Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tamarac
National Wildlife Refuge and
Wetland Management District
Draft
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
United States Department of the Interior
trISH AI.ID WILDLIFE SERVICE
Birhop Henry Whipple Federal Building
I Fedcrd l)rirc
Fon Snelling, MN 55lU-4O56
June29.2010
Dear Reviewer:
We are pleased to provide you with this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) for Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) and Tamarac
V/etland Management District (District).
The CCP will guide management of the Refuge and District for the next 15 years and will help
meet their purposes and contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The
CCP will provide both broad and specific guidance on various issues; describe a vision, goals,
and measurable objectives; and list strategies for reaching the objectives.
We invite you to review and comment on the Draft CCP and EA. By sharing your thoughts, you
can help ensure that the frnal CCP is both visionary and practical. 'We will host an open house
where you will be able to ask questions and voice concems and suggestions. This event will take
place at the Refuge Visitor Center, from 6 p.m. - 8 p.m. on Tuesday, July 20,2010. The visitor
center is located at35704 County Highway 26, Rochert, Minnesota. The meeting date will be
announced through the media and other means.
Written comments are also welcome during the 30-day comment period and should be addressed
to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Talr,a,rac National V/ildlife Refuge, Attention: CCP
Comment, 35704 County Highway 26, Rochert, Minnesota 56578. You may also send comments
to us through the following web address: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planninglTarnarac
To be considered in preparing the Final CCP, comments must be received by August 6,2010.
'We look forward to continuing the dialogue on the future of the Refuge and District, andthank
you for your continued interest in keeping these lands a special place for wildlife and people.
Sincerely,
lAlt A &t^ A*,IL
Dean Granholm
Acting Chief, Division of Conservation Planning
IN REILYREFERTO:
FWS/NWRS-CP
Tamarac
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................1
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge ...............................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................................................................................3
The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................3
Refuge Purposes ...........................................................................................................................................................3
Refuge Vision ................................................................................................................................................................4
Purpose and Need for Plan ..........................................................................................................................................4
Organization of the Plan ...............................................................................................................................................4
History of Refuge Establishment and Management .....................................................................................................5
Legal Context ................................................................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................6
Internal Agency Scoping ...............................................................................................................................................6
Public Scoping .............................................................................................................................................................6
Refuge Program Reviews .............................................................................................................................................7
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .........................................................................................................7
Tamarac NWR ....................................................................................................................................................7
Wildlife Management .................................................................................................................................7
Habitat Management ..................................................................................................................................8
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................................9
Facilities/Roads .........................................................................................................................................10
Tamarac WMD .................................................................................................................................................10
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ........................................................................11
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment ................................................................................................................................12
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................12
Other Units Administered ...........................................................................................................................................12
Wilderness Area ...............................................................................................................................................12
Wilderness Review ...........................................................................................................................................12
Areas of Special Designation ............................................................................................................................12
Ecological Context ......................................................................................................................................................13
Historic Land Cover ...........................................................................................................................................13
Minnesota Ecological Classification System ....................................................................................................14
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................17
Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ............................................................................17
Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..............................................................................18
Landscape Connectivity and Corridors ........................................................................................................................18
Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Tamarac NWR ...........................................................................................19
Social and Economic Context .....................................................................................................................................19
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
ii
Area Economy ...................................................................................................................................................19
Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................19
Geology and Glaciation ..............................................................................................................................................19
Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................21
Water and Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................22
Refuge Habitats ..........................................................................................................................................................24
Forest ................................................................................................................................................................24
Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................................26
Open Water ......................................................................................................................................................26
Grassland ..........................................................................................................................................................26
Shrub .................................................................................................................................................................26
Developed Land ................................................................................................................................................26
Refuge Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................................................26
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................26
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................29
Fish ....................................................................................................................................................................30
Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................................................30
Invertebrates .....................................................................................................................................................30
Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................................................31
Refuge Resources of Concern ...........................................................................................................................31
Threats to Resources ..................................................................................................................................................31
Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................................31
Earthworms .......................................................................................................................................................33
White-tailed Deer .............................................................................................................................................33
Zebra Mussel ....................................................................................................................................................33
Other Forest Pests and Pathogens ....................................................................................................................34
Contaminants .............................................................................................................................................................34
Climate Change and Tamarac NWR ...........................................................................................................................34
Midwest Climate Change Impacts ..............................................................................................................................35
Observed Climate Trends ...........................................................................................................................36
Scenarios of Future Climate .......................................................................................................................36
Midwest Key Issues: .................................................................................................................................36
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels ................................................................................................36
2. Agricultural Shifts ...........................................................................................................................37
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ........................................................................37
Administrative Facilities .............................................................................................................................................38
Visitor Services ...........................................................................................................................................................38
Current Management .................................................................................................................................................38
Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................................38
Wetland Management .....................................................................................................................................39
Open Landscape Management ..........................................................................................................................40
The 1000-acre Tract ..................................................................................................................................41
Forest Openings .........................................................................................................................................42
Croplands ...................................................................................................................................................42
Forest Management .........................................................................................................................................42
Habitat Restoration ..........................................................................................................................................43
Fish and Wildlife Management and Monitoring .........................................................................................................44
Fish and Wildlife Management .........................................................................................................................44
Fishery Management .................................................................................................................................44
Wildlife Management ...............................................................................................................................44
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
iii
Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management ................................................................................................44
Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................................................44
Studies and Investigations ...............................................................................................................................45
Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................45
Climate Change .........................................................................................................................................45
Pathways for Ecological Restoration of Native Plant Communities ..........................................................46
