935 was 

purchased by the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey 

to create a migratory waterfowl refuge. 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Camp BS-3, 

Company 2705, a 23-building camp, was erected on 

the Refuge and was active from 1939 until 1941. 

While no buildings remain, the site is clearly 

marked and identified with an onsite interpretative 

kiosk and as site number 10 in the Refuge’s auto 

tour brochure. The mission of Company 2705 was 

the initial development of this land as a federal 

migratory waterfowl refuge. One of the first 

projects was to remove rail and ties from the old 

railroad grade that is now the main refuge road to 

Highway 65.

Associated Plans and 

Initiatives

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 the Refuge. 

Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved 

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

regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented 

perspective. Several transnational migratory bird 

conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide 

the planning and implementation process. The 

regional plans relevant to Rice Lake and Mille Lacs 

NWRs 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.

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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

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 Nongame Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on 

the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores. Recently, the Minnesota Bird 

Conservation Initiative (MBCI) has been established by federal and state agencies and statewide 

conservation organizations. The MBCI will integrate all bird conservation plans and step them 

down to a local level. This will allow Rice Lake and 

Mille Lacs NWRs to better refine population and 

habitat objectives and determine the role it should 

play in regional bird conservation.

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy

In 2005, Minnesota completed the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), a strategic 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.

The organizational units of the CWCS are 25 ecological subsections within Minnesota. Rice Lake and 

Mille Lacs NWRs occur within the Tamarack Lowlands, St. Louis Moraines, and Mille Lacs Uplands 

subsections. (Figure 6) The information and strategies of the CWCS were used as a means to assist 

with development of Refuge objectives in the CCP. 

The townships that enclose Rice Lake NWR have 

been identified as containing the highest abundance 

of species of greatest conservation need within the 

St. Louis Moraines and Tamarack Lowlands subsections, which suggests that the Refuge plays a key 

role in the state’s conservation partnership. Appendix C of Minnesota’s CWCS contains a summary of 

other conservation plans and efforts for each subsection.

Climate

The Refuge experiences long, cold winters and 

cool summers. The average annual rainfall, which 

mostly comes during the spring and fall, is about 27 

inches. Snowfall averages about 60 inches per year. 

The temperature extremes for the year can range 

from minus-40 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. Lakes typically freeze over in earlyNovember and remain frozen until mid-to-lateApril. The growing season, the time between the 

last frost in the spring and the first frost in the fall, 

is about 118 days.

Geology and Soils

The dominate Refuge surface features were 

formed by glaciers over 10,000 years ago. A system 

of moraines, or glacial ridges, in the shape of a huge 

horseshoe surrounds the area on three sides with 

the open end to the northeast. One set of ridges 

formed Rice Lake itself. Scattered islands and glacial ridges rise above the surrounding bog and are 

covered with timber and other upland plants. Glacial 

material consisting of rocks, gravel, sand, and clay 

covers the area’s bedrock in layers ranging from 50 

to 300 feet thick.

Water and Hydrology

Rice Lake NWR is bisected by the Rice River, 

which drains the Refuge, flowing from the southeast 

corner to the northwest, and empties into the Mississippi River 20 miles to the west. The land’s natural water drainage toward the south has been 

blocked by the moraines. This wet area is slowly filling in with sediment and vegetation, becoming a 

floating or muskeg-like bog.

The Sandstone Unit is crossed by several small 

streams, flowing east to west to join the Kettle 

River. The Kettle River, which flows through the 

western portion of the Unit, has cut a steep sided 

canyon approximately 100 feet deep and 3,000 to 

4,000 feet wide. This portion of the Kettle River is a 

part of the State of Minnesota Wild and Scenic 

River System.

Mille Lacs NWR is located approximately 1 mile 

from any shoreline of Mille Lacs Lake. The water 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

level in Mille Lacs Lake affects the size of the 

islands and their vulnerability to erosion by wave 

action. Seiches occur on the lake and account for 

brief, but record changes in water levels. A seiche 

can be described as a large wave or storm surge that 

is created by dramatic changes in atmospheric pressure coupled with high winds. The effects of a seiche 

to nesting Common Terns on this low lying island 

can be devastating. The more persistent changes in 

water level are influenced by broader weather patterns. Over the last 10 years the water level has had 

a range of about 3 feet. Figure 7 displays the water 

level data for Mille Lacs Lake for the last 10 years 

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources).

Refuge Resources

The wild rice wetlands on Rice Lake NWR and 

the relationship between wild rice and Ring-necked 

Ducks are of vital importance and need to be highlighted. Tyically during the second and third weeks 

of October, over 100,000 Ring-necked Ducks will be 

feeding and resting on the wild rice beds in Rice 

Lake. A noteworthy exception occurred during the 

second week of October 1994, when more than 1 million ducks were observed, of which 60 percent were 

Ring-necked Ducks and 40 percent were Mallards, a 

Minnesota record for the most waterfowl observed 

in one location at one time (Lapp 1995).

Wild rice is high in protein and vitamins and 

helps waterfowl recover quickly from the demands 

of migration. Ten to 15 percent of a duck’s body 

weight is lost during a day dominated by flight. If 

Figure 6: Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Units, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

those birds have adequate habitat, good food 

resources and little disturbance they can rebound in 

just 1 to 3 days (Norrgard 2005). A suite of wetland 

birds also nest and feed in Refuge wild rice beds 

during the summer. Examples of rare and declining 

species, and/or the Services’ Region 3 Resource 

Conservation Priority Species that use wild rice 

habitat include:

# Common Loon

# American Bittern

# Trumpeter Swan

# Bald Eagle

# Northern Harrier

# Yellow Rail

# Greater Yellowlegs

# Marbled Godwit

# Stilt Sandpiper

# Black Tern

Common Loons and American Bitterns nest 

along the undisturbed shores. Trumpeter Swans are 

once again nesting and raising broods in lakes 

where they have been absent for many years. Bald 

Eagles nest in the nearby forest and feed on the fish 

and waterfowl that are associated with wild rice 

lakes. Northern Harriers nest and hunt in the 

marsh edge. Yellow Rails nest in the lake’s emergergent plant zones. Greater Yellow-legs, Marbled Godwit, Stilt Sandpiper, and other shorebird species 

feed on invertebrates in the wild rice straw mats 

and in the mudflats during their spring and fall 

migration. Black Terns use the wild rice straw mats 

as nesting platforms. Other wildlife species that 

commonly feed on wild rice include ducks, geese 

Sora, American Coot, blackbirds, deer beaver, and 

muskrats. Blackbirds and warblers are drawn to the 

invertebrate prey found in wild rice habitat while 

marshbirds feed on the small vertebrate species 

found there.

American Indian cultures throughout the northern Midwest and northeast have traditionally harvested wild rice. Such activities are supported by 

the Refuge System and allow American Indians contact with their culture as well as providing a source 

of income.

The range of wild rice has contracted greatly 

since European settlement. The boom and bust ecology of wild rice creates highly fluctuating annual 

production cycles. Some of the causal factors of this 

oscillation are the buildup of rice straw from the 

previous year’s growth, sediment nutrient levels 

Figure 7: Lake Mille Lacs Water Levels, 1995-2005
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

and water depth. By preserving/restoring healthy 

wild rice beds we are preserving healthy wetland 

habitat for the benefit of many species, including 

our own.

Plant Communities

Forest

Rice Lake NWR lies within the transition zone 

between the coniferous forests of Northern Minnesota and the deciduous hardwood forests typical of 

the southern portion of the state. Historically, white 

pine was very abundant in the pre-settlement mixed 

forests of the region, but logging in the late 1800s 

resulted in replacement of pine with quaking aspen, 

red and sugar maples, paper birch, basswood, and 

red oak. Today there are approximately 4,222 acres 

of upland forest on the Refuge (lowland or submontane cold-deciduous forest per the National Vegetation Classification System, NVCS). Lowland forest 

stands are characterized by tamarack, black spruce, 

black ash, balsam fir, and white cedar. There are 

approximately 3,259 acres of lowland forest on the 

Refuge (temporarily flooded cold-deciduous forest 

and saturated cold-deciduous forest, NVCS). See 

Figure 8. 

Brushland is a difficult habitat type to classify. 

Brushland typically occurs in areas that were once 

farmed, grazed or hayed and have been left undisturbed for years, allowing brush to invade the grassland. In some systems, the bog areas are classified 

as brushland due to the expanses of invading brush 

species found dominating the native sedge species. 

In the case of the Refuge, brush is considered an 

undesirable condition, hence, brush-dominated 

areas will be discussed as acreages in their desired 

condition of forest, bog or grassland. 

Rice Lake NWR also includes a Research Natural Area that consists of 100 acres of tamarack 

located between Rice Lake and the Rice River. 

The Sandstone Unit consists of approximately 

1,315 acres of upland forest (Figure 9). The terrain 

is gently rolling to nearly flat. The presettlement 

vegetation was primarily pine, maple, oak and tamarack. Bearing trees listed in 1849 and 1851 Government Land Office surveys show primarily white 

pine and tamarack with a few aspen, red oak, maple, 

jack pine, and spruce. Francis Marschner’s map of 

the Original Vegetation of Minnesota shows vegetation cover in the vicinity of the Sandstone Unit as 

being white pine groves, mixed hardwood and pine, 

and conifer bog and swamp. However, like most of 

the surrounding area, the virgin pine forests were 

extensively exploited by white settlers. Few examples of this original vegetation are now found anywhere in the county. 

Most of the wooded uplands of the Sandstone 

Unit are now occupied by a relatively even aged (40-

60 years) aspen/birch timber type that includes a 

mature red pine component. Some areas of this 

aspen/birch type are beginning to succeed to maple/

basswood. There is also a 116-acre timber type that 

is dominated by red pine with an intermediate association of aspen, maple, oak and birch. The understory of the red pine type is hazel brush of medium 

density. Regeneration is slight to non-existent in 

part due to deer browsing and lack of disturbance 

such as fire. This pine type is probably close to what 

represents the dominant presettlement vegetation 

for the Unit. The large pines on the Unit apparently 

became established immediately following the 

“Great Hinckley Fire” of 1894. 

Bog

Rice Lake NWR bog lands are classified as saturated temperate or subpolar grasslands in the 

NVCS. There are approximately 5,791 acres of this 

habitat type on the Refuge. The bogs are flat 

expanses of poorly drained organic soils known as 

peat. They support a dense, spongy mixture of flowering plants, grasses, low shrubs, and small stands 

of black spruce, balsam fir and tamarack. Shallow 

lakes with marshy shorelines dot this landscape. 

Peat is formed from successive layers of partly 

decomposed vegetable matter, mostly sphagnum 

moss. The peat makes the bog soil acidic and tints 

bog waters a clear amber color. A muskeg or floating bog is created in a poorly drained lake that is 

slowly filling-in with vegetation. Dense collections of 

floating plants at the lake’s margin offer a seedbed 

for more vegetation. Soon a floating mat forms that 

builds sediment on the lake bottom, paving the way 

for other water-tolerant plants and shrubs. A floating bog mat will eventually cover the water’s surface and, over a long period of time, turn what was 

once a lake into a lowland forest.

The greatest expanse of bog on the Refuge is 

located on the north side of the Refuge. This area 

surrounds the Rice River and is over 3,000 acres in 

size. Some classification systems describe this area 

as a “brushland” though by description it has only 

achieved an overgrowth of brush due to the lack of a 

disturbance factor, such as wildfire, over the past 70 

years. The native vegetation within the bog would 

have consisted of sedge species with sporadic areas 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Figure 8: Current Landcover, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Figure 9: Current Landcover, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

of brush, like willow and dogwood. Prescribed fire 

has been the management tool used to decrease and 

inhibit further brush invasion into this bog. 

Grassland

Rice Lake NWR maintains approximately 678 

acres of grassland (medium-tall sod temperate or 

subpolar grassland, NVCS), which were created 

through the clearing of timber and brush by former 

landowners and planted to species suitable for hay 

cutting and grazing. Since 2003, these open areas 

have been maintained through the use of prescribed 

burning. The majority of these fields contain nonindigenous species (smooth brome and timothy), 

although a couple of small fields were planted to tallgrass prairie cultivars (big blue stem, Indian grass) 

by Refuge staff in the late 1980s. The largest grassland block is 148 acres. It occurs on the west end of 

the Refuge in the former crop-fields area. 

The Sandstone Unit has approximately 406 acres 

of grass/brushland that exist primarily as a result of 

previous land clearing activities by the Federal Correctional Institution. The open area on the north 

end of the Unit was cleared of trees for agricultural 

development. This area was kept open through haying under a permit system until 2001. 

Aquatic

The main body of water on Rice Lake NWR is 

Rice Lake, which is approximately 3,600 acres, or 

nearly one-quarter of the Refuge, and has 9.5 miles 

of shoreline. Rice Lake is a shallow, natural wild rice 

producing wetland. Average water depth is 2 feet 

and the bottom is a composition of mud and silt. Vegetation in the lake is dominated by wild rice and 

pickerelweed. Although pickerelweed is a native 

species, it is acting as an invasive in the lake. This 

dominance has been accentuated by the stable 

water levels needed to produce wild rice. Other vegetation present in the lake include: bulrush, cattail, 

wild celery, and a variety of pondweeds. The lake is 

known as a bigmouth buffalo and northern pike 

spawning and rearing area. A ditch and water control structure were built on the inlet/outlet to the 

lake in the early 1950s. A larger capacity structure 

was completed in 1979. 

Other major water bodies on the Refuge include 

Mandy Lake, Twin Lakes and the Rice River. 

Mandy Lake is an open body lake with beds of wild 

rice, cattail, and common reed around the perimeter. 

The lake is 101 acres and has approximately 2.1 

miles of shoreline with a maximum depth of 16 feet. 

Mandy Lake is connected to the Rice River via a 

floating bog. During times of high water, it is possible for fish to move under the bog.

Twin Lakes is a classic example of a developing 

bog. The two lakes have a combined surface area of 

16 acres with a maximum depth of 50 feet and 0.6 

mile of shoreline. The shoreline is filling-in with peat 

and vegetation and provides an excellent example of 

bog succession and contains species like lady-slipper 

and pitcher plant. 

The Rice River traverses the Refuge from the 

southeast corner to the northwest corner. The river 

originates in the Solana State Forest, 7 miles south 

of the Refuge. The river is fed by Porcupine Lake 

and numerous small tributaries as it flows northwestward into the Refuge. The Refuge receives 

drainage from approximately 155 square miles of 

the Rice River watershed. The river averages 70 

feet wide and 2.5 feet deep. The river serves as both 

the inlet and outlet to Rice Lake depending on the 

flow and water level in the lake. A water control 

structure (Radial Gates) located on the North Bog 

Road was installed in 1952 to form the Rice River 

Pool. During high water times, the Pool will cover 

2,500 acres. Sedge mats that support heavy growths 

of common reed, wild rice, cattail, and willow dominate the pool. Even when the pool is completely 

flooded, little increase in open water is achieved 

Herring Gull on a nest, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

because of a propensity for the mat to float. The 

open water area of Rice River Pool seldom exceeds 

300 acres. 

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Birds

A total of 242 species of birds has been confirmed 

on Rice Lake NWR (Appendix D). Waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds are commonly observed on the 

Refuge. Rice Lake NWR has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird 

Conservancy. This designation was granted due to 

the importance of the lake and its naturally producing wild rice as a food source to migrating waterfowl, especially Ring-necked Ducks. More than 

100,000 Ring-necked Ducks are typically found in 

the wild rice beds on Rice Lake during the second 

and third weeks of October. In 1994, Ring-necked 

Ducks numbered 600,000 during a single survey 

period. The Refuge has also been designated as a 

State Important Bird Area, as part of the larger 

McGregor Important Bird Area, by the National 

Audubon Society. 

The two islands that comprise Mille Lacs NWR 

serve as nesting sites for colonial waterbirds. Hennepin Island is the site of one of four Common Tern 

breeding colonies in Minnesota. The Common Tern 

is a Minnesota State Threatened species. Spirit 

Island has nesting Ring-billed and Herring Gulls, 

and Double-crested Cormorants. Many species of 

waterbird, shorebird and waterfowl have also been 

observed on the islands, including American White 

Pelicans, Caspian Terns, Dunlin, Red Knots, Ruddy 

Turnstones, Common and Red-breasted Mergansers and Mallards. 

Mammals

Forty-three species of mammals have been confirmed on Rice Lake NWR. (Appendix D). Whitetailed deer, black bear, porcupine, snow-shoe hare, 

bobcat, beaver, coyote and red fox are commonly 

observed species on the Refuge. The Refuge is 

home to at least one pack of gray wolves and Canada 

lynx have been observed. Though a rare occurrence, 

moose have also been seen on the Refuge. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

Three species of reptiles have been confirmed on 

Rice Lake NWR. Literature searches indicate that 

four species could be found on the Refuge. Eight 

species of amphibians have been documented on the 

Refuge. Literature searches indicate that 12 species 

could be present. (Appendix D). 

Fish

Fish surveys are conducted by the Minnesota 

DNR and the Service’s Ashland, Wisconsin, Fishery 

Resource Office (FRO) on a sporadic basis. Sampling by various methods has located 21 species 

including northern pike, yellow perch, bluegill, 

black and brown bullheads, bigmouth buffalo, white 

suckers, bowfin, golden shiner and walleye (Appendix D). The Refuge is best known for spring and fall 

runs of northern pike in and out of Rice Lake via the 

Rice River. The Minnesota DNR conducts a “fish 

rescue” each fall when the dissolved oxygen level 

falls to a certain level, forcing the northern pike to 

leave the lake. Fish traps are then placed in the 

water control structure at Rice Lake to capture the 

departing northern pike. The pike are transported 

to lakes primarily around the Twin City metro area. 

While trapping northern pike may once have been 

commonplace in Minnesota, DNR officials have said 

that the trapping effort at Rice Lake NWR is the 

last such place in the state. The average catch is 

around 4,000 pounds per year. 

Mussels and Clams

A literature search indicates that 13 species of 

mussels have ranges that include Rice Lake NWR. 

Surveys have found and identified five species and 

one unknown species. The surveys were conducted 

by FRO divers in July 2004. The most common species found during the surveys were the fat mucket 

(Lampsilis siliquiodea); paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis); eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta sp.) (pending verification); giant floater 

(Pyganodon grandis); and the strange floater, Strophitus undulatus. Fingernail clams (Sphaeridae

sp.), were also found throughout the Refuge. No 

mussels were found in Mandy Lake during the survey, possibly because aquatic plant growth was very 

heavy throughout the shoreline. Four of the five 

Largemouth Bass, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

freshwater mussels and clam are common species 

and found throughout the Midwest. The fifth species, the eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta sp.), 

a freshwater mussel looking very similar to the 

giant floater (Pyganodon grandis), is not currently 

listed as being found in Minnesota. Malacologists 

with the Minnesota DNR are reviewing these two 

mussels. Funding was secured by the Refuge in 

early 2006 for comparative DNA analysis to verify 

the species identity (Appendix D). 

Invertebrates

No formalized invertebrate sampling has been 

conducted on the Refuge. A literature search indicates that 103 species of butterflies and moths and 

95 species of dragonfly/damselflies could exist on 

the Refuge. Freshwater invertebrate samples have 

been taken for environmental education purposes 

but not documented (Appendix D).

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally-listed threatened animal species that 

have been confirmed on the Refuge include the Bald 

Eagle and the Canada lynx. State-listed endangered 

or threatened bird species include the Trumpeter 

Swan and Henslow’s Sparrow. One state-listed bird 

species, the Common Tern, nests on Mille Lacs 

NWR. The state-listed plant, triangle moonwort, is 

found on Rice Lake NWR. 

Wildlife Species of Concern

Nearly everyone recognizes that all species are 

important to a healthy ecosystem. However, over 

the last few years, members of the conservation 

community have realized that with limited fiscal 

resources it is necessary to identify which species 

should be prioritized. The federal and state lists of 

threatened and endangered species identify one set 

of priority species. In the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Region 3, representatives of the migratory bird, 

endangered species, and fisheries programs identified species that require the most attention given 

our current level of knowledge. Migratory bird conservation initiatives also contribute to setting priorities. The base for Minnesota’s Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy was the identification of the “species of greatest conservation need.” 

The several efforts to identify priority species are 

highly inter-related with cross-references and the 

same experts contributing to multiple projects. In 

general, the species priority reflects population levels that are rare or declining and below levels that 

ensure their long-term stability. Region 3 priorities 

also included species with recreational or economic 

value and species with a “nuisance” level.

Table 1 summarizes information on wildlife habitat and species relationships for species of management concern for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National 

Wildlife Refuges. The species were chosen from the 

FWS Region 3 January 2002 list of Fish & Wildlife 

Resource Conservation Priorities. The relationship 

table is adapted from the “Aitkin County Forest 

Management Plan,” which was based on the Wildlife 

Habitat Association Database developed for and 

used on the Chippewa National Forest. 

Appendix C compiles the FWS Region 3 

Resource Conservation Priorities and the Minnesota list of species of greatest conservation need 

applicable for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National 

Wildlife Refuges. 

Threats to Resources

Invasive Species

Rice Lake NWR

Invasive species are considered one of the greatest threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and Rice Lake NWR. The list of presently known 

invasive plant species includes common reed, reed 

canary grass, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, and 

European buckthorn. It is probably only a matter of 

time before such species as Gypsy moth (100 miles 

distant), emerald ash borer, zebra mussel (40 miles 

distant), Asian carp, and the New Zealand mud snail 

(50 miles distant) also appear. 

Mille Lacs NWR

Zebra mussels are present in Mille Lacs Lake but 

are not expected to directly impact Mille Lacs 

NWR. The potential impacts to the food chain for 

the avian species that use Mille Lacs NWR, especially the Common Tern population, are of greater 

concern. 

