Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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 Minne-sota.
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 con-sists
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 wild-life.
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. Song-birds,
raptors, and nearly all other species associ-ated
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 spec-tacular
bluffs and rock outcroppings. The State and
Aitkin County manage significant lands in the vicin-ity
of Rice Lake NWR. Figure 2 illustrates these
conservation lands that have both wildlife and recre-ational
value.
In the following sections we present our organi-zational,
legal, and policy background. Then, we
describe the establishment of the Refuge, its his-tory,
purpose, vision, and goals. In Chapter 2 we
describe the process we used in planning. Chapter 3
describes the Refuges and our current manage-ment.
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 informa-tion
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, resto-ration
of nationally significant fisheries, administra-tion
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 ref-uges
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 ter-ritories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically man-aged
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 legisla-tion,
such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
of 1929, many refuges have been established to pro-tect
migratory waterfowl and their migratory fly-ways,
from their northern nesting grounds to their
southern wintering areas. Refuges also play a vital
role in preserving endangered and threatened spe-cies.
Among the most notable is Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter
habitat for the Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Flor-ida
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 habi-tat
conservation, they are places where people can
enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photog-raphy,
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 Sys-tem
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 genera-tions
of Americans.
Revised goals for the National Wildlife Refuge
System were adopted on July 26, 2006, and incorpo-rated
into Part 601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wild-life
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
obser vation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation).
# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of
the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Legal and Policy Guidance
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of
national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa-ration
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, diver-sity,
and environmental health and to identify the
archeological and cultural values of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Act deals with compat-ibility
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 man-ager,
will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge
System mission or the purposes of the national wild-life
refuge. Managers must complete a written com-patibility
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 Improve-ment
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 biolog-ical
integrity policy helps define and clarify this
directive by providing guidance on what conditions
constitute biological integrity, diversity, and envi-ronmental
health; guidelines for maintaining exist-ing
levels; guidelines for determining how and when
it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guide-lines
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 regula-tions
govern administration of the Refuge. Appen-dix
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 migrat-ing
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 migra-tory
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 accom-plished
using Civilian Conservation Corps labor
(Camp BS-3, Company 2705). A Presidential procla-mation
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 Sand-stone
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 Febru-ary
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 Cer-tain
Real Property for Wildlife and Other Purposes
was used to transfer the Sandstone Unit from the
Department of Justice to the Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice.
Service policy states that when refuge land is
acquired it takes on the purpose of its acquisition
authority plus the purposes outlined in the authori-ties
used to acquire previous land for the same ref-uge.
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 Execu-tive
Order 2199 on May 14, 1915, as Mille Lacs Res-ervation.
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 state-ment
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 mis-sion
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 inter-mingle
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 com-monly
seen. Rice Lake will be the prominent nat-ural
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 impor-tance
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 main-taining
the Common Tern population in the Great
Lakes Region. Caspian Terns, Ruddy Turn-stones,
Sanderlings, Dunlin, Least Sandpipers,
and Semipalmated Sandpipers, will continue to
use this small but important Refuge for resting
and feeding during their lengthy migration. Hen-nepin
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 Minne-sota
DNR.
Refuge Goals
Considering the purposes of the refuges and our
vision for the future, we have established the follow-ing
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 popula-tions
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 commu-nity,
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 coopera-tion.
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 man-agement
direction.
The plan enhances the management of the Ref-uges
by:
# Providing a clear statement of desired
conditions.
# Ensuring management is consistent with laws,
policies, and plans.
# Ensuring consideration of preservation of
historic properties i s 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 commu-nity.
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 Cen-ter
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 Cen-ter.
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 addi-tional
meeting was held in the Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice
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 top-ics
and provide a base for considering alternative
approaches to management and evaluating the con-sequences
of managing under these alternative
approaches. The issues and concerns expressed dur-ing
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 tra-dition
of harvesting rice on the lake and will con-tinue
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 farm-ing
era. These grassland/brushland areas have been
maintained by past management practices of graz-ing
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. How-ever,
the Refuge grassland/brushland areas are only
minimally successful for high priority breeding
grassland birds due to their small acreages and neg-ative
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 prior-ity
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 consid-eration
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 recom-mendation.