Survivability of Spotted Knapweed Biological Agents to a Spring Prescribed Fire ..................................46
Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Ecology ................................................................................................46
Post-fledging Ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota ......................................................................46
Disease Monitoring and Control ................................................................................................................47
West Nile Virus ..................................................................................................................................47
Avian Influenza (H5N1) .......................................................................................................................47
Visitor Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................................47
Hunting ............................................................................................................................................................47
Fishing ...............................................................................................................................................................47
Wildlife Observation .........................................................................................................................................50
Wildlife Photography ........................................................................................................................................50
Interpretation ....................................................................................................................................................50
Environmental Education ..................................................................................................................................50
Outreach ...........................................................................................................................................................51
Volunteer Contributions ....................................................................................................................................51
Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................................51
Interagency Coordination .................................................................................................................................51
Tribal Activities ................................................................................................................................................52
Cooperating Organizations ...............................................................................................................................53
Archeology and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................54
Law Enforcment ..........................................................................................................................................................55
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................56
Tamarac NWR Goals, Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................56
Tamarac NWR Goals ..................................................................................................................................................57
Goal 1: Wildlife .........................................................................................................................................57
Goal 2: Habitat ..........................................................................................................................................61
Goal 3: People ...........................................................................................................................................72
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................81
New and Existing Projects ..........................................................................................................................................81
Tamarac NWR Operating Needs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects ...................................................81
Enhance Environmental Education and Interpretive Capacity and Capability ...................................81
Provide Public Safety, Security and Resource Protection Through 
Increased Law Enforcement Capability ............................................................................................82
Develop Strategic Forest Management Program ...............................................................................82
Develop a New Audiovisual Program at Tamarac NWR Visitor Center .............................................82
Update Visitor Center Exhibits ............................................................................................................82
Hydrological Geomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Tamarac NWR Lakes and Rivers ..........................82
Aquatic Resources and Water Quality Investigation .........................................................................83
Climate Change Adaptations for Biodiversity Conservation at Tamarac NWR .................................83
Wetland Management District Operating Needs Projects ...............................................................................83
Enhance Wetland Management District ............................................................................................83
Survey FSA Easements .......................................................................................................................83
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
iv
Future Staffing Requirements ....................................................................................................................................83
Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................................................84
Partnership Opportunities ...........................................................................................................................................84
Wilderness Review .....................................................................................................................................................84
Monitoring and Evaluation .........................................................................................................................................84
Plan Review and Revision ..........................................................................................................................................85
Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District ..............................................................................................86
Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................................................86
District Purposes .........................................................................................................................................................86
District Vision .............................................................................................................................................................86
Planning Background ..................................................................................................................................................86
District Environment and Current Management .........................................................................................................86
District Environment .........................................................................................................................................86
Current Wetland Management District Programs: Where We Are Today .......................................................89
Habitat Restoration and Management ......................................................................................................90
Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................90
Grasslands .................................................................................................................................................90
Forests .......................................................................................................................................................90
Wetland Management District Public Recreation, Environmental Education, and Interpretation ............91
Wetland Management District Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................91
Future Management Direction: Where We Want To Go Tomorrow .................................................................91
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ......................................................................................................................91
Goal 1: Wildlife .........................................................................................................................................91
Goal 2: Habitat ..........................................................................................................................................92
Goal 3: People ...........................................................................................................................................95
Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................96
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................................97
Appendix B: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................145
Appendix C: Species Lists .......................................................................................................................................147
Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern ..............................................................................................................171
Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited .................................................................................................179
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................181
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations for Tamarac NWR and WMD ............................................187
Appendix H: Collier Agreement ..............................................................................................................................229
Appendix I: Appropriate Use ..................................................................................................................................235
Appendix J: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................251
List of Figures and Tables
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
v
Figure 1: Location of Tamarac NWR ................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Areas of Special Designation, Tamarac NWR .................................................................................................13
Figure 3: Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR .............................................................................................................................14
Figure 4: Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Becker County Prior to European Settlement ............................................15
Figure 5: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Provinces of Minnesota .........................................................................16
Figure 6: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the 
Ecological Classification System of Minnesota ............................................................................................17
Figure 7: Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR .....................................................................................18
Figure 8: Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR ......................................................................................20
Figure 9: Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central Minnesota ...........................23
Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR ...............................................................................................................25
Figure 11: Tamarac NWR Habitat ..................................................................................................................................26
Figure 12: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter .....................................................................................48
Figure 13: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Spring and Summer ..............................................................................49
Figure 14: Future Land Cover Goals, Tamarac NWR .......................................................................................................63
Figure 15: Hunting Areas on Tamarac NWR ...................................................................................................................73
Figure 16: Future Visitor Services Facilities –Spring and Summer, Tamarac NWR .......................................................77
Figure 17: Future Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter, Tamarac NWR .............................................................78
Figure 18: Current Staffing Chart (2010), Tamarac NWR and WMD ..............................................................................84
Figure 19: Location of Tamarac WMD in Relation to Other FWS Lands ........................................................................87
Figure 20: Overview of Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota ..........................................................................88
Table 1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota .........................................................................21
Table 2: Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR ...........................................................................................22
Table 3: Distinct Classes of Soils Within Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity and Texture .......................22
Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation .......................27
Table 5: Proposed Changes in Vegetation Cover Types, Tamarac NWR ........................................................................62
Table 6: New Staff Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2025, Tamarac NWR and WMD .....................................84
Table 7: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Tamarac NWR .................................................................................85
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Tamarac
NWR), encompassing nearly 43,000 acres, is located
in Becker County, 18 miles northeast of Detroit
Lakes, Minnesota, (pop. 7,400) and 60 miles east of
Fargo, North Dakota (Figure 1 on page 2). Tama-rac
NWR lies in the glacial lake country of north-western
Minnesota, in the heart of one of the most
diverse transition zones in North America. Here
eastern deciduous hardwoods, northern coniferous
forests and western tall grass prairie converge, cre-ating
a rich assemblage of both plants and animals.