Contaminants

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 prod-
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife

 Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

26Table 1: Wildlife Habitat and Species Relationship for Species of Management Concern, Rice Lake NWR 

(including the Sandstone Unit) and Mille Lacs NWR

Open Water / River / Wetland Opening Forest Habit

Species

Lake

Pond

Stream-River

Emergent Non-Perm Wetland

Emergent Permanent 

Wetland

Sedge Meadow Wetland

Shrub Sapling Wetland

Open Heath Bog

Permanent Forest Opening

Shrub Sapling Opening

Semi-Open Lowland Conifer

Closed Canopy Lowland

Young Deciduous Upland

Mature Deciduous Upland

Old Deciduous Upland

Young Coniferous Upland

Mature Coniferous Upland

Old Coniferous Upland

Gray Wolf f f x

x f x

x

x

x

x

x

American Bittern f x

x f

American Woodcock f x

x

x

x

Bald Eagle f f b b b b Black Tern f f f x

x

Black-billed Cuckoo

x

x

x

x

x

 Black-crowned Night Heron f f f f

Blue-winged Teal f f f f f x f bBobolink

x

x

x

 Buff-breasted Sandpiper f f f

Canada Goose

x

x

x

x f f

Canada Warbler

x f x

x

x

x

Canvasback f f fCommon Loon f f f f xCommon Tern

x f f

Connecticut Warbler

x

x

x

 Dickcissel

x

Double-crested Cormorant* f f fEastern Meadowlark

x

 Field Sparrow

x

x

x

Forster's Tern fGolden-winged Warbler

x

x f f

Grasshopper Sparrow

x

x

x

Greater Yellowlegs f f f f f f
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

 Henslow’s Sparrow

x

x

x

 Hudsonian Godwit f f f f

Least Bittern f x

x f

LeConte's Sparrow f x

x

x

Lesser Scaup f f f f

 Long-eared Owl f f f f f f f f f b b  Mallard

x

x f f f b b b b b b b b b b 

 Marbled Godwit f f f Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow f f x f Northern Flicker

x

x

x b b b b 

 Northern Goshawk

x f f x

x

x

x

 Northern Harrier f f x

x

x

 Northern Pintail f f f f Olive-sided Flycatcher f f f f f f f f f  Orchard Oriole f f f f f f  Peregrine Falcon f f f f Red-headed Woodpecker f f x

x

x

x

x 

 Red-shouldered Hawk f f f b b 

 Sedge Wren

x

x

x

x

 Short-billed Dowitcher f f f f f Short-eared Owl f x Snow Goose f f Stilt Sandpiper f f f f f Trumpeter Swan

x

x f

Table 1: Wildlife Habitat and Species Relationship for Species of Management Concern, Rice Lake NWR (including the Sandstone Unit) and Mille Lacs NWR

Open Water / River / Wetland Opening Forest Habit

Species

Lake

Pond

Stream-River

Emergent Non-Perm Wetland

Emergent Permanent 

Wetland

Sedge Meadow Wetland

Shrub Sapling Wetland

Open Heath Bog

Permanent Forest Opening

Shrub Sapling Opening

Semi-Open Lowland Conifer

Closed Canopy Lowland

Young Deciduous Upland

Mature Deciduous Upland

Old Deciduous Upland

Young Coniferous Upland

Mature Coniferous Upland

Old Coniferous Upland
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife

 Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

28

 Upland Sandpiper f Western Meadowlark f Whimbrel f f f f f f Whip-poor-will f b b b  Wilson's Phalarope f f f f Wood Duck f f f f f f f x

x

 Wood Thrush

x

x

 Yellow Rail

x

x

 Brook Trout – Inland population

x

 Lake Sturgeon – Inland population

x

 American Burying Beetle 

x

x

x

x

x

x

 Black Sandshell 

x

 Elktoe 

x

 Round Pigtoe 

x

 Snail spp.

x

 Threeridge 

x

 Zebra Mussel *

x

x

x

 Rusty Crayfish *

x

x

x

b = uses habitat for breeding; f = uses habitat for feeding; x = uses habitat for both breeding and feeding; *”Nuisance” sp

Table 1: Wildlife Habitat and Species Relationship for Species of Management Concern, Rice Lake NWR (including the Sandstone Unit) and Mille Lacs NWR

Open Water / River / Wetland Opening Forest Habit

Species

Lake

Pond

Stream-River

Emergent Non-Perm Wetland

Emergent Permanent 

Wetland

Sedge Meadow Wetland

Shrub Sapling Wetland

Open Heath Bog

Permanent Forest Opening

Shrub Sapling Opening

Semi-Open Lowland Conifer

Closed Canopy Lowland

Young Deciduous Upland

Mature Deciduous Upland

Old Deciduous Upland

Young Coniferous Upland

Mature Coniferous Upland

Old Coniferous Upland
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

ucts, 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). The 

Kettle River, which flows through the Sandstone 

Unit, is on the Minnesota Impaired Water list with 

mercury as the pollutant and includes a specific Fish 

Consumption Advisory. No other contaminants are 

known to exist on Rice Lake NWR. 

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 (CO2) 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 climate-related 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 

CO2. 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. The actions proposed in this CCP would 

conserve or restore land and habitat, and would 

thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the 

Refuge. This in turn contributes positively to efforts 

to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

One Service activity in particular – prescribed 

burning – releases CO2 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 (Boutton et 

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

change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Rice 

Lake 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.

# 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

Managers and resource specialists on the Refuge 

need to be aware of the possibility of change due to 

global warming. When feasible, documenting longterm vegetation, species, and hydrologic changes 

should become a part of research and monitoring 

programs on the Refuge. Adjustments in refuge 

management direction may be necessary over the 

course of time to adapt to a changing climate.

Twin Lakes, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

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 degree F (2 degrees C), while 

the southern portion, along the Ohio River valley, 

has cooled by about 1 degree F (0.5 degrees C). 

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 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 10oF 

(3 to 6oC). The average minimum temperature is 

likely to increase as much as 1 to 2oF (0.5 to 1oC) 

more than the maximum temperature. Precipitation 

is likely to continue its upward trend, at a slightly 

accelerated rate; 10 to 30% 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

Reduction in Lake and River Levels

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive 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 one-foot increase 

to more than a five-foot decrease. A five-foot (1.5- 

meter) reduction would lead to a 20 to 40% reduction in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower 

lake levels cause reduced hydropower generation 

downstream, with reductions of up to 15% 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 likely lead to increased flash 

flooding and worsen agricultural and other nonpoint 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. 

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 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

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% 

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 yearto-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%. Reliable seasonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust their practices from year to year to respond to such events.

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 nonnative 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 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 major buildings on Rice Lake NWR include 

the Refuge headquarters/visitor contact station, two 

residences, a maintenance shop, and five buildings 

for vehicle and equipment storage (Figure 10). 

There are no facilities associated with the Sandstone Unit or Mille Lacs NWR. 

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

A limited description of cultural values can be 

found in Historical Context, page 15. The most 

recent cultural resources overview of the Refuge is 

“A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Rice Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Aitkin County, Minnesota,” by Oothoudt and Watson, 1978. While the Service recognizes the need for a current cultural 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

Figure 10: Facilities, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

resources overview and management direction 

study to meet the requirement in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that 

comprehensive conservation plans include “the 

archaeological and cultural values of the planning 

unit,” no such study has been completed for the 

entire Refuge. In partial fulfillment, the Service 

contracted for and obtained the “Cultural 

Resources Management Plan for Indian Point at 

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge” by Ollendorf, 

2002.

Limited archeological investigations centered on 

Indian Point villages and extensive related mound 

groups have identified evidence of the Middle Woodland Malmo (200 B.C-A.D. 200), Saint Croix (A.D. 

300-800), and Arvilla (A.D. 600-900); Late Woodland 

Sandy Lake (A.D. 1000-1750); and Chippewa (late 

19th century-1939). Western (e.g. Euro-American) 

culture is also represented on the Refuge. Documents refer to sites associated with lumbering, 

farmsteads and fields, a Civilian Conservation 

Corps camp (as well as facilities on the Refuge constructed by the CCC), hunters’ graves, cabins, and 

railroad in addition to Refuge facilities. The Refuge 

contains the historic Chippewa Cemetery, which 

continues to be used by the East Lake Band. The 

Refuge also has museum property and Indian interview descriptions of traditional cultural properties.

Cultural resources are important parts of the 

Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with 

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

Visitor Services

About 35,000 total visits were made to Rice Lake 

NWR and the Sandstone Unit in 2006. Visitation on 

the Refuge has been slowly increasing over the past 

several years. Visitors participate in wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, hunting, fishing, and environmental education. Most Refuge 

visitors are engaged in wildlife observation and benefit from interpretive displays located at the Visitor 

Contact Station and kiosks. It is estimated that 

fewer than 1,000 hunting visits and nearly 10,000 

fishing visits occur per year. About 200 students 

each year experience programs on and off the Refuge. Through outreach efforts that include group 

presentations and exhibits, the Refuge reaches 

more than 5,000 people each year.

Little is known about the characteristics of Refuge visitors. The residential status of visitors was 

compiled using a “sign-in” book at the headquarters 

building for the years 2000-2004. The assumption is 

that repeat visitors and visitors from nearby are less 

likely to register in our book. However, registrants 

likely reflect the general origin of visitors apart 

from the local community. Of the visitors who signed 

the book, about 40 percent were from within 50 

miles of the Refuge, 20 percent were from within 50-

100 miles, 34 percent were from within 100-150 

miles (this distance includes much of the Twin Cities 

metropolitan area), and 6 percent were from over 

150 miles from the Refuge. Based on staff conversations with them, it is clear that visitors from more 

distant places are often serious bird watchers who 

have sought out the Refuge.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation 

estimated that the average daily traffic volume past 

the Refuge office on State Highway 65 in 2004 was 

3,100 vehicles per day.

Mille Lacs NWR is closed to the public to protect 

the birds that use the islands from disturbance.

Current Management

Habitat Management

Current management is based on the 1997 Landscape Plan. This plan marked a change in Refuge 

management from the early wildlife management 

practice of encouraging small patchwork blocks of 

habitat favoring “edge” species to managing larger 

landscape blocks, reducing habitat fragmentation 

and favoring species of concern that use large 

blocks of unbroken habitat. The 1997 Landscape 

Plan also emphasized management of landscapes 

across Refuge boundaries by way of cooperative 

management agreements with other agencies and 

through the Private Lands program. 

Wetland Management

The two major Refuge water impoundments, 

Rice Lake and the Rice River Pool, are managed to 

provide favorable food and habitat conditions for 

waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. Rice Lake, a 

large, shallow natural lake, is managed primarily for 

the production of wild rice. Wild rice production 

requires stable water levels throughout the growing 

season (early May to late September). Sufficient 

water depth is also required in Rice Lake to allow 

access for American Indians to harvest wild rice. 

The Rice River Pool is part of the Rice River and is 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

regulated to provide favorable conditions for growth 

and availability of moist soil plants, nesting waterfowl, and fall migration habitat within the pool.

Refuge (Rice Lake and Sandstone) wetland restoration projects have been completed in locations 

where farming once occurred and affected or eliminated naturally-occurring wetlands. During the 

1950s, small water control structures called screw 

gates were placed on ditches in the Refuge to control water in man-made goose ponds. These gates 

have since been left open and the ponds have been 

allowed to fluctuate seasonally. Beavers have also 

produced some high-quality wetlands throughout 

the Refuge that provide nesting and migration habitat for waterbirds. 

Bog Management

The Refuge has approximately 3,000 acres of bog 

adjacent to the Kimberly Marsh Wildlife Management Area that contains an additional 5,000 acres of 

bog habitat. The Refuge and the Minnesota DNR 

have conducted joint prescribed burn operations on 

this expansive bog to maximize restoration efforts in 

setting back the encroaching brush like willow and 

dogwood. These bogs, when burned periodically, 

have resulted in lower brush densities that provide a 

more suitable habitat for Sharptail Grouse as well as 

for waterbird species like Yellow Rail and American 

Bittern for both migration and nesting purposes, 

and also neo-tropical migrants like the LeConte’s 

Sparrow. 

Forest Management

A vegetation inventory has been completed for 

Rice Lake NWR that includes a strong forest inventory component. The inventory has been started for 

the Sandstone Unit. Adjoining state and county 

lands in Aitkin County have also been inventoried 

and provide a good overview of the forest on a landscape level. The inventory includes eight forest 

types. The largest types located on Rice Lake NWR 

are northern hardwood forest (3,903 acres), mixed 

hardwood swamp (1,247 acres), and lowland hardwood forest (1,008 acres). The last permit issued to 

remove trees was in 1982, when approximately 6,500 

board feet were cut to open up the forest canopy and 

to improve conditions for deer and Ruffed Grouse. 

Large sections of forest are managed for “old 

growth” and have been allowed to mature undisturbed. Logging road remnants have been sheared 

and mowed to facilitate access. This practice also 

encourages young aspen growth for Woodcock and 

early-successional species like Golden-winged Warblers. 

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring

The monitoring surveys that are conducted on 

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR are provided 

in Appendix E. Birds, mammals, amphibians, fish 

and habitat are surveyed and monitored on regular 

schedules. The surveys are conducted by Refuge 

staff, volunteers, or in partnership with the Minnesota DNR. The purpose of monitoring is, in general, 

to estimate the presence/absence and numbers of 

fish and wildlife present and to aid in making management decisions. Analysis of the data is limited to 

tabulation with little statistical analysis.

Visitor Services

Mille Lacs NWR is closed to public use. Rice 

Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.

Law Enforcement

Protecting the visiting public, visitor use areas, 

cultural areas, administrative areas, residential 

areas, wildlife habitat, and the wildlife resources 

from criminal or negligent actions, as well as from 

David Aubid ricing on Rice Lake NWR.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

acts of nature, requires that certain safeguards be in 

place. The Refuge maintains an automatic gate at 

the main entrance that closes at dusk and reopens at 

dawn. The gate, coupled with periodic law enforcement patrols, nearly eliminates after-hours unauthorized entries and the late night illegal activities. 

Law enforcement is provided by Conservation Officers from the Minnesota DNR, and Refuge law 

enforcement officers from other stations are also 

brought in to assist as needed.

Hunting

Approximately 10,000 acres of Rice Lake NWR 

are open to public hunting of small game and deer 

by archery. The areas of the Refuge near the wildlife 

drive and hiking trails (approximately 3,500 acres) 

are closed to hunting. However, during a special 9-

day Refuge firearm season for deer, all of the Refuge, with the exception of a small area around the 

Headquarters building and the maintenance area, 

are open to hunting. Approximately 1,340 acres of 

the Sandstone Unit are open to public hunting. 

Approximately 705 acres on the north side of the 

Unit are closed to hunting and firearms due to the 

proximity to the federal penitentiary. 

Fishing

Fishing is permitted in Twin Lakes, Mandy Lake 

and the Rice River during regular State seasons. 

Rice Lake is closed to fishing. Visitors may use 

motorless boats or boats with electric motors on all 

fishing areas. Ice fishing is permitted on Mandy 

Lake. However, the use of gas-powered ice augers is 

not allowed. Ice fishing shelters must be removed 

from the ice at the end of each day. Fish that are 

commonly caught include northern pike, yellow 

perch, bullhead, bigmouth buffalo, and bluegill.

Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and 

Photography

The observation tower at Rice Lake provides a 

vista of the 18,200-acre Refuge (not including the 

2,045-acre Sandstone Unit), including the 3,600-acre 

lake. A self-guided 9.5-mile auto tour is open to the 

public from dawn to dusk. Brochures are located at 

the Refuge Headquarters and at kiosks along the 

tour route. Visitors also experience the Refuge by 

way of hiking and cross-country skiing trails, 

canoeing/kayaking, snowshoeing, and biking. All 

trails pass through a mixture of upland and lowland 

hardwood forest, small grasslands and marsh. The 

slope for most trails ranges from level to gently 

sloping. 

Environmental Education

The Refuge hosts classes of elementary and high 

school students from local schools when teachers 

request visits, as well as hosting visits by homeschool programs. There is no formal curriculum for 

Refuge programs. Programs are presented in 

nearby schools and the Refuge participates in educational programs like the Envirothon and Big 

Sandy Water Institute.

Harvesting Wild Rice

American Indians harvest a portion of the wild 

rice crop from the Refuge each year under a Cooperative Agreement signed in 1935.

Predator, Pest, and Invasive Species 

Management

Animal Species

Rice Lake NWR has a trapping program as was 

approved by the 2000 Furbearer Management Plan 

and is reviewed annually by way of the Annual Trapping Proposal. The primary purpose for a trapping 

program is to control the population of predators 

(mink, skunk, and raccoon) on ground-nesting birds 

and also to control nuisance muskrat and beaver, 

which cause damage to Refuge dikes, roads, and 

water control structures. 

The Refuge is divided into five trapping units and 

special use permits are issued to trappers through a 

Environmental education at Rice Lake NWR, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

lottery system. Low fur prices in recent years have 

diminished interest in trapping on the Refuge and 

as a result some units are not trapped each year. 

The average number of trappers per season for the 

past 10 years is 2.7. The Refuge has adopted all 

State trapping regulations except where Refuge 

regulations are more restrictive. Trapping statistics 

for the past 10 years are shown in Table 2. 

Plant Species

Herbicides are used to control unwanted plants in 

public parking areas. Mowing is used to maintain 

trails, secondary use roads, seasonal parking lots 

and road sides. The Mille Lacs Electric Company 

uses mowing and herbicides to maintain its right-ofway along the east edge of the Refuge and along the 

main Refuge road between the Headquarters and 

Maintenance areas. A long-term invasive weed mapping/monitoring program using GPS technology 

was initiated in 2006.

Archaeological and Cultural Values

The protection of cultural resources is important 

to the American public and essential to American 

Indian heritage. The Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of human interactions with 

each other and the landscape. Protection is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Responsibilities for cultural resources management in the Service are shared between the refuge 

and regional office. The Regional Director has 

responsibility (1) for the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service activities, (2) 

issuing archeological permits, and (3) Indian tribal 

involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer (RHPO) is responsible for advising the 

Regional Director about procedures, compliance, 

and implementation of the several cultural 

resources laws. The refuge manager’s responsibilities include: early interaction with the RHPO about 

activities that might affect cultural resources; protecting archeological sites and historic properties; 

monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees; and reporting violations. 

If a Refuge activity might have a cultural 

resources component, the refuge manager, early in 

the planning of activity, asks the RHPO to begin the 

Section 106 process. Then, either as part of general 

NEPA compliance and compatibility determinations 

or, if only cultural resources are involved, the refuge 

manager informs the public and local officials of the 

proposed activity and requests comments through 

presentations, meetings, and media notices. The 

manager informs the RHPO about any comments 

received and appropriate modifications and next 

steps are then specified.

Only qualified archeologists, or persons recommended by the Governor, are allowed to conduct 

archeological investigations and collecting on the 

Refuge. And, the Regional Director issues an 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit 

only when the investigations and collecting are in 

the public interest. Archeological investigations 

have been deemed compatible when carried out 

under the stipulations of the compatibility determination, which includes the issuance of a special use 

permit. Refuge personnel act to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and refuge personnel. If violations are detected, violators 

are cited and reported to the RHPO. 

Table 2: Trapping Statistics, Rice Lake NWR

Species 10-Year Average 1996/97 

Season Through 2005/06

Beaver 33

Muskrat 44

Mink 1

Raccoon 5

Skunk 0

Mandy Lake overlook, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Special Management Areas

Research Natural Area

The Refuge includes one Research Natural Area 

(RNA) (Rice Lake-Tamarack, SAF-38) that is about 

100 acres in size (Figure 11). This administratively 

designated area is a part of a national network of 

reserved areas under various ownerships. The 

RNAs are intended to assist in the preservation of 

examples of all significant natural ecosystems for 

comparison with those influenced by man, to provide educational and research areas for scientists to 

study the ecology, successional trends, and other 

aspects of the natural environment, and to serve as 

gene pools and preserves for rare and endangered 

species of plants and animals. In RNAs, natural processes are allowed to predominate without human 

intervention. Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be used to maintain the 

unique features for which the RNA was established. 

Activities such as wildlife-dependent recreation are 

permissible, but not mandated, in RNAs. 

Wilderness Area

In 1973, as part of a review of all lands within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, the Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife studied the potential 

for designation of lands within Rice Lake NWR and 

Mille Lacs NWR as Wilderness (USDI, Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, 1973). As a result of the 

study, a 1,400-acre unit and the 6.27-acre island in 

Rice Lake within Rice Lake NWR (Figure 11) and 

the two islands of Mille Lacs NWR were recommended for further consideration by the Secretary 

of Interior for Wilderness designation. The study 

Figure 11: Special Management Areas, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Figure 12: Conservation Easement Areas, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

excluded most of the Refuge from consideration 

because facilities or intensive management for wildlife purposes were incompatible with Wilderness 

designation. The Mille Lacs NWR islands have been 

removed from further consideration due to management actions taken for the benefit of nesting Common Terns, which altered the wilderness character 

of the islands. The Rice Lake NWR areas recommended for further consideration did not have roads 

or active manipulation of the habitat and have been 

managed as de facto wilderness since the study. 

Since the study 34 years ago, no action has been 

taken by the Service or Department on the findings 

of the Wilderness Study. 

Conservation Easements

When the Farm Services Agency (FSA), formerly 

the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), 

acquires property through default of loans, it is 

required to protect wetland and floodplain 

resources on the property prior to resale to the public. The Service assists the FSA in identifying 

important wetland and floodplain resources on the 

property. Once those resources have been identified, 

FSA protects the areas through a perpetual conservation easement and transfers management responsibility to the Service. The authority and direction 

comes from the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 and 1985, as 

amended); Executive Order 11990 providing for the 

protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988 

providing for the management of floodplain 

resources. The Service administers the easements 

as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Refuge manages four conservation easement 

areas totaling 362 acres located within a six-county 

area in northeastern Minnesota (see Figure 12). 