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 unim-paired
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 mem-bers
of the local Indian community desire more
facilities and ceremonial opportunities and agree-ments
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 under-standing,
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 Improve-ment
Act of 1997 directs refuges to facilitate wild-life-
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 unreal-ized
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 recre-ation
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 sub-strate
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 deter-rent
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 Envi-ronmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft Environ-mental
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 man-agement
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 gen-eral
approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and
people at Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wild-life
Refuges that will direct day-to-day decision-making
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 land-scape,
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 vegeta-tion
for this area is black spruce bog, white cedar-tamarack
swamp, and aspen-birch forest. The rest
of Rice Lake NWR lies in the St. Louis Moraines
subsection, characterized by glacial moraines, roll-ing
hills and small short rivers and large lakes. The
potential vegetation for the area is aspen-birch for-est,
and Northern hardwood forest. Mille Lacs
NWR and the Sandstone Unit lie in the Mille Lacs
Uplands subsection, which is generally character-ized
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 pre-settlement
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 cau-tion
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 veg-etation
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, approxi-mately
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 popu-lated
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 per-cent
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 lan-
Twin 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 per-cent.
Past population growth is attributed to the
creation of new manufacturing jobs and immigra-tion
of retirees.
As reported in the 2000 County Business Pat-terns,
Aitkin County had 3,192 employees. The larg-est
employment sectors for the county were health
care and social assistance (582), retail trade (569),
accommodation and food services (511), manufac-turing
(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 diversi-fication
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 grad-uates
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 econ-omy,
and is reflected by the number of second
homes located on Big Sandy and northern Mille
Lacs Lakes. Snowmobiling and hunting oppor-tunities
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 per-cent)
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 cer-tainly
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 col-lect
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 Yan-kee
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 (Ollen-dorf,
2000). These families lived year-round on the
land, harvesting rice and maple syrup, planting gar-dens
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 dis-tinction
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 unnec-essary
to camp overnight at ricing sites. Indians at
both Rice Lake and Kettle Lake cited the automo-bile
as a cause for the disappearance of camps (Jarv-enpa,
1971). Today, members of the Ojibwe people
harvest rice in accordance with the Collier Agree-ment
(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 regu-larly
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 Com-pany
and harvested the marsh grass to manufacture
carpets until they declared bankruptcy in 1936. In
1900, Davidson and McRae purchased several thou-sand
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 Stillwa-ter,
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 assess-ments
of global relative abundance, breeding and
wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area
importance, and population trend. These scores are
often used by agencies in developing lists of priority
bird species. The Service based its 2001 list of Non-game
Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on
the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and waterbird sta-tus
assessment scores. Recently, the Minnesota Bird
Conservation Initiative (MBCI) has been estab-lished
by federal and state agencies and statewide
conservation organizations. The MBCI will inte-grate
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 Comprehen-sive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), a stra-tegic
plan to better manage populations of “species
in greatest conservation need” in Minnesota. The
plan was developed with the support of funding
from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by
Congress in 2001. The heart of the strategic plan is
for a partnership of conservation organizations
across Minnesota to work together to sustain the
populations of the identified species. Members of
the partnership include the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Minne-sota,
and the University of Minnesota, as well as
many other agencies and conservation organiza-tions.
The plan outlines priority conservation
actions that might be undertaken by partners.
The organizational units of the CWCS are 25 eco-logical
subsections within Minnesota. Rice Lake and
Mille Lacs NWRs occur within the Tamarack Low-lands,
St. Louis Moraines, and Mille Lacs Uplands
subsections. (Figure 6) The information and strate-gies
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 subsec-tions,
which suggests that the Refuge plays a key
role in the state’s conservation partnership. Appen-dix
C of Minnesota’s CWCS contains a summary of
other conservation plans and efforts for each sub-section.
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 early-
November and remain frozen until mid-to-late-
April. 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 gla-cial
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 Mis-sissippi
River 20 miles to the west. The land’s natu-ral
water drainage toward the south has been
blocked by the moraines. This wet area is slowly fill-ing
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 pres-sure
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 pat-terns.
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 high-lighted.
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 mil-lion
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 emerger-gent
plant zones. Greater Yellow-legs, Marbled God-wit,
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 north-ern
Midwest and northeast have traditionally har-vested
wild rice. Such activities are supported by
the Refuge System and allow American Indians con-tact
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 ecol-ogy
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 Minne-sota
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 submon-tane
cold-deciduous forest per the National Vegeta-tion
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 undis-turbed
for years, allowing brush to invade the grass-land.
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 Natu-ral
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 tama-rack.