The landscape is characterized by rolling for-ested
hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers,
marshes and shrub swamps. Sixty percent of the
refuge is forested with aspen, jack pine, red pine,
balsam fir, paper birch, red and white oak, sugar
maple and basswood tree types. Large and small
wetland complexes comprise about 35 percent of the
Refuge. Many refuge lakes and rivers contain large
native wild rice beds that produce abundant food for
waterfowl and other wetland dependent species.
Twenty-eight lakes lie within the Refuge and three
rivers flow through the Refuge, while marshes and
wooded potholes number several thousand. The
remaining 5 percent of Tamarac NWR is grassland,
mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small
farms.
Tamarac NWR wildlife is as varied as the habitat
with more than 258 species of birds and 50 species of
mammals. Bald Eagles are common with up to 23
territories producing as many as 33 young in recent
years. Resident bear and gray wolves are seen peri-odically.
The Refuge was historically and remains a prized
hunting, fishing, ricing and maple sugaring area for
a succession of Native American people. The
Dakota/Lakota inhabited the area until the 18th
century when they were displaced by the Annis-hanabe
or “Chippewa.” These native people knew
the value of the lush beds of manoomin (wild rice),
stands of sugar maple and abundance of wild foods,
fish and game the land provided for their people.
Today, the north half of Tamarac NWR lies within
the original White Earth Indian Reservation estab-lished
in 1867.
Between 1890 and 1930, the Refuge’s original
stands of red and white pine were logged. Cata-strophic
fires occurred during this time period due
to extensive slash piles that were left behind after
the logging. Several dams and ditches were also cre-ated
by loggers, to transport logs down river to the
mill. Settlers followed the loggers, but farming
never achieved much prominence due to the dense
forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands.
Though the landscape has been altered by the
influences of human history and past management,
the Refuge remains largely intact with a functioning
ecosystem and retains an untamed character for
current visitors to enjoy, use and respect. With the
encroachment of development surrounding the Ref-uge,
the promotion of sound land stewardship prac-tices
will be key in remaining connected in the
landscape.
A bird’s eye view of Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: D. Brand
The Refuge is also responsible for a five-county
region known as the Tamarac Wetland Manage-ment
District (Tamarac WMD). Established in 1987,
Tamarac WMD stretches over 10,600 square miles
in Beltrami, Cass, Clearwater, Hubbard and Kooch-
Figure 1: Location of Tamarac NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
3
iching Counties, extending the Refuge’s sphere of
responsibility to the Canadian border. District activ-ities,
including an active Partners for Fish and Wild-life
program, complement Refuge goals to ensure a
landscape perspective for conservation delivery.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tamarac NWR and WMD are administered by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The
Service is the primary federal agency responsible
for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the
nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habi-tats.
It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife
laws, management and protection of migratory bird
populations, restoration of nationally significant
fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species
Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat. The Ser-vice
also manages the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican
Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans.
Today, the system is a network of 547 refuges and
wetland management districts covering nearly 95
million acres of public lands and waters. Most of
these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approxi-mately
16 million acres located in the lower 48 states
and several island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically man-aged
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat
for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of
international treaties for migratory bird conserva-tion
and other legislation, such as the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have
been established to protect migratory waterfowl
and their migratory flyways.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving
endangered and threatened species. Among the
most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in
Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly
endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida
Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most
endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique
recreational and educational opportunities for peo-ple.
When human activities are compatible with
wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places
where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recre-ation
such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers,
wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental
education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30
million people visited national wildlife refuges in
2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of
national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa-ration
of Comprehensive Conservation Plans
(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation
directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
and purposes of the individual refuges are carried
out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
are to:
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for
migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdic-tional
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 communi-ties,
wetlands of national or international signif-icance,
and landscapes and seascapes that are
unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in
existing protection efforts.
 Provide and enhance opportunities to partici-pate
in compatible wildlife-dependent recre-ation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
 Foster understanding and instill appreciation
of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Refuge Purposes
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab-lished
in 1938…
 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migra-tory
birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive
Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938.
 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conser-vation
Act)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
4
Refuge Vision
The planning team considered the past vision
statements and emerging issues and drafted the fol-lowing
vision statement as the desired future state
for the Refuge:
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is trea-sured
as an ecologically and culturally rich land-scape
of rolling forested hills interspersed with
shallow lakes, rivers and marshes that nurtures
a unique and diverse assemblage of plants and
animals. Towering red and white pine intermin-gle
with aspens, majestic old growth forests,
jack pine barrens and tamarack-spruce bogs. In
the land where food grows on water, bountiful
wild rice provides for future generations of wild-life
and native people. From the vibrant emer-gence
of spring woodland wildflowers to the rich
colors of autumn to the quiet hush of winter,
people come to revitalize their spirit and con-nect
with a rich wildlife heritage. Tamarac
NWR will remain resilient to human influences
and provide an unbroken landscape of native
plant communities to support healthy and pro-ductive
native fish and wildlife populations.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction
for Tamarac NWR and District for the next 15
years. Through the development of goals, objec-tives,
and strategies, this CCP describes how the
Refuge and district also contribute to the overall
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Several legislative mandates within the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
have guided the development of this plan. These
mandates include:
 Wildlife has first priority in the management of
refuges.
 Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and
interpretation are priority public uses of ref-uges.
We will facilitate these activities when
they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill
the refuge’s purpose or the mission of the ref-uge
system.
 Other uses of refuges will only be allowed when
determined appropriate and compatible with
refuge purposes and mission of the refuge sys-tem.
This CCP will guide the management of Tamarac
NWR by:
 Providing a clear statement of direction for the
future management of the Refuge.
 Making a strong connection between Refuge
activities and conservation activities that occur
in the surrounding area.
 Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the
general public with an understanding of the
Service’s land acquisition and management
actions on and around the refuge.
A lone canoe. Photo Credit: Heather Lehmann Callaway
 Ensuring the Refuge actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
 Ensuring that Refuge management considers
federal, state, county and tribal plans.
 Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge
management.
 Providing a basis for the development of budget
requests on the Refuge’s operational, mainte-nance,
and capital improvement needs.
Organization of the Plan
The purpose of the CCP is to specify manage-ment
directions for Tamarac NWR and the Wetland
Management District over the coming 15 years.
These management directions will be described in
detail through two distinct sets of goals, objectives,
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
5
and strategies; one each for the Refuge and District.
The Tamarac WMD is managed by the staff of the
Refuge. For that reason, some of the written mate-rial
for the Refuge and District is integrated
throughout the CCP. However, Chapter 6 was cre-ated
to serve as a separate location for the goals,
objectives and strategies for the Tamarac WMD.
History of Refuge Establishment and
Management
The initial land acquisition for Tamarac NWR
was the result of concern for limited waterfowl
breeding grounds. During the 1930s, waterfowl pop-ulations
plummeted due to drought, farming prac-tices
and wetland drainage, which reduced the
amount of lands suitable for breeding, brood rearing
and staging during migration. In response to these
concerns, the Bureau of Biological Survey (now the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), began the National
Waterfowl Restoration Program in June 1934 to
search for lands suitable for restoration practices
that would benefit waterfowl habitat needs.
The Refuge area was first recommended to Pres-ident
Roosevelt’s Waterfowl Restoration Commit-tee,
of which publisher Thomas Beck was chairman
and Jay N. Darling and Aldo Leopold, members.
The committee, in turn, recommended investigation
by the Bureau of Biological Survey, and studies dur-ing
the summers of 1934 and 1935 indicated that
Becker and Mahnomen Counties had the highest
waterfowl nesting indices in the state of Minnesota.
The Biological Survey viewed this area as a link in
the series of migratory waterfowl refuges being
established in the Mississippi Flyway. The Egg
Lake region, as this area was known, provided ade-quate
food and dependable water supply, which was
rare during the Dust Bowl era. A suitable area for
acquisition was laid out in consultation with wildlife
officials of the Minnesota Conservation Department
(now the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources) and local citizens. The proposed refuge
boundary was readily approved by the Becker
County Commissioners. Negotiations got under way
to acquire these lands, which were owned by a vari-ety
of entities including private non-tribal individu-als,
county tax forfeited lands and Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The Collier Agreement of 1935 (Appendix
H) was an agreement between the Bureau of Biolog-ical
Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
establish Tamarac NWR while providing that
Native Americans retained certain ricing and trap-ping
privileges within the Refuge. Approximately,
the northern half of the Refuge lies within the origi-nal
boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which
was established in 1867.
Tamarac NWR was established by Executive
Order No. 7902 on May 31, 1938 by Franklin D.
Roosevelt to serve as a “breeding ground and sanc-tuary
for migratory birds and other wildlife”. The
Refuge was originally known as the Tamarac Migra-tory
Waterfowl Refuge, thus emphasizing the
importance of the area to waterfowl. The name was
subsequently changed in July 1940 to Tamarac
National Wildlife Refuge, as was the case with many
other federal wildlife lands. The Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929, also known as the Duck
Stamp, further solidified the Refuge’s purpose.
Although the Refuge’s original focus was on water-fowl
(ducks and geese), other migratory birds (for-est
passerines and raptors) and year-round resident
wildlife (wolves and deer) have received an increas-ing
emphasis in Refuge management over the years.
Following establishment in 1938, the north half of
the Refuge was acquired almost instantly through
purchases by the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission from willing sellers and of county tax
forfeited lands. Much land in the south half was
owned by influential hunting clubs. Their opposition
to the Refuge delayed complete acquisition in the
south half until the early 1960s. Land exchanges
with the State completed acquisition of the present
boundaries in 1968.
Early Refuge development was started by a
Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) camp in the
1930's and further enhanced in the 1960s by the
Army Corp of Engineers Job Corps Conservation
Center. These efforts included the construction of
dikes, trails, water control structures and a number
of refuge buildings. Many of these structures and
buildings are still in use today and the trails are the
foundation for refuge access.