Inadequate staffing levels have impeded proper 

management of the widely dispersed easements. 

Some of the easements have not been surveyed or 

marked on the ground. The easements should be 

inspected regularly, but some have not been 

inspected in over 10 years. Without appropriate 

monitoring the easements and their resources can 

not be protected from the myriad forms of 

encroachment. 

Private Lands 

Refuge biologists participate in conservation 

activities on private lands within the six-county 

area. Activities include classifying wetlands and providing technical advice on habitat restoration and 

management. The biologists serve as agents in promoting the programs of others with the common 

goal of restoring and protecting additional wildlife 

habitats on private lands. 

Current Staff and Budget

Staff

The Refuge’s staffing as of June 2006 is illustrated in Figure 13. 

Budget

A 5-year history of the operating and maintenance budget for the Refuge is displayed in Table 3. 

The FY 2001 funding included the study of relationships between multi-scale habitat features and forest bird productivity at Rice Lake NWR. The FY 

2005 funding included $90,108 for the purchase of a 

new dump truck. 

Volunteers

Volunteers contribute valuable time and talent to 

all aspects of Refuge operations. They help with 

maintenance, construction, wildlife and resource 

monitoring, interpretation, and public contact. Over 

the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, the number of hours 

volunteers contributed to the Refuge ranged from 

587 to 2,060 per year. Some volunteers live in nearby 

communities with one-way travel times of one hour; 

others travel from as far away as New Mexico and 

Indiana and stay in their personally owned RVs. 

Forest in winter, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Partnerships

The Refuge has many partnerships that foster 

community relations and enhance Refuge habitats 

and wildlife populations. Recent partners include: 

# Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

(Divisions of Ecological Services, Wildlife, 

Parks, Fisheries, Forestry, Enforcement, and 

the Aitkin Area Ecosystem Team)

# U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS, FSA)

# Aitkin County Soil and Water Conservation 

District

# Big Sandy Area Watershed Task Force

# Aitkin County Forest Advisory Committee

# Long Lake Conservation Center

# Aitkin County Water Planning Task Force

# Aitkin County Land Department

# Aitkin County Sheriff

# Palisade Volunteer Fire Department

# Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (DNR, Police)

# University of Minnesota 

# Central Lakes College

# McGregor Area Planning Committee

# Rivers and Lakes Fair Planning Committee

# McGregor Chamber of Commerce

# Wetland Conservation Act Advisory Committee

# Big Sandy Water Institute

# Minnesota Audubon

# Bee Nay She Birding Council

# Minnesota Historical Society, for curation and 

storage of four archeological collections totaling 

1,257 artifacts from the Refuge.

A special partnership exists with the non-profit 

group, Friends of Rice Lake Refuge, which formed 

in October 2002. The Friends have approximately 

100 members. The Friends support and enhance the 

public’s role in fish and wildlife habitat protection. 

Their goal is to promote public use along with educating visitors on the natural and cultural resources 

of the area. The group has sponsored events and 

built facilities on the Refuge and represented the 

Refuge at community and county gatherings. The 

Friends operate the sales area in the visitor contact 

station. 

Figure 13: Staffing Chart, Rice Lake NWR

Table 3: 5-Year Annual Operating and Maintenance Funding

Funding FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

Private Lands $7,000 $10,021 $0 $0 $0

Non-game and Engineering $10,000 $1,500 $0 $400 $3,000

Salaries and Operation $409,184 $370,649 $454,483 $407,123 $509,500

Maintenance $71,000 $214,000 $180,916 $82,401 $132,700

Fire $35,918 $30,406 $55,866 $66,789 $45,200
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Introduction

Goals and Objectives

The goals that follow are general statements of 

what the Refuge wants to accomplish. The objectives under each goal are specific statements of 

what will be accomplished to help achieve the goal. 

Strategies listed under each objective specify the 

activities that will be pursued to realize an objective. 

The strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or new research and information come to light.

Rice Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge

Goal 1: 

The Refuge will contain a diversity of habitats typical of 

historical north-central Minnesota. (See Figure 14 on 

page 42)

(The Sandstone Unit habitat community objectives are listed separately, see Objective 1.10.)

Forest Community

Objective 1.1: Forest Size

Restore and maintain between 8,000 and 10,500 

acres of diverse forest types.

Rationale: The Refuge has about 7,100 acres of 

forest habitat. Studies have shown that forest 

fragmentation reduces nesting success of migratory birds because of increased nest predation 

and parasitism. By managing the Refuge’s forest 

in coordination with neighbors and partners, 

large blocks can be created. The Refuge forest 

will be a mosaic of hardwoods with scattered 

pines and patches of aspen. The forest structure 

will not be constant throughout. Variability will 

be introduced by natural disturbance and management activities. The mixed forest with diverse 

plant forms, vertical structures, and ages will 

provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. The 

priority bird species that are expected to benefit 

from mixed-age stands are neotropical species 

like Golden-winged Warblers and game species 

like American Woodcock. The bird species that 

are expected to benefit from reduced fragmentation are forest-interior birds such as Wood 

Thrush, Red-eyed Vireo, Scarlet Tanager, Ovenbird, Pileated Woodpecker, and Broad-winged 

Hawk. 

Strategies:

1. Convert 50 percent of small forest openings 

within the forested communities by 2020 

through planting or succession.

2. Maintain forest continuity with Aitkin 

County lands that are adjacent to the south 

Refuge boundary. 

Rice Lake on Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Figure 14: Future Desired Landcover, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

3. Develop a forest plan as part of more detailed 

habitat management planning by 2008.

Objective 1.2: Conifer Component

By the year 2106, have a 10 white pine/acre component on all suitable sites of a super-canopy 

size. To achieve this long-term objective, while 

allowing for attrition, increase the amount of 

white pine on suitable sites of any age class to 

~14 white pine/acre, through natural regeneration and planting by 2020.

Rationale: White pine and, to a lesser degree, 

red pine were very abundant in the pre-settlement mixed forests of the region. Logging in the 

late 1800s eliminated all except the smallest of 

pine trees, making way for the mixed hardwood 

forests seen today. In the subsections that include 

the Refuge, white pine has declined 5-10 fold 

since the late 1800s. To mimic historic conditions 

it is desirable to reestablish white pine as a component of Refuge mixed forests and to reestablish 

the forest super-canopy layer on sites with the 

right environmental conditions. A super-canopy 

consists of white pines that are taller than 75 feet, 

which tend to be trees with a DBH (Diameter of 

Breast Height) of 16 inches or more. A variety of 

strategies will need to be used to establish white 

pines because the nature of the suitable sites varies. The priority bird species that are expected to 

benefit from the conifers as part of the mixed forest are large raptors such as Bald Eagles and 

mammals such as black bears. 

Strategies:

1. Determine and map sites suitable for conifer 

restoration.

2. Establish conifers on suitable sites through 

natural regeneration or planting with site 

preparation and management that may 

include mixed conifer planting, prescribed 

fire, selective harvesting, and brush control.

3. By 2010, plant 20 percent of suitable areas 

without a white pine component at a rate of 25 

white pine seedlings/acre. An expected mortality rate of 25 percent over 40 years reduces 

the amount to ~14 white pine/acre by 2050.

4. By 2020, plant all remaining suitable areas 

without a white pine component at a rate of 25 

white pine seedlings/acre. An expected mortality rate of 25 percent over 40 years reduces 

the amount to ~14 white pine/acre by 2060.

5. Manage both planted and natural regeneration sites to protect seedlings from whitetail 

deer browsing and disease through bud capping, repellants, and pruning. 

Objective 1.3: Northern Hardwoods

Manage northern hardwood habitat as an 

uneven age system for a diversity of structure, 

tending toward early successional stages in some 

areas currently dominated by aspen, and tending toward later successional ecosystems in 

areas dominated by maple/basswood.

Rationale: Management should strive to retain 

critical ecosystem/cover/habitat types (Holling and 

Meffe 1996) as well as focus on maintaining overall 

biodiversity and maintain or restore ecosystem/habitat diversity and function (Lambeck 1997). At the 

landscape scale, management should maintain the 

diversity of cover types and seral stages, and 

increase mean patch size (Crozier and Niemi 2003). 

Aspen was part of the historic forest and emerged in 

patches where trees had been lost though fire or 

windthrow. Species expected to benefit from the 

early successional stages of aspen (DeGraaf and 

Yamaski, 2003) include:

# Golden-winged Warbler

# Northern Flicker

# Olive-sided Flycatcher

# Winter Wren

# Eastern bluebird

# Chestnut-sided Warbler

# Black-and-white Warbler

# Mourning Warbler

# Canada Warbler

# White-throated Sparrow

# Rose-breasted Grosbeak White-tail deer fawn, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

# Ruffed Grouse

# American Woodcock 

Older seral stages were also a part of the historic 

forest. Species that benefit from older seral stages 

include:

# Northern Goshawk

# Bald Eagle

# Black-billed Cuckoo

# Northern Flicker

# Red-headed Woodpecker

# Wood Duck

# Wood Thrush 

Strategies:

1. Determine best management tools to develop 

uneven-aged systems. The tools will likely 

include timber harvesting, maintaining aspen 

stands with even-age management while 

selectively harvesting or performing shelterwood harvest in other northern hardwood 

stands to create a more diverse composition 

of species, ages and structure.

2. Specify details of northern hardwood management in the forest portion of the habitat 

management plan by 2008.

3. Continue working with the Aitkin County 

Land Department to develop cooperative forest management objectives that provide for 

sustained and diverse wildlife benefits.

Objective 1.4: Coniferous Bog

Maintain 1,000 acres of coniferous bog where it 

currently occurs.

Rationale: Pristine lowland forest is a declining 

habitat in northern Minnesota. The Refuge contains black spruce, white cedar and tamarack in 

their natural condition associated with true bogs 

containing important plant species like orchids, 

sedges, and those that are carnivorous. These 

bog areas are important habitat to migrating and 

breeding neo-tropical migrants like the Connecticut Warbler and Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. 

Strategies:

1. Protect stands from fire as feasible and 

exclude from prescribed burn units where 

practical.

2. Harvest trees only to control disease.

Bog Community

Objective 1.5: Open Bogs

Restore 5,000 acres of open bog (wet meadow) 

with a brush stem density of 6 or less stems per 

square meter within 15 years.

Rationale: The large expanses of open bogs on 

Rice Lake are typified by sedge species, a habitat 

type important to Sharp-tailed Grouse as well as 

many waterbird species, including Yellow Rail 

and American Bittern, and many of the neo-tropical migrants, including LeConte’s Sparrow, for 

both migration and nesting habitat. These open 

“sedge bogs” would have been clear of brush and 

contained only islands of tamarack, spruce and 

cedar trees. Since settlement times, fire, the main 

tool in maintaining an open bog, has been suppressed, allowing for the invasion of undesirable 

brush species. The target of 5,000 acres is derived 

from the vegetation map developed for this CCP 

(Figure 14 on page 42).

Strategies:

1. Map sedge fen, open bog, and forested 

islands.

2. The frequent use of prescribed fire will be 

required to control brush species that have 

been allowed to encroach into the open bogs. 

The resulting frequency of fire intervals will 

be unnatural and potentially devastating to 

the forested islands. Caution will be taken to 

avoid the frequent burning of the forested 

islands when possible.

Rice Lake, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

3. Continue working with the Minnesota DNR 

to cooperatively use prescribed fire to 

increase bog restoration effects on adjoining 

land management units with approximately 

8,000 total acres.

4. Monitor effects of fire using the protocol as 

written in the National Park Service’s Fire 

Monitoring Handbook.

Aquatic Community

Objective 1.6: Pickerelweed

Reduce pickerelweed occurrence by approximately 50 percent on Rice Lake to no more than 

400 acres by 2015. 

Rationale: Pickerelweed has significantly 

increased in Rice Lake over the last 40 years. 

This perennial, although native, is out-competing 

wild rice, which is a major food resource for the 

fall flight of migrating ducks in Minnesota. Wild 

rice is an annual grass that depends on disturbances like flooding to remove competing vegetation early in the spring before the rice seeds 

germinate. If major flooding occurs after germination of the rice seeds, plants are often uprooted 

and killed. Stable water levels over the last several decades at the Refuge have maintained good 

rice production. However, the stable water levels 

have also benefited pickerelweed, which is 

encroaching on wild rice beds. Because wild rice 

is important to migrating ducks and the traditional harvest by Ojibwe people, we will reduce 

the beds of pickerelweed in an effort to increase 

the size of wild rice beds. 

Strategies:

1. Evaluate methods of controlling pickerelweed, including mowing as suggested by the 

University of Minnesota.

2. During the 10-year period immediately following approval of this plan, manipulate 

water levels as an experimental control 

method of pickerelweed. Experiments will 

examine the effects of both high water and 

low water manipulation and mimicking otherwise naturally occurring environmental conditions. Sound monitoring techniques will 

help develop a long-term water management 

plan to effectively reduce pickerelweed and 

maintain healthy wild rice beds. This strategy 

will require sacrificing wild rice production 

for an estimated 3 or 4 years out of 10. If no 

positive results are derived at the end of the 

10-year period, the experiment will be terminated immediately. This strategy is linked to 

Objective 1.8; Strategy 3 and Objective 4.1; 

Strategy 3. 

3. Measure size and distribution of pickerelweed beds at a minimum of 5-year intervals 

with scientifically credible methods.

Objective 1.7: Wild Rice

Maintain the long-term viability of wild rice on 

Rice Lake through 2020 with a 10-year average of 

1,400 acres, 80 seeds per head, and a stem density 

within rice beds of at least 20 stems per square 

meter.

Rationale: Wild rice is a key resource to the 

wildlife mission and cultural heritage of the Refuge and it is central to the Refuge vision. There 

isn’t a clear understanding of cause and effect of 

rice management in the lake. During the 3-year 

span from 2002-2004, only 2 years were considered good rice years. For the 21 years between 

1983 and 2004 the acreage of the wild rice bed 

ranged from a low of 1,142 to a high of 1,698 with 

an average of 1,433. Over the 3-year period there 

was an average of 85 seeds per head and an average of 25 stems per square meter. The Refuge 

will adapt management of the rice beds as information is gathered by way of monitoring activities.

Strategies:

1. Measure the stem density and number of 

seeds per head at a minimum of 3-year intervals with scientifically credible methods. 

2. Determine extent of rice beds with aerial 

photography annually.

3. Over the next 10 years, experiment with 

water level manipulations that mimic natural 

variations. Monitor results to guide future 

water level manipulation as a tool to increase 

long-term wild rice production on Rice Lake. 

This strategy is linked to Objective 4.1; Strategy 3.

Invasive Species

Objective 1.8: Invasive Species

Exotic invasive species will impact no more than 

10 percent of the Refuge by the year 2020.

Rationale: Invasive species are considered one 

of the greatest threats to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and to Rice Lake NWR. The list 

of presently known invasive plant species 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

includes common reed, reed canary grass, leafy 

spurge, and European buckthorn. European 

earthworms are also in Rice Lake NWR. It is 

probably only a matter of time before such species as purple loosestrife, spotted knapweed, 

Gypsy moth (100 miles distant), emerald ash 

borer (700 miles distant), zebra mussel (40 miles 

distant), common carp, Asian carp, and the New 

Zealand mud snail (50 miles distant) also appear. 

It is imperative that new invasive species populations be detected and treated quickly to reduce 

their impact on habitat and native wildlife populations. 

Strategies:

1. Survey and map exotic invasive plant species 

on the Refuge that could likely cause negative 

impacts to the habitat. Early detection will 

provide for an effective and rapid response.

2. Monitor known invasive plant populations to 

assist in prioritization of treatment.

3. Reduce acreage of impacting invasive plant 

species through treatment as quickly as possible. Effective treatments may include 

spraying of herbicides, introduction of biological control agents, mowing, flooding, prescribed burning, cutting, hand pulling, or a 

combination of these treatments.

4. Find reported European buckthorn population through aerial detection by 2008. 

5. Eradicate European buckthorn population 

through cutting, hand pulling, and herbicide 

application by 2010.

6. Add European earthworm detection to forest 

inventory protocol by 2008.

7. Map areas of earthworm populations and forested areas already showing negative impacts 

by 2020.

8. Monitor/assess carp issues (common carp and 

Asian carp) and work with Minnesota DNR 

Fisheries and Tribal Fisheries in developing a 

strategy to protect Rice Lake from the potentially devastating effects non-native carp 

would have on wild rice production while protecting native fisheries, using the best available science.

9. Determine effective treatment for common 

reed and reduce acreage by 50 percent by the 

year 2015.

10. Maintain or improve the health of Refuge forests through active forest management (may 

include selective harvest, planting, and prescribed fire) to minimize long-term impacts 

caused by gypsy moth.

11. Continue annual gypsy moth detection trap 

monitoring and coordination with Minnesota 

Department of Agriculture. 

12. Educate the public about invasive species and 

how they can help reduce the spread of invasives.

13. Hire a biological technician.

Special Management Area

Objective 1.9: Special Management Area

Withdraw consideration for Wilderness designation on 1,406 acres.

Rationale: Recommendation for consideration as 

Wilderness occurred in 1973. The recommendation 

has not been acted upon during the interceding 34 

years. Refuge staff have concluded that the recommendation is no longer appropriate because the area 

fails to meet numerous criteria that were established to determine Wilderness suitability: it is less 

than 5,000 acres in size; human alterations to the 

habitat is readily apparent on portions of the area; it 

offers little opportunity for primitive recreational 

activities other than hunting; and it does not contain 

significant ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical features. Removing the 

Wilderness recommendation will allow for a complete range of management options to restore 

altered and/or degraded wildlife habitat. 

Mushrooms, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Strategies:

1. Use this CCP as the decision document to 

withdraw the previous Wilderness recommendation.

2. Upon the CCP becoming final, explore available management options to the area previously managed as de facto wilderness. 

Objective 1.10: Sandstone Unit

Maintain the 2005 landcover while allowing for 

forest succession.

Rationale: Because the Unit is 52 miles from the 

headquarters and maintenance shop, frequent 

and active management activities are not efficient. Vehicular access to the Unit is limited. 

Given the limited Refuge budget and higher priority needs on the main Refuge, management 

activities on the Sandstone Unit will continue to 

be limited. It is likely that prescribed burns will 

be the only management activity for the foreseeable future. Prescribed burning will suppress 

brush encroachment and maintain the open 

lands. The forest of the Unit is considered 

healthy and diverse and therefore will be allowed 

to succeed under natural conditions (Figure 15).

The Service will explore an exchange of the Sandstone Unit for State lands with the State of Minnesota. The purpose of the exchange will be to 

increase management efficiency for both entities 

and more closely align lands with the agencies’ 

missions. Land exchanges are complex and 

require a number of years to complete. If and 

when the details of a possible exchange are specified, an environmental review of the proposed 

exchange will be completed. The environmental 

review process will include public notification and 

an opportunity for public comment.

Strategies:

1. Incorporate prescribed burn units of the 

Sandstone Unit into the Refuge’s burn program by 2008.

Goal 2: 

Fish and migrating and resident wildlife populations on 

the Refuge will be naturally diverse, healthy, and self 

sustaining.

Objective 2.1: Regional Conservation Priority (RCP) 

Species

Seventy percent of all the Region 3 RCP (Appendix C) species associated with historically occurring habitats on the Refuge will occur on the 

Refuge by 2020. This includes 84 percent of the 

RCP bird species during migration or nesting.

Rationale: Region 3’s RCP list includes rare and 

declining species, federally listed, and recreationally 

important species that are of high concern in the 

Upper Midwest. The RCP list was developed to help 

prioritize management within the Region. Knowing 

that the species are using the habitats on the Refuge 

will be an indicator of success in providing for these 

species, with the exception of nuisance species. As of 

2006, the Refuge hosted 47 of 56 bird species, 1 of 1 

mammal species, 0 of 2 fish species, 0 of 10 mollusk 

or crustacean species, and 0 of 1 insect species on 

the Region 3 RCP list. Numbers may change as new 

species are documented and as habitats are 

restored. 

Monitoring is a key element in determining if 

Refuge management is achieving its goals of providing habitat for key wildlife species. Monitoring can 

be costly if high precision is sought. For this plan we 

think an initial attempt to monitor birds should have 

the moderate goals specified in the strategy.

Strategies:

1. Every 5 years estimate species composition 

and abundance of RCP waterfowl, forest and 

marsh birds on the Refuge with scientifically 

credible data of known quality. The estimation will document at least 90 percent of the 

species and be able to detect at least a 10 percent change in abundance over 15 years

2. Support research activities that are directed 

toward Region 3 RCP bird species.

3. Continue to document observed fish and wildlife species and add to existing Refuge species 

lists. Viewing scope, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Figure 15: Future Desired Landcover, Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Objective 2.2: Monitoring

Verify wildlife response to habitat changes and 

monitor populations over time with scientifically credible data.

Rationale: Following the rationale of Schroeder, 

King, and Cornely (1998), the Refuge’s core management direction is based on habitat objectives. 

Schroeder et al. reason that many factors affect 

wildlife populations and many of these factors are 

outside the control of a refuge manager. However, 

a refuge manager can work to provide a high 

quality habitat, which is necessary for an abundant wildlife population. Still, at some point it is 

necessary to determine if wildlife is responding 

as envisioned.

Strategies:

1. Monitor Region 3 RCP species every 5 years 

through nationally recognized protocols and 

link results to regional and national databases.

2. Record habitat treatments in a Refuge and 

regional GIS database.

3. Link the wildlife and habitat data to determine differences between habitat treatment 

types and changes in wildlife abundance over 

time. 

4. Increasing habitat restoration and monitoring will require the addition of a Biological 

Technician. 