Bearing trees listed in 1849 and 1851 Govern-ment
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 vegeta-tion
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 exam-ples
of this original vegetation are now found any-where
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 asso-ciation
of aspen, maple, oak and birch. The under-story
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 satu-rated
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 flow-ering
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 float-ing
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 float-ing
bog mat will eventually cover the water’s sur-face
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 non-indigenous
species (smooth brome and timothy),
although a couple of small fields were planted to tall-grass
prairie cultivars (big blue stem, Indian grass)
by Refuge staff in the late 1980s. The largest grass-land
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 Cor-rectional
Institution. The open area on the north
end of the Unit was cleared of trees for agricultural
development. This area was kept open through hay-ing
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. Veg-etation
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 veg-etation
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 con-trol
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 possi-ble
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 north-westward
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 domi-nate
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, rap-tors,
and songbirds are commonly observed on the
Refuge. Rice Lake NWR has been designated a Glo-bally
Important Bird Area by the American Bird
Conservancy. This designation was granted due to
the importance of the lake and its naturally produc-ing
wild rice as a food source to migrating water-fowl,
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. Hen-nepin
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 Mergan-sers
and Mallards.
Mammals
Forty-three species of mammals have been con-firmed
on Rice Lake NWR. (Appendix D). White-tailed
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. Sam-pling
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 (Appen-dix
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 spe-cies
found during the surveys were the fat mucket
(Lampsilis siliquiodea); paper pondshell (Utter-backia
imbecillis); eastern floater (Pyganodon cata-racta
sp.) (pending verification); giant floater
(Pyganodon grandis); and the strange floater, Stro-phitus
undulatus. Fingernail clams (Sphaeridae
sp.), were also found throughout the Refuge. No
mussels were found in Mandy Lake during the sur-vey,
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 spe-cies,
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 indi-cates
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 identi-fied
species that require the most attention given
our current level of knowledge. Migratory bird con-servation
initiatives also contribute to setting priori-ties.
The base for Minnesota’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy was the identifica-tion
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 lev-els
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 habi-tat
and species relationships for species of manage-ment
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 Minne-sota
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 great-est
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, espe-cially
the Common Tern population, are of greater
concern.
Contaminants
Mercury is a pervasive contaminant across Min-nesota,
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-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
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 Habitats
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
Young Mixed Upland
Mature Mixed Upland
Old Mixed upland
Young Lowland Deciduous
Mature Lowland Deciduous
Old Lowland Deciduous
Gray Wolf f f x x f x x x x x x x x x x x x
American Bittern f x x f
American Woodcock f x x x x x
Bald Eagle f f b b b b b b
Black Tern f f f x x
Black-billed Cuckoo x x x x x x x
Black-crowned Night Heron f f f f
Blue-winged Teal f f f f f x f b
Bobolink 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 x x x x
Canvasback f f f
Common Loon f f f f x
Common Tern x f f
Connecticut Warbler x x x
Dickcissel x
Double-crested Cormorant* f f f
Eastern Meadowlark x
Field Sparrow x x x
Forster's Tern f
Golden-winged Warbler x x f f
Grasshopper Sparrow x x x
Greater Yellowlegs f f f f f f
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
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 f b b
Mallard x x f f f b b b 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 b b
Northern Goshawk x f f x x 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 x x x
Orchard Oriole f f f f f f f f f
Peregrine Falcon f f f f
Red-headed Woodpecker f f x x x x x f x
Red-shouldered Hawk f f f b b x x x
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 Habitats
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
Young Mixed Upland
Mature Mixed Upland
Old Mixed upland
Young Lowland Deciduous
Mature Lowland Deciduous
Old Lowland Deciduous
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
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 b b f f
Wilson's Phalarope f f f f
Wood Duck f f f f f f f x x x x x
Wood Thrush x x x x 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 x x x x
Black Sandshell x
Elktoe x
Round Pigtoe x
Snail spp. x x 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” species
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 Habitats
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
Young Mixed Upland
Mature Mixed Upland
Old Mixed upland
Young Lowland Deciduous
Mature Lowland Deciduous
Old Lowland Deciduous
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
ucts, the remaining 30 percent is derived from natu-ral
emissions. Only about 10 percent of Minnesota’s
mercury contamination originates from Minnesota
emissions, however 90 percent of Minnesota’s emis-sions
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 cli-mate-
related impact that refuges can affect in a
small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car-bon
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 conclu-sions
noted that ecosystem protection is important
to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent
loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio-sphere.