Legal Context
In addition to the executive order establishing
the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations govern adminis-tration
of Tamarac NWR and WMD. Appendix F
contains a partial list of the legal mandates that
guided the preparation of this plan and those that
pertain to Refuge management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
6
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP
has been written with input and assistance from citi-zens,
universities and other non-governmental orga-nizations
(NGOs), and staff from other federal, state
and local agencies. The participation of these stake-holders
is important, and all of their ideas have been
valuable in determining the future direction of the
Refuge. Refuge and Service planning staff are
grateful to all of those who have contributed time,
expertise, and ideas throughout the CCP process.
We appreciate the enthusiasm and commitment
expressed by many for the lands and living
resources administered by the Tamarac NWR.
Internal Agency Scoping
The CCP process began in late February 2007
with a kick-off meeting between Refuge staff and
regional planners from the Service’s office at Fort
Snelling, Minnesota. The participants in this “inter-nal
scoping” exercise discussed a vision statement,
goals, existing baseline resource data, planning doc-uments
and other pertinent information. In addi-tion,
the group identified a preliminary list of issues,
concerns and opportunities facing the Refuge and
Tamarac WMD that would need to be addressed in
the CCP.
A list of required CCP elements (e.g., maps, pho-tos,
and GIS data layers) was also developed at this
meeting and during subsequent e-mail and tele-phone
communications between Refuge staff and
the Service’s office in the Twin Cities. Concurrently,
the group studied federal and state mandates plus
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans
for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally,
the group agreed to a process and sequence for
obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for
completion of the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan
was drafted and distributed to participants immedi-ately
after the meeting.
Public Scoping
Public input was encouraged and obtained using
several methods, including open house events, writ-ten
comments during a public scoping period and
personal contacts.
Initial public scoping for the Tamarac NWR and
WMD CCP began in July 2007 with a series of open
house events held in Detroit Lakes and at the Ref-uge
Headquarters (Tamarac NWR) and in Bagley,
Minnesota (WMD). Turn-out was light at all events
despite widespread notification in area newspapers
and local television. Comment forms were available
at the events and made available at the Refuge
Headquarters and Visitor Center during the follow-ing
weeks.
Skiing at Tamarac NWR. Photo credit: D. Mudderman
People interested in making written comments
had until September 2007 to submit them. Com-ments
could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the
Tamarac NWR planning website on the Internet.
The Planning Team received eight written comment
forms and several e-mail messages during public
scoping and took numerous pages of notes from
internal group discussions and conversations with
individuals representing government agencies,
NGOs and Refuge users.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
7
Refuge Program Reviews
On April 25-26 and November 14-16, 2006, a Bio-logical
Program Review was held to obtain detailed
input on the issues and opportunities concerning the
habitat and biological monitoring program at the
Refuge. Thirty people representing the Minnesota
DNR, the U.S. Geological Survey – Biological
Resource Division, universities, NGOs, Refuge staff,
volunteers and the Tamarac Interpretive Associa-tion
attended these discussions. On July 17-18, 2006,
a Visitor Services Review was conducted by the
Regional Office. Regional Landscape Architect
Richard Sorenson, Fergus Falls Prairie Wetlands
Center Visitor Services Specialist Ken Garrahan,
and Tamarac NWR staff participated in the reveiw.
This program review was scheduled to coincide with
the CCP scoping process and to help formulate
objectives and strategies in the plan.
Summary of Issues, Concerns and
Opportunities
The following list of issue topics was generated
by internal Refuge scoping, the public open house
sessions and program reviews. Each topic will be
described in more detail in the following chapters of
this plan.
Tamarac NWR
Wildlife Management
 Waterfowl Focus Shift to Natural Diversity
with Emphasis on Service Resource Conserva-tion
Priority Species
When Tamarac NWR was established in 1938,
the tail end of the Dirty Thirties, much of the
land had been cleared, prairies were dry, forests
were less dense, and lakes were shallower. The
Refuge’s original master plan emphasized get-ting
water on the land and focusing on the pro-duction
of Wood Ducks, Ring-necked Ducks,
Blue-winged Teal, Mallards, and Canada Geese.
The landscape has changed since the 1930s,
both in terms of the environment and Service
policy. By expanding Tamarac NWR’s original
specific focus on waterfowl to natural diversity
of wildlife native to Minnesota, with an empha-sis
on Conservation Priority Species in Region
3, Tamarac NWR demonstrates a more holistic
view of wildlife. This view continues to imple-ment
the broad mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System to conserve America’s wildlife
and enhance biodiversity, as well contribute to
wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional
scale by trying to assist those species in great-est
need of attention. Identifying the direction
of waterfowl management will dictate some
habitat management decisions.
 Establish Population Objectives For Eastern
Gray Wolves, Bald Eagles and Trumpeter
Swans
Eastern gray wolves are federally listed as
threatened in Minnesota under the Endangered
Species Act. The Bald Eagle has been delisted
from the Endangered Species Act but is pro-tected
by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act and revisions (1994). The Trumpeter Swan
is a Conservation Priority Species in Region 3
and considered by the state of Minnesota to be
endangered. The refuge has a legal responsibil-ity
to monitor the status of these species. Addi-tionally,
given the history of reintroduction of
the Trumpeter Swans at Tamarac NWR and
recovery from the brink of extinct of the Bald
Eagle, there is tremendous visitor interest in
these majestic bird species.