5. Hire a Biological Technician.

Goal 3: 

Visitors will enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation and 

they, along with residents of the local community, will 

appreciate the value and need for fish and wildlife conservation. 

Objective 3.1: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within 5 years of approval of the plan, increase 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography to correspond with a 20 percent 

increase (from 2005 level) in Refuge visitation.

Rationale: Little information exists about Refuge visitors. Estimates of Refuge visitation are 

based on two traffic counters on the Wildlife Drive. 

The needs and satisfaction of visitors are known 

only from chance conversations with visitors. In 

addition, local tourism and Refuge visitation is 

expected to increase by up to 20 percent. Scientifically sound visitor surveys would provide better 

information for improving visitor opportunities. The 

procedures used to conduct proper visitor surveys 

are time consuming and costly. Therefore, basic data 

will be obtained within the constraints of limited 

Refuge resources. Additional traffic counters will be 

strategically placed within the Refuge to determine 

the types of activities visitors are enjoying. The 

number of people contacted at both on- and off-Refuge events will continue to be recorded.

People will be able to spend more time engaged in 

wildlife observation and photography if more pulloffs are available on the wildlife drive. Visitors may 

stay longer and enjoy their visit more if improvements are made to the public areas and wildlife 

drive. Longer visits may lead to a greater appreciation of the value and need for fish and wildlife conservation and the Refuge. Increased visitation will 

be used as an indicator that more people are learning about and appreciating the opportunities available on the Refuge. All facilities will be made 

accessible according to ADA standards.

Strategies:

1. Develop and implement a visitor survey if 

funding is available.

2. Install, monitor and maintain accurate traffic 

counters.

3. Add three additional pull-offs to the Wildlife 

Drive. 

Environmental education, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Objective 3.2: Interpretation

Within 10 years of approval of the plan, increase 

opportunities for interpretation of Refuge wildlife 

and habitats to correspond to a 20 percent increase 

(from 2005 level) in Refuge visitation.

Rationale: With increased visitation comes an 

opportunity to interpret Refuge resources and educate a diverse group of visitors about conservation. 

Many people use the hiking trails, but may not be 

aware of the wildlife and resources they are viewing 

on their hikes. An interpretive trail at Twin Lakes 

and a kiosk at the South Trail dam will help to orient 

visitors and interpret the Refuge resources they will 

see. Visitors will spend more time learning about 

the Refuge and its purpose from interpretive panels 

if more are provided. If people stay longer on the 

Refuge, it may lead to a greater appreciation of the 

value and need for fish and wildlife conservation. 

Having the visitor center open on Saturdays will 

allow more interaction with visitors and opportunities for impromptu interpretation of Refuge 

resources. All facilities will be accessible according 

to ADA standards. (Figure 16) 

1. Convert Twin Lakes trail to an interpretive 

trail. 

2. Install a kiosk at the South Trail dam to interpret forest ecology and wildlife of the Rice 

River.

3. Develop and increase interpretive programs/

themes through partners and a Refuge park 

ranger.

4. Staff the visitor center on Saturdays. 

5. Hire a seasonal (7 months) park ranger/visitor services specialist. 

Objective 3.3: Environmental Education

Within 2 years of hiring a park ranger/visitor 

services specialist, provide environmental education programming to no fewer than 600 students per year. Eighty percent of students will 

report an increased desire to protect fish and 

wildlife habitats as a result of the programs. 

Rationale: Incorporating environmental education into the school curricula is an important way to 

influence the future well-being of the Refuge. Only 

through understanding and appreciation will people 

be moved to personal and collective action to ensure 

a healthy Refuge for the future. Environmental education is important in forming general conservation 

attitudes and responsible conduct on the Refuge.

In the past the Refuge has not offered environmental education opportunities, but responded to 

special requests. This objective aims to move the 

Refuge’s environmental education program toward 

more action. The more active approach will depend 

on additional staff and resources devoted to visitor 

services. Because the Refuge has no history of 

offering environmental education and little participation data, the beginning objective has been set at 

600 K-12 students in Aitkin County and the western 

portion of Carlton County.

Strategies:

1. Adapt existing Refuge curriculums (e.g. 

Rhythms of the Refuge) to Rice Lake NWR.

2. Hire a park ranger/visitor services specialist.

3. Offer a teacher workshop annually.

4. Promote the environmental education opportunities to local teachers.

5. Partner with one local school to focus efforts 

there.

Objective 3.4: Fishing

Within 7 years of approval of the plan, reliably 

determine the number of fishing visits to the Refuge and that at least 85 percent of the anglers 

judge that they are being provided a quality 

opportunity.

Rationale: Approximately 10,000 fishing visits 

occur on the Refuge each year. The accuracy of this 

number needs to be determined as well as how 

anglers rate their visit. The intent of this objective is 

to gain a reliable estimate of the number of visitors 

who fish and their rating of the quality of opportunities provided. This information will help determine 

Indian pipe, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Figure 16: Current and Future Visitor Services Facilities, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

if wildlife-dependent recreational goals of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System are 

being met. 

Strategies:

1. Develop and implement a visitor survey.

2. Maintain and improve facilities that support 

fishing opportunities and meet ADA standards.

3. Conduct fish census surveys at Mandy Lake 

and Twin Lakes to determine the viability of 

fish stocking efforts as a means to improve/

increase fishing opportunities.

4. Conduct Fishing Week activities.

5. Provide adequate law enforcement for visitor 

safety and resource protection through continued cooperation with Minnesota DNR and 

partnerships with other refuges.

Objective 3.5: Hunting

Within 7 years of approval of the plan, reliably 

determine the number of hunting visits to the 

Refuge and that at least 85 percent of hunters 

judge that they are being provided a quality 

opportunity.

Rationale: It is estimated that the Refuge hosts 

fewer than 1,000 hunting visits each year. There is 

an opportunity to improve the hunting program by 

redefining the hunting areas, offering additional 

hunting opportunities, clarifying boundaries, and 

redesigning hunt brochures. By doing this, the number of hunters on the Refuge is expected to increase 

while maintaining quality opportunities and sufficient wildlife populations. Wildlife surveys indicate 

that certain populations (e.g. white-tailed deer and 

Ruffed Grouse) can support additional hunting pressure. This increased participation will lead to 

increased appreciation of national wildlife refuges.

Strategies:

1. Develop and implement a visitor survey.

2. Review hunt program opportunities and/or 

impacts on other programs.

3. Offer a muzzle-loader deer hunt.

4. Modify and clarify hunt boundaries for consistency, minimizing conflicts between user 

groups. Two hunting units will be open on the 

Refuge, designated as Unit A and Unit B 

(Figure 17). Unit A is approximately 10,503 

acres and is open for small game and big 

game hunting. Unit B is approximately 3,669 

acres and is open to specialized hunts only 

(i.e. disabled access hunts, youth hunts, or 

special management hunts), for both big 

game and small game. Approximately 98 

acres of land is designated as administrative 

areas and is closed to hunting. The hunting 

unit for the Sandstone Unit is depicted in 

Figure 18.

5. Redesign and rewrite the hunt brochure to 

incorporate changes to the hunt boundaries 

and to meet graphics standards.

6. Initiate additional special hunts for hunters 

with physical disabilities and a youth hunt.

7. Provide adequate law enforcement for visitor 

safety and resource protection through continued cooperation with the Minnesota DNR 

and partnerships with other Refuges.

Objective 3.6: Outreach

Within 3 years of approval 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 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. 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Figure 17: Rice Lake NWR Hunt Units
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

Figure 18: Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Hunt Units
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Strategies:

1. Upgrade and maintain the Refuge’s website.

2. Regularly submit news articles to local newspapers.

3. Maintain regular contact with community 

leaders through presentations and conversations.

4. Continue participation in community events 

and celebrations.

5. Increase outreach efforts with local communities around the Sandstone Unit.

6. Hold annual special events on the Refuge 

(e.g. National Wildlife Refuge Week, International Migratory Bird Day, and Take a Kid 

Fishing).

7. Hire a park ranger/visitor services specialist.

Goal 4: 

The American Indian community and the Refuge will preserve American Indian cultural values through communication, consultation, and cooperation.

Objective 4.1: American Indian Cultural Practices

Opportunities to engage in American Indian 

cultural practices will be available at the level 

offered in 2005.

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 

lake and surrounding lands during historic times. 

Today, members of the Ojibwe Bands throughout 

northern Minnesota travel to the Refuge to practice rice harvesting using traditional methods. 

Members of the local East Lake Band also practice drumming ceremonies and maintain a cemetery on the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Continue to coordinate with the local Ojibwe 

Bands for drumming ceremonies and burials.

2. Continue cooperating with the Ojibwe people 

for the harvest of wild rice on Rice Lake.

3. During the next 10 years follow biological 

objectives to ensure long-term wild rice production is sufficient to allow for a successful 

harvest an estimated 6 out of every 10 years. 

This strategy is linked to Objective 1.7; Strategy 2 and Objective 1.8; Strategy 3.

4. Consult with Ojibwe and Dakota peoples for 

interpretation and environmental education 

of American Indian history. 

Objective 4.2: 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. Rice Lake 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, American Indian tribes, and 

the public in managing cultural resources on the 

Refuge.

Strategies:

1. Remove all buildings and facilities from 

Indian Point to avoid further degradation of 

this culturally important site (relocation site 

to be determined).

2. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground 

disturbing projects and protect known archeological, cultural and historic sites.

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.
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

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. Inform the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer early in project planning to ensure 

compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act.

6. Contract with cultural resources firms specializing in Minnesota to conduct Phase I surveys prior to undertakings that could 

adversely affect historic resources. 

7. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of 

ancient human remains, follow instructions 

and procedures indicated by the RHPO.

8. Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings.

9. Inspect the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the 

RHPO changes in the conditions.

10. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and 

activities.

11. Complete accessioning, cataloging, inventorying, and preserving the museum collection 

at the Refuge.

Goal 5: 

Funding, staffing, facilities and public support will be 

sufficient to accomplish the purposes, vision, goals, and 

objectives of the Refuge.

Objective 5.1: Volunteer and Friends’ Participation 

and Outside Assistance

Maintain volunteer participation, Friends’ 

activities, and outside assistance at or above the 

2005 level. 

Rationale: With steady or declining budgets it is 

important for the Refuge to work closely with 

partners to secure alternative funding options 

and procure in-kind support for projects both on 

and off the Refuge. To have a functioning visitor 

services program it will be necessary to add a 

park ranger (visitor services specialist) to the 

Refuge. Visitor facilities on the Refuge need to be 

maintained at the current levels to ensure visitor 

security and provide adequate wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. All facilities are and 

will be accessible according to ADA standards. 

Additional facilities like pull-offs along the auto 

tour will need to be incorporated as Refuge visitation increases. All Refuge activities will benefit 

from volunteer participation, and certain activities will require volunteer participation to be successful. The Friends group needs to continue 

being an advocate of the Refuge and work with 

the Refuge to increase community awareness, 

secure funding through alternative sources, and 

assist with projects.

Strategies:

1. Strengthen the existing volunteer program 

and recruit new volunteers to assist with 

resource management and visitor services. 

2. Ensure that Refuge office and maintenance 

needs are reflected in budget needs databases.

3. Support and encourage the Refuge Friends 

group to increase outreach and secure funding through grants and partnerships.

4. Continue to maintain Service-owned facilities 

using annual maintenance budget allocations.

5. Hire a park ranger (visitor services specialist) to increase outreach and develop a wellrounded visitor services program. 

Mille Lacs National Wildlife 

Refuge

Goal 1: Goal

An optimum nesting population of Common Terns will 

exist on Hennepin Island and Refuge staff will know the 

productivity and chronology of species using Spirit 

Island.

Objective 1.1: Hennepin Island

Within 5 years of approval of the CCP, annually 

host a minimum of 150 nesting pairs and produce 100 fledglings annually upon completion of 

island enhancement.

Rationale: The Refuge contains one of four Common Tern breeding colonies in Minnesota. The 

Common Tern is currently listed by the State as a 

threatened species and has been named a 

resource conservation priority species for Region 

3 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is also 

listed as high priority in all Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs) of Waterbird Plans. Since 1993, 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Refuge staff annually construct a string grid over 

the southern one third of the island as a gull nesting deterrent but which still allows the Common 

Tern to pass through for nesting purposes. Assistance in maintaining the grid is provided by the 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe’s Department of Natural Resources. During the winter of 1996, 100 

yards of pea-sized gravel were hauled to Hennepin Island as part of a habitat enhancement 

project. From 1998-2000, 100 fledglings or more 

were produced on the island annually, with the 

peak number of 200 fledging in 2000. Productivity 

has gone down since that time due to decreasing 

suitable nesting habitat, increasing water levels, 

erosion due to wave action and major storms decimating the colony in 2005. For the years 2003-

2005, 51, 46, and 3 fledglings were produced 

respectively. An objective of producing 100 fledglings annually is challenging, but achievable with 

increased resources devoted to improving the 

conditions on the island.

Strategies: 

1. Work with the Army Corps of Engineers to 

enlarge the island with gravel and construct 

rock jetties offshore to lessen erosion from 

wave action.

2. Maintain protective string grid above island.

3. Continue gull and Double-crested Cormorant 

control.

4. Continue to monitor Common Tern productivity.

Objective 1.2: Spirit Island

Annually estimate the productivity of birds on 

Spirit Island with scientifically credible data of 

known quality. The estimation will be able to 

detect at least a 20 percent change in productivity over 15 years. 

Rationale: In order to understand and manage 

from a scientific foundation, basic data about 

wildlife use of the island is needed. Gathering 

sound data is a challenge because the island is 

remote from Refuge headquarters and wildlife 

use may be highly variable. Monitoring can be 

costly if high precision is sought. For this plan to 

succeed, an initial attempt to monitor birds 

should have the moderate goals specified in the 

objective, which will be achievable with available 

resources.

Strategies:

1. Develop and implement a monitoring plan for 

birds on Spirit Island.

Objective 1.3: Human Disturbance

Protect nesting birds and their habitat from 

human disturbance.

Rationale: The effects of human disturbance on 

nesting birds are well documented and are often 

profound. Depending on the timing and the degree 

of disturbance, birds may feel compelled to leave the 

nest temporarily or in some cases to abandon the 

nest permanently. Even a short-term departure 

during incubation or with young hatchlings can 

prove to be detrimental if it occurs during inclement 

weather or if avian predators are nearby. The issue 

of human disturbance is of greatest concern to the 

state-listed threatened Common Tern. In order to 

minimize impacts from human disturbance, Mille 

Lacs NWR will be closed to the public. Outreach 

and education at local marinas and public boat 

launches will be essential in reaching the fishing 

community and recreational boaters who use Mille 

Lacs Lake.

Strategies:

1. No public uses will be allowed.

2. Limit surveys and time of surveys.

3. Maintain boundary posting.

4. Provide periodic local updates on the status 

of the islands to satisfy local curiosity. Work 

with local resorts and the Minnesota DNR to 

disseminate information on restrictions.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan calls for 

considerable staff commitment and funding to maintain and develop quality visitor facilities and wildlife 

habitat. The Refuge will need appropriate operations and maintenance funding to implement the 

strategies in this plan.

The following paragraphs describe the highest 

priority Refuge projects that will be implemented if 

staffing and funding allow.

Minimum Refuge Operations Needs 

Provide funds to operate the Refuge office including expenses for heating, air conditioning, required 

safety inspections, electrical expenses, and safety 

improvements. These funds will also allow for 

upkeep of Refuge facilities including parking lots, 

interpretive kiosks, interpretive trails, and water 

control structures. It is important to provide a quality experience for the visitors who come to the Refuge each year. The project will help pay fuel bills, 

electric bills and the day-to-day costs of operating a 

refuge. (First year cost: $136,000, Recurring annual 

cost: $126,000)

Prepare a Forest Management Plan

Rice Lake NWR is in need of forestry expertise 

to produce a Forest Management Plan that is based 

on Refuge objectives and the 1997 Landscape Plan. 

The original forest management plan from 1984, 

though dated, contains excellent management 

guidelines for much of the Refuge forest. Forest 

fragmentation in northern Minnesota is a problem 

and an updated plan is imperative to proper management of the Refuge as well as assisting adjacent 

landowners with their management concerns. Preliminary inventory of forest types has been completed. Production of such a plan could be 

contracted if Service personnel with the required 

expertise are not available. (One-time cost: $70,000)

Private Lands/Refuge Biological Technician

An additional biologically trained staff member 

would enable a more intensive effort in Private 

Lands as well as contribute to on-Refuge habitat 

restoration and protection, provide assistance with 

surveys and censuses and provide better visitor services and outreach. The Refuge currently uses seasonal STEP students to fill this role. (First year 

cost: $118,000, Recurring annual cost: $53,000)

Increase Public Education and Outreach (Visitor 

Services Specialist)

Provide a visitor services specialist to respond to 

current and anticipated demand for visitor services 

and outreach. The Rice Lake Headquarters/Visitor 

Great Grey Owl, Rice Lake NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Center is located along a major highway that leads 

tourists to the central Minnesota lakes, Duluth, and 

Lake Superior north shore areas. Highway signs 

direct visitors to the Refuge and have helped to 

increase visitation by over 50 percent in the last few 

years. Interpretation/education/outreach will be 

paramount to the continued public support of the 

Refuge System. A visitor services specialist position 

would fill a demand for professional wildlife-dependent recreation programs and opportunities, provide programs on Service activities, and produce 

news releases. This would also allow weekend visitor 

contacts, increased coordination with our Friends 

Group, and increased volunteer recruitment and 

retention. (First year cost: $71,000, Recurring 

annual cost: $45,000) 

Prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan

Contract with a cultural resources professional to 

complete a cultural resources management plan. 

The plan would include the Section 14 and Section 

110(a)(2) surveys and analysis of all cultural 

resources including pre-historic and historic wild 

ricing locations by Indians and Euro-American 

inhabitants, early Refuge facilities such as dams, 

water control structures, and CCC activities, as well 

as a determination of whether any significant conservation or wildlife activities occurred on the Refuge. An element of the cultural resources survey 

will be to examine the past and present impacts to 

the culturally sensitive area known as Indian Point. 

A detailed survey and analysis of Indian Point will 

be essential in determining the effects of building 

removal. Additional upland areas adjacent to the 

Wildlife Drive and Highway 65 will also need a 

detailed survey and analysis to assist in determining 

the effects of constructing new buildings. (One-time 

cost: $60,000)

Expand Wildlife Observation and Interpretation 

Opportunities on Refuge

Provide accessible towers, viewing scopes, interpretive signs, auto tour guide, orientation kiosk and 

trailhead signs to improve services for visitors. The 

Rice Lake NWR Office is located along a major 

highway that leads tourists to the central Minnesota 

lakes, Duluth, and Lake Superior north shore areas. 

Highway signs direct visitors to the Refuge and 

have helped to increase visitation by over 50 percent 

in the last few years. Interpretive facilities will allow 

the Refuge to educate the public about Rice Lake 

NWR, a Globally Important Bird Area that hosts up 

to one million Ring-necked Ducks during fall migration. (One-time cost: $97,000)

Increase Management Capability with a GIS / GPS 

System (Biological Technician)

Management of habitats on Rice Lake NWR 

would be enhanced by the computer technology of a 

Geographic Information System supported by a 

Global Positioning System. Purchase of this system, 

addition of a Biological Technician and the development of forest inventory, vegetation classification, 

soil mapping and overlays of human and cultural 

resources will lead to best long-term management 

decisions and long-term health of the ecosystem. 

(First year cost: $104,000, Recurring annual cost: 

$53,000) 

Remove/Relocate all Buildings and Facilities from 

Indian Point

Conduct cultural resource surveys on sites 

located near State Highway 65 that have suitable 

soils, sufficient size to accommodate the relocation 

of all Refuge maintenance facilities and housing 

requirements, and not significantly add to habitat 

fragmentation concerns. Removal of all buildings 

from Indian Point will eliminate further degradation 

of this important cultural site due to future new conRice Lake NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

struction and expansion requirements. The present 

age and condition for several of the buildings will 

soon require new construction:

# Quarters No. 2 was constructed in 1941 and has 

a basement wall that is buckling.

# The six-stall garage has no electrical service.

# The quonset storage building built in 1956 is in 

serious decay.

# The three-stall garage/bunkhouse was built in 

1952 and fails to meet Service standards for 

health and safety. (One-time cost: $3.9 million.) 

Future Staffing Requirements

In order for the Refuge to be fully successful in 

completing the strategies of the goals and objectives 

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the 

priority RONS projects, the positions noted in 

Table 4 are considered essential future staffing 

requirements.

This staffing plan requires 9.3 full-time employees, compared to the 6.35 FTEs currently approved 

for the Refuge. While 6.35 FTEs may be the 

approved staffing level, there is currently a vacancy 

that is unfilled due to steady or declining budgets 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

position will, unfortunately, remain vacant for an 

undetermined length of time. 

Existing hiring programs will be looked at as a 

way to provide employment opportunities to qualified Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe/American Indian 

youth (e.g. Student Career Enhancement Program).

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are essential to the successful 

implementation of this CCP. We plan to foster existing partnerships and develop new ones when opportunities arise. The Minnesota DNR will continue to 

be an important partner in bog management on 

approximately 8,000 contiguous acres along the Refuge’s north border. The Aitkin County Land 

Department will be an important partner in developing forest management objectives along the Refuge’s south border. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe 

will continue to be an important partner in the management of Mille Lacs NWR. The Refuge staff will 

continue to contribute expertise and other 

resources, where possible, to individuals and groups 

requesting assistance with activities beneficial to 

Service trust resources.

The Refuge’s volunteer program will be vital to 

the fulfillment of the Refuge vision. Volunteers will 

continue to assist the Refuge in nearly every aspect 

of its operation. We expect the special partnership 

with the Friends of Rice Lake Refuge to flourish 

and bring the Refuge and community closer 

together. 