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 long-term
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 Vari-ability
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 Pro-gram
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 tem-peratures
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 sub-stantial
increase in evaporation, causing a soil mois-ture
deficit, reduction in lake and river levels, and
more drought-like conditions in much of the region.
In addition, increases in the proportion of precipita-tion
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-sensi-tive
issues affecting the region. Despite the pro-jected
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 sug-gests
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% reduc-tion
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 particu-lar
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 addi-tion,
the projected increase in very heavy precipita-tion
events will likely lead to increased flash
flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point
source pollution as more frequent heavy rains
wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water
levels are likely to make water-based transportation
more difficult with increases in the costs of naviga-tion
of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase will
likely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the nav-igation
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 recre-ation.
If flows decrease while demand increases,
international commissions focusing on Great Lakes
water issues are likely to become even more impor-tant
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 man-agement,
conservation tillage, and new farm tech-nologies
are additional options. There is also the
potential for shifting or expanding the area where
certain crops are grown if climate conditions
become more favorable. Weather conditions during
the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-
year differences in corn and soybean yields.
Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions;
severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause
yield reductions of over 30%. Reliable seasonal fore-casts
are likely to help farmers adjust their prac-tices
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 suscepti-ble
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 forest-lands
that are currently temperature-limited. Most
climate models indicate that higher air tempera-tures
will cause greater evaporation and hence
reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to for-est
fires. As the 21st century progresses, there will
be an increased likelihood of greater environmental
stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, mak-ing
them susceptible to disease and pest infestation,
likely resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major
changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely
occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species,
such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass
and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an
environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native
species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes
and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in
heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with
warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the
growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to
the detriment of other living things. Declining lake
levels are likely to cause large impacts to the cur-rent
distribution of wetlands. There is some chance
that some wetlands could gradually migrate, but in
areas where their migration is limited by the topog-raphy,
they would disappear. Changes in bird popu-lations
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 Sand-stone
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, Minne-sota,”
by Oothoudt and Watson, 1978. While the Ser-vice
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 Wild-life
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 Wood-land
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. Docu-ments
refer to sites associated with lumbering,
farmsteads and fields, a Civilian Conservation
Corps camp (as well as facilities on the Refuge con-structed
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 inter-view
descriptions of traditional cultural properties.
Cultural resources are important parts of the
Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to pro-tecting
valuable evidence of human interactions with
each other and the landscape. Protection is accom-plished
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 obser-vation,
photography, interpretation, hunting, fish-ing,
and environmental education. Most Refuge
visitors are engaged in wildlife observation and ben-efit
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 Ref-uge.
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 Ref-uge
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 conversa-tions
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 Land-scape
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 water-fowl,
and fall migration habitat within the pool.
Refuge (Rice Lake and Sandstone) wetland res-toration
projects have been completed in locations
where farming once occurred and affected or elimi-nated
naturally-occurring wetlands. During the
1950s, small water control structures called screw
gates were placed on ditches in the Refuge to con-trol
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 habi-tat
for waterbirds.
Bog Management
The Refuge has approximately 3,000 acres of bog
adjacent to the Kimberly Marsh Wildlife Manage-ment
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 inven-tory
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 land-scape
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 hard-wood
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 undis-turbed.
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 War-blers.
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 Minne-sota
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 man-agement
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 oppor-tunities
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 enforce-ment
patrols, nearly eliminates after-hours unau-thorized
entries and the late night illegal activities.
Law enforcement is provided by Conservation Offic-ers
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 Ref-uge,
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 home-school
programs. There is no formal curriculum for
Refuge programs. Programs are presented in
nearby schools and the Refuge participates in edu-cational
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 Coop-erative
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 Trap-ping
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 & Wild-life
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-of-way
along the east edge of the Refuge and along the
main Refuge road between the Headquarters and
Maintenance areas. A long-term invasive weed map-ping/
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 pro-tecting
valuable evidence of human interactions with
each other and the landscape. Protection is accom-plished
in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to
protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
Responsibilities for cultural resources manage-ment
in the Service are shared between the refuge
and regional office. The Regional Director has
responsibility (1) for the National Historic Preser-vation
Act Section 106 process when historic proper-ties
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 responsibili-ties
include: early interaction with the RHPO about
activities that might affect cultural resources; pro-tecting
archeological sites and historic properties;
monitoring archeological investigations by contrac-tors
and permittees; and repor