 Stocking Fish Where Appropriate and Not in
Conflict with Refuge Purposes
Tamarac NWR is managed primarily for water-fowl,
which means that lake levels are managed
with the goal of producing aquatic vegetation
and invertebrates for ducks. There is interest
in to developing more fishing opportunities by
stocking fish in Refuge lakes. Some of these
include lakes where certain fish species did not
naturally occur.
 High White-tailed Deer Population is Damag-ing
Refuge Habitats
The recent high refuge deer population has lim-ited
conifer regeneration by over browsing.
Insects, amphibians, mammals and some migra-tory
songbird populations can also be negatively
impacted. The refuge needs to establish a sus-tainable
deer population objective that balances
habitat concerns, hunting opportunities and
eastern gray wolf population objectives. Deer
are a major prey species for the resident wolf
packs. Utilize state and tribal deer hunting
framework/strategies to achieve this goal
 Managing Invasive Wildlife Species
Earth worms are an invasive species present on
the Refuge. Carp have not yet entered Refuge
waters, but are only held in check by a water
control structure. Zebra mussels have recently
infested a lake within the refuge’s watershed.
The Refuge needs to better understand what
impacts exotic earth worms are having on habi-tat
and explore ways to ensure that carp, zebra
mussels, and other invasive species do not infil-trate
the Refuge.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
8
 Managing Beaver to Minimize Infrastructure
Damage
Beaver are very effective in blocking water
flows, including through Refuge water control
infrastructure. Beaver activity increases the
costs of maintaining Refuge water control
structures and road culverts. To date, beaver
control has been primarily addressed by tribal
recreational trapping, and to a lesser degree,
removal by contract, permit, and Refuge staff.
These efforts have been ineffectual in control-ling
the growth of Refuge beaver populations.
An expansion of the Refuge’s trapping program
may help reduce the beaver population, how-ever,
fluctuating` fur markets dictate interest
and other alternatives need exploration.
 Invertebrate Numbers and Health
Invertebrates are a critical food resource for
waterfowl, particularly during migration, egg
laying, and brood rearing. An initial investiga-tive
survey on Pine Lake suggested a general
lack of aquatic invertebrates in the lake. The
study underscores the need for more informa-tion
regarding the abundance and diversity of
Refuge invertebrate populations. Water quality
monitoring may provide some answers to this
concern.
Habitat Management
 Manage Water Levels to Promote Wild Rice
Production, Enhance Tribal Harvest Opportu-nities
and Minimize Downstream Impacts
Refuge waters have a long history of wild rice
production and use by wildlife, particularly
waterfowl, and Native American people. The
basic purpose of water level management has
been to enhance the area’s natural ability to
grow wild rice, and the other vegetation and
associated invertebrates established within the
aquatic ecosystem.
The refuge has added stoplogs in August to
enhance tribal rice harvesting opportunities in
the past. This action was thought to have
benign consequences for all parties involved,
however the downstream lake shore owners
complained of lowered water levels on Height of
Land Lake. The resulting low water caused
boat launching and docking problems and posed
safety concerns for boaters and skiers that
could potentially hit submerged dead head logs,
now closer to the surface. The water manage-ment
program needs to address this issue.
Additionally, there has been a request to maxi-mize
rice production on a yearly basis. How-ever,
recent research indicates that stable water
levels will, over time, jeopardize the long-term
viability of a wild rice-dominated lake. Wild rice
systems require water level fluctuations from
year to year to insure a sustainable system.
��� Water Quality Monitoring Needs
A 2005 lake assessment by the Minnesota Pollu-tion
Control Agency indicated that North Tama-rac
Lake could possibly be listed as an Impaired
Water due to high levels of phosphorus.
The refuge needs to develop a comprehensive
water quality monitoring program to establish a
baseline for refuge waters (not just North Tam-arac
Lake). Work with MPCA to determine the
parameters, sites, timing, laboratory use, long
term objectives, etc., for this effort.
 Managing Invasive Plant Species
Exotic and invasive plant species pose a threat
to the maintenance and restoration of the Ref-uge’s
diverse habitats. Canada thistle, plume-less
thistle, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and
spotted knapweed and several other invasive
terrestrial plants are known to occur on the
Refuge. The Refuge currently uses chemical,
mechanical and biological methods of control-ling
invasive plant species.
Although Tamarac NWR believes, from general
observation, the water bodies of the refuge are
fairly clear of aquatic invasive plants, the poten-tial
for infestation is high due to the large num-ber
of boating visitors.
More invasive plant species, both terrestrial
and aquatic, are predicted to spread to the area.
The refuge needs to establish an invasive spe-cies
monitoring program. Closer coordination
with county weed task forces would help with
the early detection monitoring, preventative
measures development and removal strate-gies.
Outreach with neighboring lake associa-tions
has been requested.
 Forest Management
Forest habitat within the transitional zone was
once characterized by upland conifer, upland
deciduous, mixed upland, lowland conifer, mixed
lowland forest, and lowland deciduous commu-nities.
These communities have been altered
over the past 200 years by logging, agriculture
and development. This has created grassland
and forest openings that are costly to maintain
and do not fully emulate a natural system of
succession.
 Establishing Habitat Corridors With Other
Conservation Lands
Tamarac NWR is located near federal, state,
tribal and county lands. Connectivity between
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
9
the Refuge and other conservation units could
benefit wildlife and habitats.
Visitor Services
 Inadequate Parking Facilities
Inadequate parking areas raises safety con-cerns
and does not invite use.