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans help meet the 

goals and objectives of the CCP. Some step-down 

plans are required by Service policy and others are 

used to specify strategies and implementation 

schedules beyond the detail of the CCP. The following list shows the step-down management plans we 

intend to prepare or revise to realize the intent of 

the CCP. 

The Habitat Management Plan, Visitor Services 

Plan, and Inventory and Monitoring Plan are essential to describe forest management, wildlife-dependent recreation programs, and credible evaluation 

of management. The Fire Management Plan, 

approved in 2002 and revised every 5 years, provides direction and establishes procedures to guide 

various wildland fire program activities. The Fire 

Management Plan covers the historical and ecological role of fire, fire management objectives, preparedness, suppression, fire management actions 

and responses, fire impacts, use of prescribed fire, 

and fire management restrictions. 

Table 4: Existing Staff and Proposal Additional 

Staff, Rice Lake NWR

Position Existing Proposed 

New

Refuge Manager 1 FTE

Park Ranger/Visitor Services 1 FTE vacant

Refuge Operations Specialist 1 FTE

Biologist 1 FTE

Biological Technician 1 FTE

Biological Technician 0.6 FTE 0.1 FTE

Park Ranger/Visitor Services 0.6 FTE

Administrative Technician 1 FTE

Maintenance Mechanic 1 FTE

Maintenance Mechanic .75 FTE 0.25 FTE
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of this plan. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate 

the progress toward objectives and to determine if 

conditions are changing. 

Accomplishment of the objectives described in 

this CCP will be monitored annually by the Refuge 

Manager and his or her supervisor. The public will 

be informed about the activities of the Refuge staff 

through periodic mailings to persons on the mailing 

list and published on the Refuge website. The techniques and details for monitoring related to specific 

objectives will be specified in the Inventory and 

Monitoring Step-down Plan. 

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be monitored throughout the life of this plan. Periodically, 

the Regional Office will assemble a station review 

team to visit the Refuge and 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.

Archeological and Cultural Values

As part of its larger conservation mandate and 

ethic, the Service, through the Refuge Manager, 

applies historic preservation laws and regulations to 

ensure historic properties are identified and are 

protected to the extent possible within its established purposes and Refuge System mission.

The Refuge Manager early in project planning 

for all undertakings, informs the RHPO (Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer) to initiate the Section 

106 process. Concurrent with public notification and 

involvement for environmental compliance and compatibility determinations if applicable, or cultural 

resources only if no other issues are involved, the 

Refuge Manager informs and requests comments 

from the public and local officials through presentations, meetings, and media notices; results are provided to the RHPO.

Archeological investigations and collecting are 

performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists or by persons recommended by the 

Governor working under an Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act permit issued by the 

Regional Director. In addition, the Refuge Manager 

has found this third-party use of Refuge land to be 

compatible, (The requirements of ARPA apply to 

Service cultural resources contracts as well: the 

contract is the equivalent of a permit.) and issues a 

special use permit. Refuge personnel take steps to 

prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel; violators are cited 

or other appropriate action taken. Violations are 

reported to the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer. 

Table 5: Step-down Management Plans, Rice 

Lake NWR

Step-down 

Management Plan 

and Subplans

Plan Date 

Completed/

Updated

Anticipated 

Completion/

Revision 1

Habitat 

Management Plan

1997 (Landscape 

Plan)

2008

Marsh and Water 

Management Plan

1981

Forest Management 

Plan

1984

Grassland 

Management Plan

1989 (Cropland 

Management 

Plan)

Visitor Services Plan New 2009

Hunting Plan 1990

Fishery Management 

Plan

1987

Law Enforcement 

Plan

1987

Accessibility Plan New

Visit Quality 

Monitoring Plan

New

Wildlife and Habitat 

Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan

1996 2008

Fire Management 

Plan

2002 2008

Cultural Resources 

Management Plan

New 2010

Museum Property 

Inventory and Scope 

Statement

New

Furbearer 

Management Plan

2000 2009

Trapping Plan Annual

1.Includes all subplans.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

The Refuge Manager will, 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.

The Refuge Manager should have and implement 

a plan for inspecting the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the RHPO 

changes in the conditions.

The Refuge Manager will initiate budget 

requests or otherwise obtain funding from the 1 

percent Operations and Maintenance program base 

provided for the Section 106 process compliance:

1. Inventory, evaluate, and protect all significant 

cultural resources located on lands controlled 

by the FWS, including historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to Indian 

tribes.

2. Identify and nominate to the National Register 

of Historic Places all historic properties including those of religious and cultural significance to 

Indian tribes.

3. Cooperate with Federal, state, and local agencies, American Indian tribes, and the public in 

managing cultural resources on the Refuge.

4. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and activities. Historic buildings are rehabilitated and 

adapted to reuse when feasible.

5. Recognize the rights of American Indian to 

have access to certain religious sites and objects 

on Refuge lands within the limitations of the 

NWRS mission.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the Refuge manager and staff over the next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible 

document and several of the strategies contained in 

the plan are subject to natural, uncontrollable 

events such as windstorms and droughts. Likewise, 

many of the strategies are dependent upon Service 

funding for staff and projects. Finally, the CCP was 

developed using the best information available at 

the time of preparation. As new and better information emerges, the direction and strategies of the 

CCP may need to be re-evaluated. Because of these 

factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be 

reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised to 

meet new circumstances. If any revisions are major, 

the review and revision will include the public.
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges, Minnesota 

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet 

the conservation goals of the Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). The 

EA examined the environmental consequences that each management alternative 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 two alternatives for the future 

management of the Refuges. 

The alternative selected for implementation on each refuge is Alternative B. The preferred 

alternative for Rice Lake NWR includes improving the long-term sustainability of wild rice in 

Rice Lake; reestablishing the white pine super-canopy in Refuge forests; and strengthening 

programs in wildlife-dependent recreation and cultural resources protection. Native American 

access to the Refuge for harvesting of wild rice and ceremonies will continue. The preferred 

alternative for Mille Lacs NWR includes reversing the erosion of Hennepin Island through 

rebuilding and protection with a constructed reef. The island will continue to provide for a 

nesting colony for the State-listed threatened Common Tern. 

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 B 

as the management alternative for each refuge 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
 

/[;0: . 

ACTiN(~-lD=---ire-c---'\,to~r---=----""~-\ l~l~lli2 Date 

Appendix B: Glossary

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to 

achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

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 interstate 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.
Appendix B: Glossary

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Objectives

A concise statement of what we want to achieve. 

The statement is specific, measurable, achievable, results oriented, and time-fixed.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in 

the environmental assessment and fully developed in the 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.

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 plant 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.

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: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern 

Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Appendix C: Wildlife Species of 

Concern

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Region 3 Resource Conservation Priorities, 2002, identify the species considered to be in the greatest need of attention under 

the Service’s full span of authorities, including the 

conservation, protection, and recovery of migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, and control of nuisance species. 

The species shown below are priorities for the Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem, 

which contains Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs.

The Minnesota's 2006 Comprehensive Conservation Strategy identified species with the greatest 

conservation need in the Mille Lacs Uplands, St. 

Louis Moraines, and Tamarack Lowlands subsections, which contain Rice Lake and Mille Lakes 

NWRs (Figure 6). 

The species in the following table are a subset of 

the two lists that are expected to benefit from Refuge management.

Common Name Status Classification Concerns RCP SGCN*

MAMMALS

American Badger M

Canada Lynx Federal Endangered/ State 

Special Concern

M, S

Eastern Spotted Skunk State Threatened M, S, T

Franklin's Ground Squirrel M, S, T

Gray Wolf State Special Concern Recovering Species, Tribal 

trust

x M, S, T

Least Weasel State Special Concern M

Northern Bog Lemming State Special Concern S

BIRDS

American Avocet M

American Bittern Rare/declining x M, S, T

American Black Duck S, T

American Golden-plover M, S, T

American Woodcock Recreational/economic value, 

Rare/declining

x M, S, T

Bald Eagle Federal Threatened/State 

Special Concern

Proposed Rule (Delist from 

ESA), Tribal trust

x M, S, T

Black Tern Rare/declining x M, S, T

Black-backed Woodpecker M, S, T

Black-billed Cuckoo Rare/declining x M, S, T

Black-crowned Night-Heron Rare/declining x

Blue-winged Teal Recreational/economic value x

Bobolink Rare/declining x M

Boreal Chickadee S, T

Brown Thrasher M, S, T

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Rare/declining x M, S, T

Canada Goose – Migrant Populations Recreational/economic value x

Canada Goose – Resident Population 

(Giants & Urban Giants)

Recreational/economic value, 

“Nuisance”

x
Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Canada Warbler Rare/declining x M, S, T

Canvasback Recreational/economic value x

Cape May Warbler M, T

Cerulean Warbler State Special Concern M

Common Loon Rare/declining x M, S, T

Common Nighthawk M, S, T

Common Tern – Great Lakes 

Population

State Threatened Rare/declining x M

Connecticut Warbler Rare/declining x M, S, T

Dickcissel Rare/declining x

Double-crested Cormorant “Nuisance” x

Dunlin M, S, T

Eastern Meadowlark Rare/declining x M

Eastern Wood-pewee M, S, T

Field Sparrow Rare/declining x M

Forster’s Tern State Special Concern Rare/declining x M

Golden-winged Warbler Rare/declining x M, S, T

Grasshopper Sparrow Rare/declining x M

Greater Yellowlegs Rare/declining x M, S, T

Henslow’s Sparrow Rare/declining x

Hudsonian Godwit Rare/declining x M

Least Bittern Rare/declining x M

Least Flycatcher M, S, T

LeConte's Sparrow Rare/declining x M, S, T

Lesser Scaup Recreational/economic value, 

Rare/declining

x

Long-eared Owl Rare/declining x

Mallard Recreational/economic value x

Marbled Godwit State Special Concern Rare/declining x

Marsh Wren M, S, T

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow State Special Concern Rare/declining x M, S

Northern Flicker Rare/declining x

Northern Goshawk Rare/declining x M, S, T

Northern Harrier Rare/declining x M, S, T

Northern Pintail Recreational/economic value, 

Rare/declining

x

Northern Rough-winged Swallow M, S, T

Olive-sided Flycatcher Rare/declining x M, S, T

Orchard Oriole Rare/declining x

Ovenbird M, S, T

Peregrine Falcon State Threatened Rare/declining, ESA Delisted, 

Recreational/economic value

x

Red-headed Woodpecker Rare/declining x M, S, T

Common Name Status Classification Concerns RCP SGCN*
Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Red-necked Grebe M, S, T

Red-shouldered Hawk State Special Concern Rare/declining x M, S

Rose-breasted Grosbeak M, S, T

Ruddy Turnstone M, S

Sedge Wren Rare/declining x M, S, T

Semipalmated Sandpiper M, S, T

Sharp-tailed Grouse M

Short-billed Dowitcher Rare/declining x M, S, T

Short-eared Owl Rare/declining x T

Snow Goose Recreational/economic value, 

“Nuisance”

x

Stilt Sandpiper Rare/declining x

Swamp Sparrow M, S, T

Trumpeter Swan State Threatened Rare/declining, Recreational/

economic value

x M, S, T

Upland Sandpiper Rare/declining x M

Veery M, S, T

Virginia Rail M, S, T

Western Meadowlark Rare/declining x

Whimbrel Rare/declining x M, S

Whip-poor-will Rare/declining x M, S, T

White-rumped Sandpiper M, S

White-throated Sparrow M, S, T

Willow Flycatcher M

Wilson’s Phalarope State Threatened Rare/declining x T

Winter Wren M, S, T

Wood Duck Recreational/economic value x

Wood Thrush Rare/declining x M, S, T

Yellow Rail State Special Concern Rare/declining x M, S, T

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker M, S, T

REPTILES and AMPHIBIANS

Blanding’s Turtle State Threatened M

Common Mudpuppy M

Common Snapping Turtle State Special Concern M, S, T

Eastern Hognose Snake M

Eastern Red-backed Salamander S, T

Four-toed Salamander State Special Concern S

Spotted Salamander M

Wood Turtle State Threatened M, T

FISH

Gilt Darter State Special Concern M

Greater Redhorse M, T

Common Name Status Classification Concerns RCP SGCN*
Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Lake Sturgeon – Inland population State Special Concern Rare/declining, Recreational/

economic value, Tribal trust

x M, S, T

Largescale Stoneroller M

Least Darter M

Longear Sunfish M

Northern Brook Lamprey State Special Concern M

Pugnose Shiner State Special Concern M

Southern Brook Lamprey State Special Concern M

INSECTS and SPIDERS

A Caddisfly (6 species) State Special Concern M, S

A Jumping Spider (2 species) State Special Concern M, S, T

A Tiger Beetle State Special Concern M

Bog Copper M, S, T

Disa Alpine State Special Concern T

Green-faced Clubtail M

Grizzled Skipper State Special Concern S, T

Leonard’s Skipper State Special Concern M

Macoun's Arctic M, S, T

Persius Duskywing State Endangered M

Polycentropus milaca (caddisfly) State Special Concern S

Pygmy Snaketail M

Skillet Clubtail M

St. Croix Snaketail State Special Concern M

Tawny Crescent M, S, T

Two-spotted Skipper M

Vertrees’s Ceraclean Caddisfly State Special Concern M

MOLLUSKS

Black Sandshell State Special Concern Rare/declining (range overlaps 

commercial harvested areas)

x M, S, T

Creek Heelsplitter State Special Concern M, S, T

Elktoe State Threatened Rare/declining (range overlaps 

commercial harvested areas)

x M

Hickorynut State Special Concern M

Mucket Mussel State Threatened M

Purple Wartyback State Threatened M

Round Pigtoe State Threatened Rare/declining (range overlaps 

commercial harvested areas)

x M

Snail (4 species) Rare/declining (status 

assessment underway)

x

Spectaclecase State Threatened M

Spike State Special Concern M

Threeridge Recreational/economic value x

Zebra Mussel “Nuisance” x

Common Name Status Classification Concerns RCP SGCN*
Appendix C: Wildlife Species of Concern

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

CRUSTACEANS

Rusty Crayfish “Nuisance” x

*Species with the greatest conservation need (SGCN) subsections:

M, Mille Lacs Uplands

S, St. Louis Moraines

T, Tamarack Lowlands

Common Name Status Classification Concerns RCP SGCN*

Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Appendix D: Species Lists

Mammal Species List for Rice Lake NWR ........................................................................................................ 81

Butterfly and Moth Species List, Rice Lake NWR ............................................................................................ 83

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species List, Rice Lake NWR ................................................................................... 86

Amphibian and Reptile Species List, Rice Lake NWR ...................................................................................... 90

Fish Species List, Rice Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR ............................................... 91

Mollusk and Crustacean Species List, Rice Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR .............. 92

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR ..................................................................................................................... 93

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List ..................................................................................... 103

Rice Lake NWR Tree and Shrub Species List ................................................................................................. 112

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR ....................................................................................................... 116

Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Mammal Species List for Rice Lake NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

by

DIDELPHIMORPHA: Didelphidae

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Burt 1976

INSECTIVORA: Soricidae

Sorex arcticus Arctic shrew Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Sorex cinereus Cinereus shrew Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Sorex hoyi Pygmy shrew Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Sorex palustris Common water shrew Burt 1976

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

INSECTIVORA: Talpidae

Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole Burt 1976

CHIROPTERA: Vespertilionidae

Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis Burt 1976 F 2001 MNCBS

Myotis septentrionalis Northern myotis Burt 1976

Lasiurus borealis Eastern red bat Burt 1976

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat Burt 1976

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat Burt 1976 F 2001 MNCBS

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistelle Burt 1976

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat Burt 1976 F 2001 MNCBS

CARNIVORA: Canidae

Canis latrans Coyote Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

Canis lupus Gray wolf Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

Vulpes vulpes Red fox Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Common gray fox Burt 1976 O 1998 D. Huhta

CARNIVORA: Ursidae

Ursus americanus Black bear Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

CARNIVORA: Procyonidae

Procyon lotor Common raccoon Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

CARNIVORA: Mustelidae

Martes americana American marten O early 

1990's

D. Huhta

Martes pennanti Fisher O 8/1/02 M. McDowell

Mustela erminea Ermine Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel Burt 1976

Mustela nivalis Least weasel Burt 1976

Mustela vison American mink Burt 1976 O 1998 D. Huhta

Taxidea taxus American badger Burt 1976 O late 1980's D. Huhta

Lutra canadensis Northern river otter Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

Spilogale putorius Eastern spotted skunk Burt 1976

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

CARNIVORA: Felidae

Felis concolor Mountain lion Burt 1976 O 1991 D. Huhta
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Burt 1976 O 3/17/06 D. Huhta & 

C. DeMenge

Lynx rufus Bobcat Burt 1976 O 9/2/03 M. McDowell

ARTIODACTYLA: Cervidae

Cervus elaphus Elk*

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Burt 1976

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

Alces alces Moose O 6/24/06 C. DeMenge

Rangifer tarandus Caribou*

ARTIODACTYLA: Bovidae

Bos bison American bison*

RODENTIA: Sciuridae

Tamias minimus Least chipmunk Burt 1976

Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

Marmota monax Woodchuck Burt 1976 O 2003 M. McDowell

Spermophilus franklinii Franklin's ground squirrel Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Burt 1976

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel Burt 1976

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

Glaucomys sabrinus Northern flying squirrel Burt 1976 O Nov-06 M. McDowell

Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel Burt 1976

RODENTIA: Geomyidae

Geomys bursarius Plains pocket gopher Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

RODENTIA: Castoridae

Castor canadensis American beaver Burt 1976 O 2001 MNCBS

RODENTIA: Muridae (Cricetinae)

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Peromyscus maniculatus 

gracilis

Woodland deer mouse Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

RODENTIA: Muridae (Arvicolinae)

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat Burt 1976 O 2003 M. McDowell

Synaptomys cooperi Southern bog lemming Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

RODENTIA: Dipodidae (Zapodinae)

Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse Burt 1976 V 2001 MNCBS

Napaeozapus insignis Woodland jumping mouse Burt 1976

RODENTIA: Erethizontidae

Erethizon dorsatum Common porcupine Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

LAGOMORPHA: Leporidae

Mammal Species List for Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

by
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Burt 1976 O 2004 M. McDowell

Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare Burt 1976 T 2001 MNCBS

V = voucher specimen, P = photo, F = call file, C = capture/release

O = observation, S = sound or vocalization, T = tracks or sign

MNCBS = Minnesota County Biological Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

*extirpated species

Source: W. Burt, R. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series. 

Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, New York. 289 pages.

Butterfly and Moth Species List, Rice Lake NWR 

Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Source

Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Stokes

Celithemis elisa Calico Pennant Dunkle

Celithemis eponina Halloween Pennant Dunkle

Tramea lacerata Black Saddlebags Dunkle

Perithemis tenera Eastern Amberwing Dunkle

Neurocordulia 

yamaskanensis

Stygian Shadowdragon Dunkle

Somatochlora franklini Delicate Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora kennedyi Kennedy's Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora ensigera Plains Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora walshii Brush-tipped Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora minor Ocellated Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora elongata Ski-Tailed Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora williamsoni Williamson's Emerald Dunkle

Epitheca cynosura Common Baskettail Dunkle

Epitheca princeps Prince Baskettail Dunkle

Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony Boghaunter Dunkle

Dorocordulia libera Racket-Tailed Emerald Dunkle

Macromia illinoiensis Illinois River Cruiser Dunkle

Didymops transversa Stream Cruiser Dunkle

Cordulegaster maculata Twin-Spotted Spiketail Dunkle

Arigomphus cornutus Horned Clubtail Dunkle

Arigomphus furcifer Lilypad Clubtail Dunkle

Mammal Species List for Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

by
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Dromogomphus spinosus Black-Shouldered Spinyleg Dunkle

Stylurus notatus Elusive Clubtail Dunkle

Stylurus amnicola Riverine Clubtail Dunkle

Stylurus spiniceps Arrow Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus externus Plains Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus fraternus Midland Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus lineatifrons Splendid Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus vastus Cobra Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus ventricosus Skillet Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus viridifrons Green-Faced Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus adelphus Mustached Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus exilis Lancet Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus Spicatus Dusky Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus lividus Ashy Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus quadricolor Rapids Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus graslinellus Pronghorn Clubtail Dunkle

Oplonaeschna armata Riffle Darner Dunkle

Aeshna sitchensis Zigzag Darner Dunkle

Aeshna verticalis Green-Striped Darner Dunkle

Aeshna tuberculifera Black-Tipped Darner Dunkle

Aeshna eremita Lake Darner Dunkle

Aeshna constricta Lance-Tipped Darner Dunkle

Boyeria grafiana Ocellated Darner Dunkle

Calopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing Stokes

Lestes disjunctus Common Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes congener Spotted Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Stokes

Enallagma cyathigerum Northern Bluet Stokes

Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Stokes

Enallagma erbium Marsh Bluet Stokes

Coenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet Stokes

Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Stokes

Ischnura perparva Western Forktail Stokes

Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Stokes

Nehalennia Irene Sedge Sprite Stokes

Anax junius Common Green Darner Dunkle

Butterfly and Moth Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Source
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Boyeria vinosa Fawn Darner Dunkle

Aeshna Canadensis Canada Darner Dunkle

Aeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner Dunkle

Aeshna interrupta Variable Darner Dunkle

Basiaeschna janata Springtime Darner Dunkle

Ophiogomphus morrisoni Great Basin Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-Striped Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus susbehcha Wisconsin Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus carolus Riffle Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus colubrinis Boreal Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus 

rupinsulensis

Rusty Snaketail Dunkle

Cordulia shurtleffii American Emerald Dunkle

Pantala flavescens Wandering Glider Dunkle

Pantala hymenaea Spot-winged Glider Dunkle

Libellula lydia Common Whitetail Dunkle

Libellula luctuosa Widow Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula julia Chalk-fronted Corporal Dunkle

Erythemis simplicicollis Eastern Pondhawk Dunkle

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher Dunkle

Sympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum internum Cherry-Faced Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum semicinctum Band-Winged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum vicinum Yellow-Legged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sumpetrum costiferum Saffron-winged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum corruptum Variegated Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum danae Black Meadowhawk Dunkle

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia frigida Frosted Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia proxima Red-Waisted Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia borealis Boreal Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia glacialis Crimson-ringed Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia hudsonica Hudsonian Whiteface Dunkle

Source: Dunkle, Sidney W. Dragonflies through Binoculars: A Field Guide to 

Dragonflies of North America. 2000. Oxford University Press. 

Butterfly and Moth Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Source
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species List, Rice Lake NWR 

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source

Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Stokes

Celithemis elisa Calico Pennant Dunkle

Celithemis eponina Halloween Pennant Dunkle

Tramea lacerata Black Saddlebags Dunkle

Perithemis tenera Eastern Amberwing Dunkle

Neurocordulia yamaskanensis Stygian Shadowdragon Dunkle

Somatochlora franklini Delicate Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora kennedyi Kennedy's Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora ensigera Plains Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora walshii Brush-tipped Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora minor Ocellated Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora elongata Ski-Tailed Emerald Dunkle

Somatochlora williamsoni Williamson's Emerald Dunkle

Epitheca cynosura Common Baskettail Dunkle

Epitheca princeps Prince Baskettail Dunkle

Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony Boghaunter Dunkle

Dorocordulia libera Racket-Tailed Emerald Dunkle

Macromia illinoiensis Illinois River Cruiser Dunkle

Didymops transversa Stream Cruiser Dunkle

Cordulegaster maculata Twin-Spotted Spiketail Dunkle

Arigomphus cornutus Horned Clubtail Dunkle

Arigomphus furcifer Lilypad Clubtail Dunkle

Dromogomphus spinosus Black-Shouldered Spinyleg Dunkle

Stylurus notatus Elusive Clubtail Dunkle

Stylurus amnicola Riverine Clubtail Dunkle

Stylurus spiniceps Arrow Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus externus Plains Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus fraternus Midland Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus lineatifrons Splendid Clubtail Dunkle
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Gomphus vastus Cobra Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus ventricosus Skillet Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus viridifrons Green-Faced Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus adelphus Mustached Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus exilis Lancet Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus Spicatus Dusky Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus lividus Ashy Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus quadricolor Rapids Clubtail Dunkle

Gomphus graslinellus Pronghorn Clubtail Dunkle

Oplonaeschna armata Riffle Darner Dunkle

Aeshna sitchensis Zigzag Darner Dunkle

Aeshna verticalis Green-Striped Darner Dunkle

Aeshna tuberculifera Black-Tipped Darner Dunkle

Aeshna eremita Lake Darner Dunkle

Aeshna constricta Lance-Tipped Darner Dunkle

Boyeria grafiana Ocellated Darner Dunkle

Calopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing Stokes

Lestes disjunctus Common Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes congener Spotted Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing Stokes

Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Stokes

Enallagma cyathigerum Northern Bluet Stokes

Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Stokes

Enallagma erbium Marsh Bluet Stokes

Coenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet Stokes

Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Stokes

Ischnura perparva Western Forktail Stokes

Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Stokes

Nehalennia Irene Sedge Sprite Stokes

Anax junius Common Green Darner Dunkle

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Boyeria vinosa Fawn Darner Dunkle

Aeshna Canadensis Canada Darner Dunkle

Aeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner Dunkle

Aeshna interrupta Variable Darner Dunkle

Basiaeschna janata Springtime Darner Dunkle

Ophiogomphus morrisoni Great Basin Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-Striped Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus susbehcha Wisconsin Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus carolus Riffle Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus colubrinis Boreal Snaketail Dunkle

Ophiogomphus rupinsulensis Rusty Snaketail Dunkle

Cordulia shurtleffii American Emerald Dunkle

Pantala flavescens Wandering Glider Dunkle

Pantala hymenaea Spot-winged Glider Dunkle

Libellula lydia Common Whitetail Dunkle

Libellula luctuosa Widow Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer Dunkle

Libellula julia Chalk-fronted Corporal Dunkle

Erythemis simplicicollis Eastern Pondhawk Dunkle

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher Dunkle

Sympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum internum Cherry-Faced Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum semicinctum Band-Winged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum vicinum Yellow-Legged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sumpetrum costiferum Saffron-winged Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum corruptum Variegated Meadowhawk Dunkle

Sympetrum danae Black Meadowhawk Dunkle

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface Dunkle

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Leucorrhinia frigida Frosted Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia proxima Red-Waisted Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia borealis Boreal Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia glacialis Crimson-ringed Whiteface Dunkle

Leucorrhinia hudsonica Hudsonian Whiteface Dunkle

Source: Dunkle, Sidney W. Dragonflies through Binoculars: A Field Guide to 

Dragonflies of North America. 2000. Oxford University Press. 

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Amphibian and Reptile Species List, Rice Lake NWR

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by

Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted salamander Oldfield 1994

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander Oldfield 1994

Plethondon cinereus Redback salamander Oldfield 1994

Bufo americanus American toad Oldfield 1994 * Jun-98 W. Brininger

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope's gray treefrog * May-96 T. Topitchofer

Hyla versicolor Gray treefrog Oldfield 1994 * Apr-01 W. Brininger

Pseudacris crucifer Spring peeper Oldfield 1994 * Apr-01 W. Brininger

Psudacris triseriata Western chorus frog Oldfield 1994 * Apr-01 W. Brininger

Rana clamitans Green frog Oldfield 1994

Rana pipens Northern leopard frog Oldfield 1994 * Apr-01 W. Brininger

Rana septentrionalis Mink frog Oldfield 1994 * Jul-96 T. Topitchofer

Rana sylvatica Wood frog Oldfield 1994 * Apr-01 W. Brininger

Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle Oldfield 1994 * Aug-02 M. McDowell

Chrysemys picta Painted turtle Oldfield 1994 * Aug-02 M. McDowell

Storeria occipitomaculata Redbelly snake Oldfield 1994

Thamnophis sirtalis Common garter snake Oldfield 1994 * Aug-02 M. McDowell

Oldfield B. and J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press. 237pp.
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Fish Species List, Rice Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR 

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

by

RCP

Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Phillips, 1982 *

Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Ictalurus melas Black bullhead Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Phillips, 1982 * Dec-05 MNDNR 

Fisheries

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Ictalurus nebulosus Brown bullhead Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Culaea inconstans Brook stickleback Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout Phillips, 1982 *

Amia calva Bowfin Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Lota lota Burbot Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Urbra limi Central mudminnow Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Notropis cornutus Common shiner Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Esox lucius Northern pike Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Notropis unbratilis Redfin shiner Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Stizostedion vitreum Walleye Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Catosomus commersoni White sucker Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Perca flavescens Yellow perch Phillips, 1982 * 80's and 

90's

Ashland 

FRO

Phillips, Gary L. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota region. Universily of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 248 pp.
Appendix D: Species Lists

Rice Lake NWR and Mille Lacs NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Mollusk and Crustacean Species List, Rice Lake NWR and the Sandstone Unit of Rice 

Lake NWR 

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

by RCP

Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Sietman 2003 *

Amblema plicata Threeridge Sietman 2003 *

Fusconia flava Wabash pigtoe Cummings 1992

Pyganodon grandis Giant floater Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003 * 7/8/04 R3 FRO*

Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical papershell Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003

Strophitus undulatus Strange floater Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003 * 7/8/04 R3 FRO

Lasmigona complanata White heelsplitter Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003

Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell Cummings 1992

Lasmigona compressa Creek heelsplitter Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Cummings 1992

Ligumia recta Black sandshell Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003 *

Pleurobema coccineum Round pigtoe Sietman 2003 *

Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003 * 7/8/04 R3 FRO

Lampsilis cardium Plain pocketbook Cummings 1992, Sietman 2003

Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell * 7/8/04 R3 FRO

Sphaeridae sp. Fingernail clams * 7/8/04 R3 FRO

Possible new species, 

still being checked

* 7/8/04 R3 FRO

Dresissena polymorpha Zebra mussel *

Vertigo bollesiana Snail (no common 

name)

*

Vertigo cristata Snail (no common 

name)

*

Vertigo morsei Snail (no common 

name)

*

Vertigo paradoxa Snail (no common 

name)

*

Orconectes rusticus Rusty crayfish *

Literature Cited

Sietman, B. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. 144pp.

Cummings, K. and C. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194pp.

*Region 3 Fisheries Resources Office staff were Scott Yess (LaCrosse) and Glenn Miller (Ashland)
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR 

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP

Gavia immer Common Loon Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe Sibley, 2000 * 4/24/96 C. LappPodiceps auritus Horned Grebe Sibley, 2000 * 10/10/02 W. NelsonPodiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe Sibley, 2000 * 4/24/96 C. LappPodilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappPelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappPhalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant Sibley, 2000 * 4/29/94 C. Lapp *Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. Lapp *Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBS *Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappArdea alba Great Egret Sibley, 2000 * 4/24/96 C. LappBubulcus ibis Cattle Egret * 8/7/06 D. HuhtaButorides virescens Green Heron Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 C. LappNycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron Sibley, 2000 *Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan Sibley, 2000 * 3/30/99 W. BriningerBranta canadensis Canada Goose Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted Goose Sibley, 2000 * 9/16/02 M. McDowellChen rossii Ross's Goose * 1996 Refuge staffChen caerulescens Snow Goose Sibley, 2000 * 9/25/96 C. Lapp *Aix sponsa Wood Duck Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Anas rubripes American Black Duck Sibley, 2000 * 4/24/96 C. LappAnas strepera Gadwall Sibley, 2000 * 4/24/96 C. LappAnas acuta Northern Pintail Sibley, 2000 * 4/25/96 C. Lapp *Anas americana American Wigeon Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappAnas clypeata Northern Shoveler Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. Lapp
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. Lapp *Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappAythya valisineria Canvasback Sibley, 2000 * 4/29/94 C. Lapp *Aythya americana Redhead Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappAythya collaris Ring-necked Duck Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappAythya marila Greater Scaup Sibley, 2000 * 5/15/87 W. NelsonAythya affinis Lesser Scaup Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. Lapp *Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappBucphala albeola Bufflehead Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappLophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappMergus merganser Common Merganser Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappMergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Sibley, 2000Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter * 1941 Refuge staffOxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Sibley, 2000 * 9/13/84 W. NelsonCathartes aura Turkey Vulture Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappCircus cyaneus Northern Harrier Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. LappAccipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. LappAccipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Sibley, 2000 * 9/25/01 W. Brininger *Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBS *Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIButeo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappButeo regalis Ferruginous Hawk * 8/29/89 VisitorButeo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Sibley, 2000 * 1/4/03 M. McDowellAquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappHaliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp *Pandion haliaetus Osprey Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappFalco columbarius Merlin Sibley, 2000 * 9/28/98 W. BriningerFalco sparverius American Kestrel Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. Lapp

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Sibley, 2000 * 5/17/95 C. Lapp *Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant Sibley, 2000 * 1941 Refuge staffTympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse Sibley, 2000 * 4/21/94 C. LappTympanuchus cupido Greater Prairie-Chicken * 1941 Refuge staffBonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIFalcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse * 7/2/03 Yves CormierFulica americana American Coot Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIRallus limicola Virginia Rail Sibley, 2000 * 5/30/94 C. LappPorzana carolina Sora Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRICoturnicops noveboracensis Yellow Rail Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 C. Lapp *Grus americana Whooping Crane * 1981 W. NelsonGrus canadensis Sandhill Crane (Greater) Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappPluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover Sibley, 2000 * 5/25/94 C. LappPluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover Sibley, 2000 * 1941 Refuge staffCharadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover Sibley, 2000 * 8/29/95 C. LappCharadrius vociferus Killdeer Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappTringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. Lapp *Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. LappTringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. LappActitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 C. LappLimosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit Janssen, 1987 *Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit Sibley, 2000 * 5/30/03 M. McDowell *Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 1941 Refuge staff *Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Janssen, 1987 *Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 C. LappCalidris alba Sanderling Sibley, 2000Calidris alpina Dunlin Sibley, 2000 * 5/17/95 C. LappCalidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 9/12/96 C. LappCalidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper Sibley, 2000

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 C. LappCalidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 6/8/94 C. LappCalidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 * 5/17/95 C. Lapp *Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher Sibley, 2000Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher Sibley, 2000 * 5/15/04 W. Nelson *Tyngites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper Janssen, 1987 * 8/17/06 Jacob Randa *Scolopax minor American Woodcock Sibley, 2000 * 5/8/80 K. Burns *Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Sibley, 2000 * 5/20/02 M. StefanskiPhalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope Sibley, 2000 *Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Sibley, 2000Larus philadephia Bonaparte's Gull Sibley, 2000 * 5/5/94 C. LappLarus pipixcan Franklin's Gull Sibley, 2000Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappLarus argentatus Herring Gull Sibley, 2000 * 9/23/03 M. McDowellSterna caspia Caspian Tern Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellSterna hirundo Common Tern Sibley, 2000 * 5/25/94 C. Lapp *Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Sibley, 2000 *Chlidonias niger Black Tern Sibley, 2000 * Jul-93 C. Lapp *Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSCoccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Sibley, 2000Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Asio otus Long-eared Owl Sibley, 2000 *Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Sibley, 2000 * 4/27/99 W. Brininger *Bubo virginianus Great-horned Owl Sibley, 2000 * 4/11/94 C. LappNyctea scandiaca Snowy Owl Sibley, 2000 * 11/20/01 W. BriningerStrix nebulosa Great Gray Owl Sibley, 2000 * 12/8/04 M. McDowellStrix varia Barred Owl Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 J. BlanichAegolius funereus Boreal Owl Sibley, 2000Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl Sibley, 2000 * 3/15/03 M. McDowell

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Otus asio Eastern Screech-Owl Sibley, 2000 * 7/14/02 J. & B. NealSturnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl Sibley, 2000 * 11/2/04 D. HuhtaCaprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Sibley, 2000 * 1941 Refuge staff *Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Sibley, 2000 * Jun-03 M. McDowellChaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSArchilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-96 J. BrinkCeryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellMelanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * 6/17/84 W. Nelson *Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * 6/5/01 J. BrinkSphryrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPicoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPicoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPicoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker Sibley, 2000Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIContopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * 5/26/87 W. Nelson *Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIEmpidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * 5/26/87 W. NelsonEmpidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIEmpidonax minimus Least Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISayornis saya Say's Phoebe * Oct-05 M. McDowellMyiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRITyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSTyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Sibley, 2000Lanius exubitor Northern Shrike Sibley, 2000 * 1/4/03 M. McDowellVireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIVireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSVireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo Sibley, 2000 * 5/20/95 MOU group

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIVireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo Sibley, 2000 * 5/28/91 W. NelsonCyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPerisoreus canadensis Gray Jay Sibley, 2000 * 10/1/86 J. FrancisPica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie Sibley, 2000 * 1/26/87 D. HeffernanCorvus corax Common Raven Sibley, 2000 * Jun-96 J. BrinkCorvs brachyrhynchos American Crow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIEremophila alpestris Horned Lark Sibley, 2000 * 10/19/03 M. McDowellProgne subis Purple Martin Sibley, 2000 * 5/23/98 J. BlanichStelgiopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Sibley, 2000 * 5/17/02 Aitkin 

Ornithology Class

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Sibley, 2000 * 1941 Refuge staffTachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellPetrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellHirundo rustica Barn Swallow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellPoecile atricapilla Black-capped Chickadee Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPoecile hudsonica Boreal Chickadee Sibley, 2000Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRICerthia americana Brown Creeper Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRITroglodytes aedon House Wren Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSTroglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRICistrothorus platensis Sedge Wren Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSRegulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIReugus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Sibley, 2000 * 4/27/99 W. BriningerPolioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Sibley, 2000 * 5/15/04 M. McDowell

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird 1950-1955 Conservation 

Volunteer, 

March-Apr 1955

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSTurdus migratorius American Robin Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIHylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Catharus fuscescens Veery Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRICatharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Sibley, 2000 * 5/20/95 MOU groupCatharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush Sibley, 2000 * 5/15/04

P. Perry

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIMimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird * 5/14/03 M. McDowellToxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Sibley, 2000 * 9/15/03 M. McDowellSturnus vulgaris European Starling Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 J. BlanichAnthus rubescens American Pipit Sibley, 2000 * Oct-88 W. NelsonBombycilla garrulus Bohemian Waxwing Sibley, 2000 * 3/16/03 M. McDowellBombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIParula americana Northern Parula Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIVernivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 J. BlanichVernivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-94 W. NelsonVernivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Vernivora pinus x chrysoptera

Blue-winged x Golden-winged Warbler

* 6/1/03 M. McDowell

Vernivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendrioca pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendrioca magnolia Magnolia Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendrioca caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler * Jun-92 NRRIDendrioca tigrina Cape May Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/11/03 M. McDowell

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendroica palmarum Palm Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendroica pinus Pine Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/23/98 J. BlanichDendroica castanea Bay-breasted Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/18/94 W. NelsonDendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/22/03 Aitkin 

Ornithology 

Class

Mniotita varia Balck-and-white Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISetophaga ruticilla American Redstart Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISeiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISeiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIOporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-79 W. Nelson *Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIGeothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIWilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler Sibley, 2000 * 5/17/03 C. Olson, J. 

Wozniak

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRISpiza americana Dickcissel * 6/16/03 N. Fittinghoff *Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Sibley, 2000 * 5/24/84 J. FrancisPheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPasserina cyanea Indigo Bunting Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee Sibley, 2000 * 5/22/03 Aitkin 

Ornithology Class

Spizella arborea American Tree Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 9/18/01 J. BrinkSpizella pusilla Field Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 5/29/06 W. Nelson *Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellSpizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 6/26/86 W. Nelson *Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow * 6/27/86 K. Eckert *Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowell *Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow * 6/16/04 M. McDowell *Passerculus sanwichensis Savannah Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellPooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 6/12/01 W. NelsonChondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow * 5/27/04 M. McDowellZonotrichia querula Harris's Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 9/26/03 M. McDowellZonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIZonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowellPasserella iliaca Fox Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 4/19/01 W. BriningerMelospiza melodia Song Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIMelospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * 10/10/00 W. NelsonMelospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIJunco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Sibley, 2000 * 10/15/03 M. McDowellCalcarius pictus Smith's Longspur Sibley, 2000 * 10/12/02 W. NelsonCalcarius lapponicus Lapland Longspur Sibley, 2000 * 10/8/03 M. McDowellPlectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting Sibley, 2000 * 10/15/03 M. McDowellSturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Sibley, 2000 *Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Sibley, 2000 * 6/8/01 J. Brink *Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Sibley, 2000 * 5/10/03 M. McDowell *Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIXanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed Blackbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBS

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSEuphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSEuphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Sibley, 2000 * 9/28/99 W. NelsonQuiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSIcterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole * 5/22/03 M. StefanskiIcterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Sibley, 2000 *Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Sibley, 2000 * 12/5/01 J. BrinkPinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak Sibley, 2000 * 12/2/03 M. McDowellCarpodacus purpureus Purple Finch Sibley, 2000 * 10/10/01 J. BrinkCarpodacus mexicanus House Finch Sibley, 2000 * 9/24/01 J. BrinkLoxia curvirostra Red Crossbill Sibley, 2000 * Oct-78 W. NelsonLoxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill Sibley, 2000Carduelis flammea Common Redpoll Sibley, 2000 * 11/27/01 J. BrinkCarduelis hornemanni Hoary Redpoll Sibley, 2000 * 12/2/03 M. McDowellCarduelis pinus Pine Siskin Sibley, 2000 * Jun-01 MCBSCaruelis tristis American Goldfinch Sibley, 2000 * Jan-03 M. McDowellPasser domesticus House Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jan-03 J. BrinkLiterature CitedSibley, D. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 544 pp.Janssen, R. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 352 pp.NRRI = Natural Resources Reseach Institute, University of Minnesota, DuluthMCBS = Minnesota County Biological Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesMOU = Minnesota Ornithological Union

Bird Species List, Rice Lake NWR (Continued)

Species Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed 

By

RCP
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List 

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC

Gavia immer Common Loon Sibley, 2000 *

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe Sibley, 2000

Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe Sibley, 2000Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe Sibley, 2000Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Sibley, 2000Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Sibley, 2000Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant Sibley, 2000 *

Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Sibley, 2000 *

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Sibley, 2000 *

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Sibley, 2000

Ardea alba Great Egret Sibley, 2000Butorides virescens Green Heron Sibley, 2000Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron Sibley, 2000 *

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowell *

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan Sibley, 2000Branta canadensis Canada Goose Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowell *Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted Goose Sibley, 2000Chen caerulescens Snow Goose Sibley, 2000 *Aix sponsa Wood Duck Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRI *

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Sibley, 2000 *

Anas rubripes American Black Duck Sibley, 2000Anas strepera Gadwall Sibley, 2000Anas acuta Northern Pintail Sibley, 2000 *

Anas americana American Wigeon Sibley, 2000

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Sibley, 2000Anas discors Blue-winged Teal Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Sibley, 2000Aythya valisineria Canvasback Sibley, 2000 *Aythya americana Redhead Sibley, 2000
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck Sibley, 2000Aythya marila Greater Scaup Sibley, 2000Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Sibley, 2000 *Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Sibley, 2000Bucphala albeola Bufflehead Sibley, 2000Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Sibley, 2000Mergus merganser Common Merganser Sibley, 2000Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Sibley, 2000Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Sibley, 2000Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Sibley, 2000Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Sibley, 2000Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Sibley, 2000Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Sibley, 2000 *

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Sibley, 2000 *

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIButeo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRIButeo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Sibley, 2000Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Sibley, 2000Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowell *

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Sibley, 2000

Falco columbarius Merlin Sibley, 2000Falco sparverius American Kestrel Sibley, 2000Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Sibley, 2000 *