 Hunters with Disabilities Limited by Lack of
Accessible Facilities
Hunters with disabilities are limited to hunting
on roads that are already open to vehicles.
There is interest in the Refuge providing more
access.
 Tribal and State Hunting Season Conflicts
On the north half of the refuge, the tribal sea-sons
overlap with state seasons. The season for
tribal primitive deer hunting overlaps with the
state small game season, creating quality hunt
conflicts for tribal members and safety issues
for small game hunters. The tribal rifle season
overlaps with state archery season, creating
quality hunt conflicts for hunters and possible
safety concerns. Additionally, many non-tribal
hunters scout out locations for deer hunting
during the state grouse season and are not
wearing the required blaze orange, which cre-ates
safety concerns. All hunters should be
aware of the different hunting seasons on the
refuge and use safe hunting practices. The Ref-uge
needs to insure visitors are informed.
 Native American Cultural Practices
The site of Tamarac NWR has a long, rich his-tory
of Native American Indian cultural tradi-tions.
The Refuge remains an important site for
traditional practices of the local Ojibwe tribe.
Wild rice is harvested by tribal members in con-cert
with the rice abundance. Access to ricing
lakes is balanced with wildlife management
activities. Other activities such as plant collec-tion
and harvesting leeches have potential con-flicts
with wildlife management objectives.
There are opportunities for incorporating tradi-tional
Ojibwe practices into the Refuge’s inter-pretive
programs, events and signage.
 Lake Access Regulations are Confusing
The regulations related to lake access are con-fusing.
One Refuge lake is open only for the
winter, some are open only during the summer,
some are open both winter and summer. Some
lakes are open to fishing but not to other uses.
In some instances, roads provide vehicle access
to a boat landing, but walking on that road is
prohibited. This complexity makes it difficult
for the visiting public to follow the Refuge’s reg-ulations.
 Bank Fishing Access Regulations Are Unclear
Bank fishing restrictions are unclear for the vis-iting
public.
 Expanded Hunting Opportunities
The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources has asked Tamarac NWR to consider
opening bear and turkey hunting seasons.
 Additional Public Use Activities Requested
Visitors have expressed interest in uses not cur-rently
allowed or expanding some that are lim-ited.
 Leaving ice houses overnight is currently
prohibited in accordance with federal regula-tions.
 Motorized vehicles are not allowed on frozen
lakes. This activity has been requested to
access ice fishing locations.
 Horseback riding is currently allowed on
county and township roads, auto tour route
and Bruce Blvd. Increased spread of invasive
plants through horseback riding activities on
the refuge is a threat to the maintenance and
restoration of the Refuge’s diverse habitats.
 The North Country National Scenic Trail is a
footpath proposed to route through the ref-uge
in the public use area south of County
Hwy 26.
 Canoeing and tubing on the Ottertail River is
currently not allowed through the refuge due
to its location within the sanctuary area and
disturbance to wildlife.
 Fishing with Motorboats
In some cases, motorboat use interferes with
Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observa-tion.
There is concern that boat trailering and
motorized fishing activity is not compatible with
other uses along the Refuge’s auto tour route.
 More Demand for Environmental Education
Programming
Tamarac NWR’s environmental education pro-gram
is growing and lacks the facilities and
staffing to meet demand for environmental edu-cation
programming. School groups, home
school groups, colleges and others have
expressed interest in Refuge-based environ-mental
education opportunities.
 Division of Outreach Workload Among FWS
Offices
Agassiz NWR, Glacial Ridge NWR, Rydell
NWR, Hamden Slough NWR, Detroit Lakes
Wetland Management District and Fergus Falls
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
10
Wetland Management District are all less than a
2 hour drive of Tamarac NWR. There are many
benefits to having other stations nearby, how-ever
this proximity also makes it confusing for
Refuge staff to divide up the outreach workload
and articulate the differing Refuge purposes to
the public. Because the refuges are so close and
there is potential for audiences to overlap, there
are opportunities for outreach efforts to have a
broader perspective and impact.
Facilities/Roads
 Volunteer/Intern Housing Needed
The Refuge needs to provide housing for volun-teers
and interns who come to do extended proj-ects.
The nearest community with available
housing is a long drive away from the Refuge,
making it unfeasible to house people off-site. A
bunkhouse would be suitable for students; Rec-reation
Vehicle pads would be useful for volun-teer
Refuge hosts working on the Refuge.
 Potential to Demonstrate Green Facilities
Federal buildings, particularly U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service facilities, can play an important role
in demonstrating practical and efficient “green”
building technologies. There are opportunities on
Tamarac NWR to demonstrate these technologies.
 Speeding Creates Safety, Wildlife Mortality
and Maintenance Problems
Vehicle speed on all public roads needs to be kept
to a minimum to improve visitor safety and to
reduce dust, wildlife mortality, and long-term main-tenance
costs. Many of these public roads are
administered by the county and townships. Tama-rac
NWR needs to continue to work with these local
governmental agencies responsible for speed limits
to insure safety and to maintain the character of a
National Wildlife Refuge.
 ATV and Snowmobile Uses
County ordinances allow the operation of an
ATV or snowmobile in the right-of-way of
county roads. Local ATV and snowmobile
enthusiasts have respected Tamarac’s interest
in prohibiting this activity, particularly in light
of the numerous trails available around the ref-uge.