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowell

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant Sibley, 2000Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse Sibley, 2000 * Apr-05 Dave Johnson, 

MNDNR

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Fulica americana American Coot Sibley, 2000Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPorzana carolina Sora Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRICoturnicops noveboracensis Yellow Rail Sibley, 2000 *

Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane (Greater) Sibley, 2000

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover Sibley, 2000Pluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover Sibley, 2000Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover Sibley, 2000Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Sibley, 2000Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Sibley, 2000 *

Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Sibley, 2000

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit Janssen, 1987 *

Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit Sibley, 2000 *

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 *

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Janssen, 1987 *

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Sibley, 2000Calidris alba Sanderling Sibley, 2000Calidris alpina Dunlin Sibley, 2000Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Sibley, 2000Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper Sibley, 2000 *Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher Sibley, 2000Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher Sibley, 2000 *Tyngites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper Janssen, 1987 *

Scolopax minor American Woodcock Sibley, 2000 *

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Sibley, 2000Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope Sibley, 2000 *Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Sibley, 2000Larus philadephia Bonaparte's Gull Sibley, 2000Larus pipixcan Franklin's Gull Sibley, 2000Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Sibley, 2000Larus argentatus Herring Gull Sibley, 2000Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Sibley, 2000Sterna hirundo Common Tern Sibley, 2000 *

Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Sibley, 2000 *

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Sibley, 2000 *

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Sibley, 2000

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRICoccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Asio otus Long-eared Owl Sibley, 2000 *

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Sibley, 2000 *

Bubo virginianus Great-horned Owl Sibley, 2000Nyctea scandiaca Snowy Owl Sibley, 2000Strix nebulosa Great Gray Owl Sibley, 2000Strix varia Barred Owl Sibley, 2000Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl Sibley, 2000Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl Sibley, 2000Otus asio Eastern Screech-Owl Sibley, 2000Sturnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl Sibley, 2000Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Sibley, 2000 *

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Sibley, 2000

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Sibley, 2000Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird Sibley, 2000Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 *Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker Sibley, 2000Sphryrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPicoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPicoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPicoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker Sibley, 2000Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRI *Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellContopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRI *Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIEmpidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Sibley, 2000Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIEmpidonax minimus Least Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIMyiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRITyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRITyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Sibley, 2000Lanius exubitor Northern Shrike Sibley, 2000Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIVireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Sibley, 2000Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo Sibley, 2000Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIVireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRICyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellPerisoreus canadensis Gray Jay Sibley, 2000Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie Sibley, 2000Corvus corax Common Raven Sibley, 2000Corvs brachyrhynchos American Crow Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellEremophila alpestris Horned Lark Sibley, 2000

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Progne subis Purple Martin Sibley, 2000Stelgiopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow

Sibley, 2000

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Sibley, 2000Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Sibley, 2000Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Sibley, 2000Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIPoecile atricapilla Black-capped Chickadee Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellPoecile hudsonica Boreal Chickadee Sibley, 2000Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Sibley, 2000Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRICerthia americana Brown Creeper Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRITroglodytes aedon House Wren Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRITroglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRICistrothorus platensis Sedge Wren Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIRegulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet Sibley, 2000Reugus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellSialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRITurdus migratorius American Robin Sibley, 2000 * 3/25/04 M. McDowellHylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Catharus fuscescens Veery Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRICatharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Sibley, 2000Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush Sibley, 2000Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRIDumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIToxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Sibley, 2000Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Sibley, 2000Anthus rubescens American Pipit Sibley, 2000

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian Waxwing Sibley, 2000Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIParula americana Northern Parula Sibley, 2000Vernivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler Sibley, 2000Vernivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIVernivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Vernivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIDendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIDendrioca pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIDendrioca magnolia Magnolia Warbler Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRIDendrioca tigrina Cape May Warbler Sibley, 2000Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIDendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIDendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler Sibley, 2000Dendroica palmarum Palm Warbler Sibley, 2000Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler Sibley, 2000Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted Warbler Sibley, 2000Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler Sibley, 2000Mniotita varia Balck-and-white Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISetophaga ruticilla American Redstart Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISeiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISeiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISeiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Sibley, 2000 *

Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler Sibley, 2000 *

Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIGeothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIWilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler Sibley, 2000Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Sibley, 2000Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPasserina cyanea Indigo Bunting Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRIPipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRISpizella arborea American Tree Sparrow Sibley, 2000Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Sibley, 2000 *

Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIAmmodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Sibley, 2000 *Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow Sibley, 2000 *

Passerculus sanwichensis Savannah Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRIZonotrichia querula Harris's Sparrow Sibley, 2000Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * Jul-92 NRRIZonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Sibley, 2000Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow Sibley, 2000Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIMelospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Sibley, 2000Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIJunco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Sibley, 2000Calcarius pictus Smith's Longspur Sibley, 2000Calcarius lapponicus Lapland Longspur Sibley, 2000Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting Sibley, 2000Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Sibley, 2000 *

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI *

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird Sibley, 2000Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRI

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Sibley, 2000Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Sibley, 2000Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIIcterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIIcterus spurius Orchard Oriole Sibley, 2000 *

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Sibley, 2000

Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak Sibley, 2000Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch Sibley, 2000 * Jun-92 NRRICarpodacus mexicanus House Finch Sibley, 2000Loxia curvirostra Red Crossbill Sibley, 2000Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill Sibley, 2000Carduelis flammea Common Redpoll Sibley, 2000Carduelis hornemanni Hoary Redpoll Sibley, 2000Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin Sibley, 2000Caruelis tristis American Goldfinch Sibley, 2000 * May-92 NRRIPasser domesticus House Sparrow Sibley, 2000Literature CitedSibley, D. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 544 pp.Janssen, R. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 352 pp.NRRI = Natural Resources Reseach Institute, University of Minnesota, Duluth

Sandstone Unit of Rice Lake NWR Bird Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Source Confirmed Date Confirmed by RC
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112Rice Lake NWR Tree and Shrub Species List 

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Native Source Confirmed Date 

Abies balsamea Balsam fir

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-96 

Picea glauca White spruce

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 3/10/95 

Picea mariana Black spruce

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 12/30/97 

Picea pungens Blue spruce

N Weeks et al. 2005 * 6/1/04 

Pinus banksiana Jack pine

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Mar-98 

Pinus resinosa Red pine, Norway pine

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 3/14/95 

Pinus strobus Eastern white pine

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 3/14/95 

Thuja occindentalis Northern white-cedar

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 2/14/97 

Larix laricina Tamarack, Eastern larch

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 12/30/97 

Acer rubrum Red maple

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 1/22/98 

Acer saccharinum Silver maple

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Jun-96 

Acer saccharum Sugar maple

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-97 

Acer spicatum Mountain maple

Y Tester 1995 * 10/15/96 

Acer neguno Boxelder

Y Weeks et al. 2005

Fraxinus nigra Black ash

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 2/14/97 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-96 

Amelanchier arborea Downy serviceberry, Juneberry

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 1995 

Amelanchier sanguinea Roundleaf serviceberry

Y Tekiela 2001

Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 4/29/97 

Betula papyrifera Paper birch

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-96 

Ostrya virginiana Eastern hophornbeam, Ironwood

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 9/20/95 

Populus balsamifera Balsam poplar, Balm of Gilead

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 2/14/97 

Populus gradidentata Bigtooth aspen

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * May-94 
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 2/14/97 

Prunus americana American plum N (Y in 

MN, not Aitkin Co.)

* 6/1/04 

Prunus pensylvanica Pin cherry Y Weeks et al. 2005

Prunus serotina Black cherry

Y Weeks et al. 2005

Prunus virginiana Choke cherry

Y Tester 1995 * 9/18/95 

Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak

Y Weeks et al. 2005

Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 1/22/98 

Quercus rubra Northern red oak

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 1/22/98 

Tilia americana American basswood

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-96 

Ulmus americana American elm

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Apr-96 

Ulmus thomasii Rock elm

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * 1995 

Juglans cinerea White walnut, Butternut, Butternut 

hickory

Y Weeks et al. 2005 * Oct-97 

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry

Y Tekiela 2001 * 9/15/06 

Viburnum trilobum High-bush cranberry

Y Tester 1995

Viburnum recognitum Arrowwood

Y Newcomb 1977 * Apr-96 

Viburnum rafinesquianum Downy arrow-wood

Y Tester 1995

Salix discolor Pussy willow

Y Tekiela 2001 * 1/22/98 

Alnux rugosa Speckled alder

Y Tekiela 2001 * 1/22/98 

Vaccinium angustifolium Lowbush blueberry

Y Tester 1995 * 4/1/98 

Betula pumila Bog birch

Y Tester 1995

Kalmia polifolia Bog laurel

Y Tester 1995

Andromeda glaucophylla Bog rosemary

Y Tester 1995 * 12/30/97 

Ribes sp. Current, Gooseberry

Y Tester 1995

Cornus alternifolia Pagoda dogwood

Y Tester 1995

Rice Lake NWR Tree and Shrub Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Native Source Confirmed Date 
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood

Y Tester 1995 * 12/18/97 

Sambucus canadensis Common elder

Y Tester 1995 * 1/1/98 

Sambucus pubens Red-berried elder

Y Tester 1995

Ledum groenlandicum Labrador tea

Y Tester 1995 * 12/30/97 

Chamaedaphne calyculata Leather-leaf

Y Tester 1995 * 12/30/97 

Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark

Y Tester 1995

Rosa blanda Wild rose

Y Tester 1995 * 4/1/97 

Rubus sp. Raspberry

Y Tester 1995 * 9/1/96 

Zanthoxylum americanum Prickly ash

Y Tester 1995

Spiraea alba Spirea

Y Tester 1995

Rhus vernix Poison sumac

Y Tester 1995

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac

Y Tester 1995

Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac

Y Tester 1995 * 1/1/98 

Ilex verticillata Winterberry

Y Tester 1995

Gaultheria procumbens Wintergreen

Y Tester 1995

Symphoricarpos occidentalis Wolfberry

Y Tester 1995

Corylus americana American hazelnut

Y Tester 1995

Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut Y Tester 1995 * 9/1/96 

Diervilla lonicera Bush honeysuckle

Y Tester 1995

Lonicera canadensis Fly honeysuckle Y Tester 1995Lonicera villosa Northern honeysuckle, Mountain fly

honeysuckle

Y Petrides 1972, 

Newcomb 1977

Cratagus sp. Hawthorn

Y Newcomb 1977 * 1/1/98 

Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac

N Petrides 1972 * 7/9/97 

Rice Lake NWR Tree and Shrub Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Native Source Confirmed Date 
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Literature Cited:Newcomb, Lawrence. 1977. Newcomb's wildflower guide. Little Brown and Company, Boston, New York, London. 490 Pages.Tekiela, Stan. 2001. Trees of Minnesota field guide. Adventure Publications Inc., Cambridge, Minnesota. 193 Pages.Tester, John R. 1995. Minnesota's natural heritage. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 332 Pages.Petrides, George A. 1972. The Peterson field guide series: a field guide to trees and shrubs. Second Edition. 

Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 428 Pages. Weeks, Sally S., Harmon P. Weeks, Jr., George R. Parker. 2005. Native trees of the Midwest: 

identification, wildlife values, and landscaping use. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana. 325 Pages.

Rice Lake NWR Tree and Shrub Species List (Continued)

Species

Scientific Name Common Name Native Source Confirmed Date 
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo

Yellow goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius Scop. Asteraceae TRDU1

B

N For

Virginia water-leaf Hydrophyllum virginianum L. Hydrophyllaceae HYVI1 P Y ForSteeplebush Spiraea tomentosa Rosaceae SPTO1

P

Y Shr

Grey dogwood Cornus racemosa Lam. Cornaceae CORA1 P Y ShrPurple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Lythraceae LYSA1

P

N For

Wild Cucumber Echinocystis lobata Cucurbitaceae ECLO1 A Y ForMotherwort Leonurus cardiaca Libiatae LECA1

P

N For

Yellow Violet Viola pubescens Ait. Violacaea VIPU1 P Y ForNarrow-leaved Meadowsweet

Spiraea

alba Rosaceae SPAL1

P

Y Shr

Steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa Rosaceae SPTO1 P Y ShrPickerel Weed Pontederia cordata L. Pontederiaceae POCO1

P

Y For

Pond Lily Nuphar advena L. Pontederiaceae NUAD1 P Y ForHard-stem Bulrush Scirpus acutus Cyperaceae SCAC1

P

Y Sed

Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis L. Brassicaceae HEMA1 B N ForBird's-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus L. Fabaceae LOCO1

P

N For

Water Plantain Alisma sp. Alismataceae ALSP1 P Y For

Broad-leaved Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia Willd. Anacardiaceae SALA1

P

Y For

Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina Anacardiaceae RHTY1 P Y Shr

Water Hemlock Cicuta maculata Apiaceae CIMA1

P

Y For
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Cow Parsnip Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae HELA1 P Y ForBland Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii (Michx.) C. Apiaceae OSCL1

P

Y For

Black Snakeroot Sanicula marilandica L. Apiaceae SAMA1 P Y For

Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium Apocynaceae APAN1

P

Y For

Calla Lily Calla palustris Araceae CAPA1 P Y For

American Spikenard Aralia racemosa Araliaceae ARRA1

P

Y For

Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Asclepiadaceae ASIN1 P Y For

Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Asclepiadaceae ASSY1

P

Y For

Maidenhair Fern Adiatum pedatum Aspleniaceae ADPE1 P Y Fer

Lady Fern Athyrium felix-femina Aspleniaceae ATFE1

P

Y Fer

Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium Asteraceae ACMI1 P Y For

Field Pussytoes Antennaria neglecta Asteraceae ANNE1

P

Y For

Flat-topped Aster Aster umbellatus Asteraceae ASUM1 P Y For

Ox-eye Daisy

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Asteraceae CHLE1

P

N For

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Asteraceae CIAR1 P N For

Horseweed Conyza canadensis Asteraceae COCA1

A

Y For

Large-flowered Coreopsis Coreopsis sp. Asteraceae COSP1 A N For

Plain's Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Asteraceae COTI1

A

Y For

NarrowLeaved Hawk's beard Crepis tectorum Asteraceae CRTE1 A Y For

Prarie Coneflower Echinacea pallida Nutt. Asteraceae ECPA1

P

Y For

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Philidelphia Daisy Erigeron philidelphicus Asteraceae ERPH1 B/P Y ForRough Fleabane Erigeron strigosus Asteraceae ERST1 A/B

Y For

Blanket Flower Gaillardia pulchella Asteraceae GAPU1 A Y For

Swamp Sunflower Helianthus giganteus Asteraceae HEGI1

P

Y For

Ox-eye Heliopsis helianthoides Asteraceae HEHE1 P Y For

Orange Hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum Asteraceae HIAU1

P

N For

Canada Lettuce Lactuca canadensis Asteraceae LACA1 B Y For

Pineapple Weed Matricaria matricarioides Asteraceae MAMA1

A

Y For

Columnar Coneflower Ratibida columnifera Asteraceae RACO1 P Y For

Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Asteraceae RUHI1

B

Y For

Green-headed Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata Asteraceae RULA1 P Y For

Balsam Ragwort Senecio pauperculus Asteraceae SEPA1

P

Y For

Whooly Ragwort Senecio tomentosus Asteraceae SETO1 P N For

Early Goldenrod Solidago juncea Aiton. Asteraceae SOJU1

P

Y For

Bog Goldenrod Solidago uliginosa Nutt. Asteraceae SOUL1 P Y For

Common Cow Thistle Sonchus oleraceus L. Asteraceae SOOL1

A

N For

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber Asteraceae TAOF1 P N For

Nutsedge (Flatsedge) Cyperus sp. Cyperaceae CYSP1

P

Y Sed

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Spotted Touch-menot (Jew Impatiens capensis Meerb. Balsaminaceae IMCA1 A Y ForHornbeam Ostrya virginiana (P.Mill) K. Betulaceae OSVI1

P

Y

Treshru 

Hoary Alyssum Berteroa incana Brassicaceae BEIN1 P N For

Brown Mustard Brassica junacea Brassicaceae BRJU1

A

N For

Showy Tick Trefoil Desmodium canadense Leguminosae DECA1 P Y For

Marsh Bellflower Campanula aparinoides Brassicaceae CAAP1

P

Y For

Northern Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera Caprifoliaceae DILO1 P Y Shr

Trumpet Honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens L. Caprifoliaceae LOSE1

P

Y For

Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis L. Caprifoliaceae SACA1 P Y Shr

Nannyberry Viburnum lentago L. Caprifoliaceae VILE1

P

Y Shr

Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum Caprifoliaceae VITR1 P Y Shr

Deptford Pink Dianthus armeria Caryophyllaceae DIAR1

A

N For

Sweet William Catchfly Silene armeria L. Caryophyllaceae SIAR1 A N For

White Cockle Silene latifolia Poir. Caryophyllaceae SILA1

A

N For

Hedge Bindweed Convolvulus sepium Convolvulaceae COSE1 P Y/N For

Alternate-leaved Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Cornaceae COAL1

P

Y Shr

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Poor-man's Peppergrass Lepidium virginicum Brassicaceae LEVI1 A/B Y ForBlack Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens Cyperaceae SCAT1

P

Y Sed

Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth Cyperaceae SCCY1 P Y Sed

Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula Euphorbiaceae EUES1

P

N For

Woodland Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum Equisetaceae EQSY1 P Y For

Pointed-leaved TickTrefo Desmodium glutinosum Fabaceae DEGL1

P

Y For

Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum Geraniaceae GEMA1 P Y For

Forest Pea Lathyrus venosus Muhl. ex Wild Fabaceae LAVE1

P

Y For

Spotted Joe-PyeWeed Eupatorium maculatum L. Asteraceae EUMA1 P Y For

Alfalfa Medicago sativa L. Fabaceae MESA1

P

N For

Sweet White Clover Melilotus alba White. Fabaceae MEAL1 B N For

Sweet Yellow Clover Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam Fabaceae MEOF1

B

N For

Rabbit's Foot Clover Trifolium arvense L. Fabaceae TRAR1 A N For

Pinnate Hop-clover Trifolium campestre Schreb. Fabaceae TRCA1

A

N For

Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum L. Fabaceae TRHY1 P N For

Red Clover Trifolium patense L. Fabaceae TRPA1

P

N For

Yellow Hop Clover Trifolium procumbens Fabaceae TRPR1 A N For

American Vetch Vicia

americana Muhl. ex Wil Fabaceae VIAM1

P

Y For

Cow Vetch Vicia cracca L. Fabaceae VICR1 P N For

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Beck's WaterMarigold Bidens beckii Asteraceae BIBE1

P

Y For

Pasture Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati L. Grossulariaceae RICY1 P Y Shr

Missouri Goldenrod Solidago missouriensis Nutt. Asteraceae SOMI1

P

Y For

Blue Flag IrisLarger Iris versicolor Iridaceae IRVE1 P Y For

Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium mucronatum Iridaceae SIMU1

P

Y For

Purple Giant Hyssop Agastache scrophulariaefolia Lamiaceae AGSC1 P Y For

Wild Mint Mentha arvensis L. Lamiaceae MEAR1

P

Y For

Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa L. Lamiaceae MOFI1 P Y For

Heal-all Prunella vulgaris L. Lamiaceae PRVU1

p

Y For

Common Mountain Mint

Pycananthemum virginianum (L). T.Dur Lamiaceae PYVI1 P Y For

Marsh Skullcap Scutellaria epilobiifolia Lamiaceae SCEP1

P

Y Sed

Hedge-nettle Stachys palustris L. Lamiaceae STPA1 P Y For

Greater Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris L. Lentibulariacea UTVU1

P

Y For

Day Lily Hemerocallis fulva Liliaceae HEFU1 P N For

Turk's Cap Lily Lilium superbum L. Liliaceae LISU1

P

Y For

False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa L. Liliaceae SMRA1 P Y For

White Water Lily Nymphaea odorata Ait. Nymphaceae NYOD1

P

Y For

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium Onagraceae EPAN1 P Y For

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Yellow Evening Primrose Oenthera pilosella Raf. Onagraceae OEPI1

P

Y For

Sundrops Oenthera tetragona Roth. Onagraceae OETE1 P Y For

Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis L. Onocleaceae ONSE1

P

Y Fer

Purple Fringed Orchid Habenaria psycodes Orchidaceae HAPS1 P Y For

Large Yellow Lady Slipper Cypripedium calceolus Orchidaceae CYCA1

P

Y For

Interrupted Fern Osmunda claytoniana L. Osmundaceae OSCL1 P Y Fer

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis L. Papaveraceae SACA1

P

Y For

Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata Primulaceae LYCI1 P Y For

Bulbil Loosestrife Lysimachia terrestris (L.) B.S.P. Primulaceae LYTE1

P

Y For

Pennsylvania Smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum L. Polygonaceae POPE1 A Y For

Arrow-leaved Tearthumb Polygonum sagittatum L. Polygonaceae POSA1

A

Y For

Red Sorrel Rumex acetosella L. Polygonaceae RUAC1 P N For

Curly Dock Rumex crispus L. Polygonaceae RUCR1

P

N For

Western Dock Rumex occidentalis Polygonaceae RUOC1 P Y For

Redtop Agrostis gigantea Poaceae AGGI1

P

N Gra

Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus Poaceae BRCI1 P Y Gra

Smooth Brome Bromus inermis Poaceae BRIN1

P

N Gra

Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata Poaceae DAGL1 P N Gra

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Timothy Phluem pratense L. Poaceae PHPR11

P

N Gra

Bog Bluegrass Poa

paludigena Fern. & Wie Poaceae POPA1 P Y Gra

Red Baneberry Actaea rubra Ranunculaceae ACRU1

P

Y For

Canada Anenome Anemone canadensis Ranunculaceae ANCA1 P Y For

Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Ranunculaceae AQCA1

P

Y For

Swamp Buttercup Ranunculus septentrionalis Ranunculaceae RASE1 P Y For

Purple Meadow Rue Thalictrum

dasycarpum Fisch.&Ave- Ranunculaceae THDA1

P

Y For

Tall Meadow Rue Thalictrum pubescens Pursh. Ranunculaceae THPU1 P Y For

Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis L. Asteraceae SOCA1

P

Y For

Roadside Agrimony Agrimonia striata Rosaceae AGST1 P Y For

Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum Rosaceae GEAL1

P

Y For

Rough Avens Geum laciniatum Rosaceae GELA1 P Y For

Large-leaved Avens Geum macrophyllum Rosaceae GEMA1

P

Y For

Silvery Cinquefoil Potentilla argentea L. Rosaceae POAR1 P N For

Marsh Chinquefoil Potentilla palustris (L.) Scop. Rosaceae POPA1

P

Y For

Rough Fruited Chinquefoil Potentilla recta L. Rosaceae PORE1 P N For

Old-field Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex Michx. Rosaceae POSI1

P

Y For

Western Rose Rosa woodsii Lindley. Rosaceae ROWO1 P Y Shr

Bristly Blackberry Rubus setosus Bigel. Rosaceae RUSE1 B/P

Y Shr

Meadowsweet Spirea alba DuRoi Rosaceae SPAL1 P Y Shr

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildli

fe Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum Michx. Rubiaceae GAAS1

P

Y For

Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale L. Rubiaceae GABO1 P Y For

Bastard Toadflax Comandra umbellata Santalaceae COUM1

P

Y

ForSem

Indian Paintbrush Castilleja coccinea Scrophulariacea CACO1 A Y

ForSem 

Turtle Head Chelone glabra Scrophulariacea CHGL1

P

Y For

Butter and Eggs Linaria vulgaris P.Mill Scrophulariacea LIVU1 P N For

Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus L. Scrophulariacea VETH1

B

N For

Giant Bur-reed Sparganium

eurycarpum Engelm.ex G Sparganiaceae SPEU1 P Y For

Common Blue Vervain Verbena hastata L. Verbenaceae VEHA1

P

Y For

White Vervain Verbena urticifolia L. Verbenaceae VEUR1 A Y For

White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda Ranunculaceae ACPA1

P

Y For

Thin-leaved Sunflower Helianthus decapetalus Asteraceae HEDE1 P Y For

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare Compositae TAVU1

P

N For

Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense Ehrh. Equisetaceae EQPR1 A Y Fer

Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisilfolia L. Asteraceae AMAR1

A

Y For

Western Ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Asteraceae AMPS1 P Y For

Early Meadow Rue Thalictrum dioicum Rannunculaceae THDI1

p

Y For

Horsetail Equisetum sp. Equisetaceae EQSP1 A/P Y For

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Nodding Trillium Trillium cernuum Liliaceae TRCE1 P Y For

Panicled Dogwood Cornus racemosa Cornaceae CORA1 P Y Shr

1. Derived from herbarium inventory only.2) P: perennial; A: annual; B: biannual.

Vegetation Species List, Rice Lake NWR1 (Continued)

Common Name Genus Species Family Sp_Code P_A_B Native L

Fo

Appendix E: Rice Lake NWR Biological Surveys

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Appendix E: Rice Lake NWR Biological Surveys

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Biological Surveys, Rice Lake NWR

Study/Survey Priority (10 

high, 1 

low)

CCP Objective Scales FWS R3 

RC

P

Ring-necked Duck Post-Fledgling Refuge Use 10 Refuge, State N

Water Level Monitoring 10 2.2 Refuge 3

Invasive Plant Species Monitoring and Mapping 10 1.9 Refuge, State, National N

Invasive Invertebrate Monitoring 10 1.8 Refuge, State N

Forest Inventory Assessment 10 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2 Refuge, State, Region N

Common Tern Production (Mille Lacs NWR) 9 2.1, 2.2, 6.1 Refuge, State

X 1

Wild Rice Bed Area (GIS, georectifying aerial photos) 9 1.8, 2.2 Refuge 1 

Fall Waterfowl Surveys 8 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, State, Mississippi 

Flyway

X 1

Wild Rice Density/Productivity 8 1.8, 2.2 Refuge, N. MN 1 

Double Crested Cormorant Production (Mille Lacs 

NWR)

8 2.1, 6.2, 2.2 Refuge, State

X 1 

Pickerelweed 10 acre Mowing Study, Phase II 8 1.7 Refuge, MN, WI, MI N

Water Quality Monitoring 8 2.2 Refuge 1

Prescribed Burn Effects Monitoring 8 1.6, 2.2 Refuge N

Fish Trapping Program and Monitoring Invasive Fish 8 1.8 Refuge, State N

Weather Monitoring 8 Refuge, State, National N

Pickerelweed Mowing Study, Phase I 7 1.7 Refuge, MN, WI, MI N

National Marsh Bird Monitoring and Research Program 7 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, National

X 3 

National American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey 7 2.2 National

X 1 

Species Lists 7 2.1 Refuge

X N

White Pine Restoration - Locations, Phase I 6 1.2 Refuge, State N

Nongame Landbird Point Counts, Forest 6 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, National

X N

Waterfowl Breeding Pair Survey 5 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X 1 

Waterfowl Brood Survey 5 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X N

Bald Eagle Nest/Productivity Survey 4 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, State, National 

X 2 
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Beaver Lodge/Muskrat Hut Survey 4 2.2 Refuge 1 

Christmas Bird Count 4 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, State, National 

X 1 

North American Amphibian Monitoring Program 4 2.2 Refuge, State 3 

Loon Productivity Monitoring (on refuge) 3 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X N

Wood Duck Box Program 3 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X 1 

Bluebird Box Program 3 2.2 Refuge 3 

Raptor/Waterbird/Shorebird Survey (at same time as Waterfowl Surveys) 

2 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X 1

Fish Population Survey 2 1.8, 2.2 Refuge 1 

Chronic Wasting Disease Monitoring 1 2.2 Refuge, State, Region N

Statewide Loon Survey 1 2.2 State

X 1 

Ruffed Grouse Drumming 1 2.2 Refuge 1 

Sharptail Grouse Lek Survey (MNDNR does for us at Sandstone) 

1 2.2 Refuge, State 1 

Refuge American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey 1 2.1, 2.2 Refuge

X 1 

Midwinter Waterfowl Survey 1 2.1, 2.2 Refuge, Region, National

X 1 

This list was developed based on Fiscal Year 2007 funding and grant opportunities; and is expected to 

change before the lifetime of this plan expires due to changes in technology, future threats, funding allocation and grant opportunities.

Biological Surveys, Rice Lake NWR

Study/Survey Priority (10 

high, 1 

low)

CCP Objective Scales FWS R3 

RCP
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges CCP

131

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997, no uses for which the Service has authority to 

regulate may be allowed on a unit of the Refuge System unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional 

judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers 

must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is 

signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of 

Refuges in the respective Service region. Draft 

compatibility determinations applicable to uses 

described in this CCP were published with the Draft 

CCP and EA and received 30 days of public review.

Signed compatibility determinations are on file at 

Rice Lake NWR for the following activities:

# Interpretation and Environmental Education

# Recreational Fishing

# Hunting

# Ceremonial use of sacred sites on Indian Point 

by the Mille Lacs (East Lake) Band of Ojibwe

# Archeological Investigations

# Research projects by third parties (Rice Lake 

NWR and Sandstone Unit)

# Research projects by third parties (Mille Lacs 

NWR)

# Temporary work outside existing rights-of-way

# Trapping 

# Tree harvest by third parties for habitat 

management purposes

# Wildlife Observation and photography 

(including the means of access, such as 

automobile driving, hiking, biking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, canoeing, 

kayaking and boating and the incidental use of 

picnicking)

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Appendix G / 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 (1906)

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 (1918)

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 (1929)

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended

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 and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)

Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as 

amended

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.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended

 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 (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 (1950)

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 (1956)

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act (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.
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended

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 (1965)

 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 

(1966), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act)

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 (1966), as amended

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 (1968)

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as amended

 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 (1973)

Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)

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 (1974)

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977)

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as 

amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA)

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.
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

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 (1978)

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 (1978)

 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 (1979), as 

amended

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires Federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as 

amended

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)

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 (1990)

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 (1990)

Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992)

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 

(1997)

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 Sec-
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

tion 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998)

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

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. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 

2001 (Public Law 106-554)

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: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Collier Agreement 
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Collier Agreement (continued)
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Collier Agreement (continued)
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Collier Agreement (continued)
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs Natioinal Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Appendix H: Literature Cited

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs Natioinal Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Literature Cited

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 MixedGrass Savanna. J. Environ Qual. 35:1620-1628.

Degraaf. R., Yamasaki, M., 2003. Options for 

managing early-successional forest and shrubland 

bird habitats in northeastern United States. Forest 

Ecology and Management 185, 179-191.

Green. J., 1995. Birds and Forest, a Management 

and Conservation Guide. State of Minnesota, 

Department of Natural Resources. 182 pages.

Herkert, James R., Robert E Szafoni, Vernon M. 

Kleen, and John E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat 

establishment, enhancement and management for 

forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Division of 

Natural Heritage, Illinois 

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command 

and control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337.

 Department of Conservation, Natural Heritage 

Technical Publication #1, Springfield, Illinois. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/manbook/manbook.htm (Version 16JUL97).

Jarvenpa, R., 1971a, Political Entrenchment in an 

Ojibwa Wild Rice Economy. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science (37(2-3):66-71.

Jarvenpa, R., 1971b, the Wild Rice Gatherers of 

Rice Lake, Minnesota: A Brief Note on Cultural 

Historical Indicators. Minnesota Archaeologist 

31(3):71-105.

Johnson, C., 1945, “Early History of Rice Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge.” On file at Rice Lake 

NWR. Minnesota.

Johnson, C.M., 1992a, A Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey of a Proposed Headquarters 

Building Site, Aitkin County, Minnesota. Institute 

for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigations No. 225 prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Johnson, C.M., 1992b, Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations of Sixteen Project Areas in Minnesota. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology 

Reports of Investigations No. 177 prepared for U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service.

Johnson, E., 1989, Cultural Resources Investigation: Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Institute 

for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigations No. 35 prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Johnson, E., 1990, Cultural Resources Investigation II: Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of 

Investigations No. 72 prepared for U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service.

King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice. 1998: AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

Biology 11:849-856.

Lapp, Christopher. 1995. Rice Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge holds record concentration of 

waterfowl. The Loon. Vol 67. Pages 38-40.

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.

Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 2001. Minnesota’s White Pine in the Future. Landscape Technical Document (LT-0301a). 44 pages. On the 

Internet at http://www.iic.state.mn.us/finfo/luse/harvest.htm.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2005. 

Sources of mercury pollution and methylmercury 

contamination of fish in Minnesota. Pollution prevention & sustainability fact sheet #4-06. 3 pp. On 

the Internet at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/p-p2s4-06.pdf

National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate 

Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, 

US Global Change Research Program, Washington 

DC, 2000
Appendix H: Literature Cited

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Norrgard, Ray. 2005. Wetland complexity, how to 

recover ducks: key action for improving habitat. 

Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. SeptemberOctober. Page 22.

Ollendorf, A.L., 2000b, Emergency Water Well 

and Pipeline Replacement, Rice Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge near McGregor, Aitkin County, Minnesota. Phase 1 Site Identification and Construction 

Monitoring. HDR Engineering, Inc. report prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

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.
Appendix I: Distribution List

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Appendix I: Distribution List

Appendix I: Distribution List

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Distribution List

The following is a list of government officials and 

offices and private organizations that received the 

CCP. Individuals who requested a copy of the Draft 

also received the document. Others on the Refuge’s 

planning mailing list and those listed in Chapter 6 of 

the Environmental Assessment received a summary 

of the CCP and a notice of where a full copy could be 

obtained. The availability of the CCP was 

announced in the Federal Register and a press 

release was sent to local newspapers.

Elected Officials

# Senator Norm Coleman

# Senator Amy Klobuchar

# Representative James Oberstar

American Indian Tribes

# Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Federal Agencies

# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sandy Lake 

Recreation Area

# U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 

Prisons

State Agencies

# Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

# Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Forestry

# Minnesota Department of Transportation, MN 

DOT Truck Station

Local Government and Public Services

# Aitkin County Commissioner-3rd District

# Aitkin County Land Department

# Aitkin County Soil and Water Conservation 

District

# McGregor Public Library

# Relief Association, McGregor Volunteer Fire 

Department

Non-government Organizations

# Audubon Center of the North Woods

# Audubon Society of the District of Columbia

# Big Sandy Area Lakes Watershed Management 

Project

# Bluewater Network

# CCC Alumni Chapter 119

# Defenders of Wildlife

# Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern 

University

# National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

# National Trappers Association, Inc.

# National Wildlife Federation

# National Wildlife Refuge Association

# PEER Refuge Keeper

# Sierra Club - Midwest Office

# The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia

# The Wilderness Society

# Wilderness Watch

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

List of Preparers

Walt Ford, Refuge Manager, Rice Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge

Mary Stefanski, Former Refuge Manager, Rice 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Michelle McDowell, Biologist, Rice Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge

John Schomaker, Refuge Planner, Region 3, 

USFWS

H. John Dobrovolny, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Region 3, USFWS

Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist/GIS, Region 3, 

USFWS

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Region 3

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received 

on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Habitat Management Topics

1. The Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources concurs with the plan. The plan 

would be enhanced by a fuller discussion of 

planned partnerships in the managing of open 

land adjacent to the Kimberly Marsh Wildlife 

Management Area.

Response: The Refuge continues to appreciate 

the cooperation and partnership it experiences 

with the Minnesota DNR. Additions have been 

incorporated into the Final CCP to reflect the 

ongoing partnership and our joint activities.

2. The Refuge should harvest hay from old crop 

fields to enhance wildlife viewing opportunities. The revenue from haying would benefit the 

Refuge. The reasoning behind conversion of the 

old fields to forest is not clear.

Response: The Refuge would hay to enhance, 

support, and contribute to established wildlife 

management objectives. Haying does not support the purpose of the Refuge for providing for 

migrating birds. The fields converted to forest 

will benefit forest-interior birds by increasing 

the block size of the Refuge forest as described 

in Objective 1.1. Revenue from haying would 

not be retained by the Refuge and would not, 

therefore, directly benefit the Refuge.

3. The Refuge should have initiated discussion 

with other organizations, i.e.: Ducks Unlimited, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, 

Grouse Society, Turkey Federation, and Minnesota Waterfowl Association, to achieve more 

balanced management objectives that aren’t 

slanted towards songbirds.

Response: The Refuge mission as defined by 

the Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to “...conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, 

and plants...” as well as “Develop and maintain 

a network of habitats for migratory birds . . . to 

meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.” As such, the Refuge is 

managing for a wide assortment of migratory 

birds within their native range. Refuge management objectives will benefit waterfowl as well as 

songbirds. Forest restoration will also provide 

long-term benefits to ruffed grouse, whitetail 

deer, and wild turkey (if/when they become resident wildlife).

4. The water level in Rice Lake should be maintained at the highest level possible in the fall to 

retain waterfowl, which would benefit hunting 

and the local economy. Water levels should not 

be manipulated to benefit only ricing. The Refuge should consult with Ducks Unlimited for 

assistance with lake management.

Response: The intent of water level variation as 

described in the plan is to ensure the long-term 

viability of a healthy rice crop, which will benefit 

both migrating fall waterfowl and ricing. The 

Refuge consulted with Ducks Unlimited and 

other experts in the past. As the Refuge implements and evaluates the results of the direction 

specified in the CCP, the consultations will continue.

5. After a prescribed fire exotic invasives move in 

and native plants are lost forever.

Response: Prescribed fire benefits native 

plants, which have evolved with fire. The Refuge’s prescribed fire operations are conducted 

in a way that minimizes the introduction of exotics. Fuel and soil moisture are considered before 

initiating a burn.

6. The Refuge should burn the islands within the 

bog, which will improve sharptail grouse habitat.

Response: Periodic burning of the islands is 

expected. Although no extraordinary efforts 

will be used to prevent burning of islands, care 

will be taken to not burn the islands as frequently as the open bog. Frequent burns will be 

necessary to control brush in the open bog 

which will be beneficial for sharptail grouse.

7. The Refuge should consider abandoning or 

removing existing ditches and water control 

structures altogether. The rhythm of the year’s 

variation has served us well in other rice beds.

Response: The Refuge did consider removing 

the water control structure, but chose to enter a 

test phase of allowing natural variation of water 

levels with the structure open, but in place. The 

Refuge is reluctant to remove the structure, an 

expensive operation, without knowing the result 

of natural variation.
Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Topics

8. Hunting and trapping should not be allowed on 

the Refuge because it kills, harms, and disturbs 

wildlife.

Response: We understand some citizens’ concern with hunting and trapping on national 

wildlife refuges. Rice Lake NWR, as well as the 

entire National Wildlife Refuge System, is 

guided by laws enacted by Congress and the 

President as well as policy derived from those 

laws. The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act identifies hunting as one of 

six priority public uses to be facilitated when 

compatible with the purposes of a refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System. Hunting is 

consistent with the purposes of the Refuge. 

While National Wildlife Refuges are managed 

first and foremost for wildlife, the focus is on 

perpetuating populations, not individuals. Hunting and trapping does adversely affect individual animals, but is allowed when it will not 

threaten the perpetuation of the population.

9. The Draft CCP does not meet the requirements 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 because insufficient 

investigation of biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health were undertaken 

prior to plan preparation. Rigorous biological 

analyses, with conclusions published in a 

NEPA document subject to public review, need 

to be conducted of wildlife populations to 

ensure that there is a surplus, before making 

any compatibility determinations about the 

killing of wildlife.

Response: The Draft CCP listed a number of 

wildlife surveys and censuses that are conducted at Rice Lake that in sum provide an adequate basis for making informed decisions on 

the compatibility of hunting and trapping. In 

addition, the year-to-year trapping records 

themselves, and long-term trends in these numbers, furnish valuable information that can be 

used in opening or closing seasons. Recognizing 

that it does not have limitless budgetary and 

personnel resources to conduct ideal surveys 

that would yield perfect information on wildlife 

population sizes, the Refuge and Service use 

adaptive resource management, several features of which are monitoring, feedback, flexibility, and making adjustments in midcourse 

whenever the data point in that direction.

10. The Service cannot continue to endorse hunting on any National Wildlife Refuge without 

analyzing its impact as required by the NWRSIA of 1997 and NEPA through an Environmental Impact Statement.

Response: The comment references a legal complaint filed in Federal court, The Fund et al. v. 

Williams et al., Civ. No. 03-677. The complaint 

has been responded to by the Service and is 

under evaluation by the court as of this writing. 

The complaint does not specifically discuss the 

hunting program on Rice Lake NWR. See the 

previous response, and Chapter 3 of the CCP, 

for the Service’s current approach toward hunting on Rice Lake NWR.

11. There are environmental education opportunities with the East Lake and McGregor schools.

Response: The Refuge will pursue these and 

other environmental education opportunities as 

the plan is implemented.

Native American Topics

12. There is a desire for federal recognition of the 

Rice Lake Band of Ojibwe.

Response: Federal recognition of a tribe is outside the Service’s authority.

13. The Rice Lake Band of Ojibwe desires a more 

active role in management of the Refuge.

Response: The Refuge welcomes the input of 

the Rice Lake Band among the many factors 

that it must consider in making management 

decisions. Any formal agreement with the Rice 

Lake Band would require federal tribal recognition.

Other Topics

14. Removing the buildings from Indian Point at 

an estimated cost of $3.9 million at a time of 

low funding does not seem like a wise use of 

funds, and $3.9 million seems like a very high 

estimate.
Appendix K: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Response: Moving the buildings will only be 

done when funding is available. The estimate for 

the project was provided by the Service’s Engineering Division. Their estimate was based on 

their experience with similar projects and considers inflation.

15. The Refuge should consider Native American 

concerns, habitat for threatened birds, and 

water quality as it implements the plan. Access 

should be limited to protect the land and animals.

Response: The CCP and its implementation will 

consider all the values noted. Access is only permitted when compatible with the purpose of the 

Refuge and the mission of the System.

16. Prescribed fire results in an unacceptable 

change in air quality.

Response: Section 4.1.6 of the Environmental 

Assessment describes the actions the Refuge 

will take to mitigate the impacts on air quality in 

its prescribed fire operation.

17. All federal agencies have an on-going obligation to ensure that Endangered Species Act 

listed species are not jeopardized by their 

actions.

Response: An Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation has been completed and is part of 

the formal record of the planning process.

18. The Service should trade the Sandstone Unit 

for the Kimberly Marsh Wildlife Management 

Area.

Response: The concept of trading Refuge tracts 

with the Minnesota DNR lands was developed 

with the objective of simplifying management 

where Service and the DNR have small parcels 

intermixed. The Service and the DNR will consider exchanges anywhere in the State. An 

exchange of lands requires approval by both the 

Service and the DNR. 

19. The Refuge should not withdraw the Wilderness recommendation as proposed in the preferred alternative.

Response: The recommendation to consider a 

portion of the Refuge as Wilderness occurred in 

1973. The recommendation has not been acted 

upon during the interceding 34 years. Refuge 

staff have concluded that the recommendation 

is no longer appropriate because the area fails 

to meet numerous criteria that were established 

to determine Wilderness suitability: it is less 

than 5,000 acres in size; human alterations to 

the habitat are readily apparent on portions of 

the area; it offers little opportunity for primitive 

recreational activities other than hunting; and it 

does not contain significant ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

features. Removing the Wilderness recommendation will allow for a complete range of management options to restore altered and/or 

degraded wildlife habitat.

20. The CCP is good and the efforts of the Refuge 

staff are appreciated.

Response: The Service and Refuge appreciate 

the endorsement of the plan and their efforts.