Additionally, most road right-of-ways
within the Refuge include either steep or unde-veloped
ditches which are unsafe to operators,
thus limiting the potential activity. Tamarac
NWR plans to coordinate with the County to
restrict this activity within the boundary of the
Refuge in order to maintain the character of a
National Wildlife Refuge, prevent habitat
destruction and avoid law enforcement issues,
such as trespass or illegal operation.
Tamarac WMD
 Land Acquisition
Thousands of wetlands dot the District land-scape,
yet as of 2010, no fee-title lands have
been acquired or additional easements procured
within the five-county Wetland Management
District. Private lands work is a valuable com-ponent
of habitat restoration and protection,
however, perpetual protection, whether through
the Service or other agency programs, assures
long-term conservation benefits for wildlife and
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
 Partnerships
Partnerships are an essential part of accom-plishing
the goals of the Tamarac WMD. Part-nerships
allow the Service to reach beyond
social and political boundaries to achieve spe-cific
objectives and, through involvement of
individuals and organizations, inspire future
generations to care about conservation. Devel-oping
partnerships requires a commitment of
people and funding.
 Direction of the WMD
District activities have been primarily
restricted to private land wetland restoration
and easement enforcement. Many opportunities
exist to broaden habitat restoration efforts.
The role the District can play at addressing the
needs of migratory birds, Conservations Prior-ity
Species and critical habitats across the land-scape
needs to be determined. A commitment of
staff and funding is critical to achieving this
goal.
 Easement Management Planning and Imple-mentation
Over 35 FmHA inventory property tracts were
transferred to the District in the mid-1990s.
Many of these tracts possess undeveloped, out-dated,
or unfulfilled management plans, but
could yield significant ecological benefits to the
landscape. Service resources need to be allo-cated
to develop and carry out up-to-date habi-tat
management plans on these Refuge System
lands.
 Invasive Plants
Invasive plants are considered one of the great-est
threats to natural ecosystems. Within the
District, the Service is working with private
landowners and partners to control existing and
prevent additional spread of invasive species.
 Education and Outreach
Opportunities exist for the Service to develop
education and outreach tools for the Tamarac
WMD that will promote private lands conserva-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
11
tion and demonstrate wildlife conservation tech-niques.
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization
and Implementation of the CCP
The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP
and Environmental Assessment (EA) were pre-pared
by the staff of Tamarac NWR, the USFWS
Regional Office and a representative of the Minne-sota
DNR. The CCP/EA will be published in two
phases and in accordance with the National Envi-ronmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft EA
(Appendix A) presents a range of alternatives for
future management and identifies the preferred
alternative, which is also the Draft CCP. A public
review period of at least 30 days, which will include a
public meeting, will follow release of the draft plan.
Verbal and written comments received by the
Service will be incorporated where appropriate and
perhaps result in modifications to the preferred
alternative or in the selection of one of the other
alternatives. The alternative that is ultimately
selected will become the basis of the ensuing Final
CCP. This document then, becomes the basis for
guiding management on the Refuge and its manage-ment
district over the coming 15-year period. It will
guide the development of more detailed step-down
management plans for specific resource areas; it will
underpin the annual budgeting process through
Service-wide allocation databases. Most impor-tantly,
it lays out the general approach to managing
habitat, wildlife, and people at the Tamarac NWR
and Tamarac WMD that will direct day-to-day deci-sion-
making and actions.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
12
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Introduction
Tamarac NWR encompasses 42,738 acres of land
and waters in the glacial lake area of northwestern
Minnesota. The Refuge is located in Becker County,
18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes, in the heart of
one of the most diverse ecological transition zones in
North America, where northern hardwood forests,
coniferous forest and tall grass prairie converge.
Between 10,000 and 10,500 years ago, receding gla-ciers
left behind the rolling ridges and deep depres-sions
that became a woodland area complemented
by lakes, rivers, bogs and marshes and is now Tama-rac
NWR. The primary ecological drivers influenc-ing
the plant and wildlife populations of the Refuge
are the climate, hydrology, and natural disturbances
such as fire, disease and wind events.
Other Units Administered
Wilderness Area
The Tamarac Wilderness Area was established
by law in 1976. The Wilderness Area is managed
under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act as a
unit of the National Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem.
That is, it is “an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where
man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (The
Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964; (16 U.S.C. 1121
(note), 1131-1136)). Staff carries out no active man-agement
in the Tamarac Wilderness Area, but does
conduct research in the unit. The management
strategy for the wilderness area calls for passive
management with natural succession allowed to
take its course. In theory, examples of almost all for-est
types on the Refuge would be preserved in this
one single complex of wilderness.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, we reviewed other
lands within the legislative boundaries of Tamarac
NWR for wilderness suitability. No additional lands
were found suitable for designation as defined by
the Wilderness Act of 1964. Many of the lands have
been substantially altered by humans, both before
and after the Refuge’s establishment, particularly
from agriculture, timber harvest, roads, and water
control. Although Tamarac NWR cannot be
described as pristine, it is largely an intact, health
and functioning ecosystem that just does not meet
the strict definition of suitable lands.
Frog. Photo Credit: Michele Gedgaud
Areas of Special Designation
The Research Natural Areas were designated in
1972 with some general management and protection
criteria. Research Natural Areas are managed to
maintain the natural features for which they were
established and to maintain natural processes;
therefore, management of the Refuge RNAs is
through protection against activities which directly
or indirectly modify ecological processes or alter the
type or feature which is being preserved. Manipula-tive
practices such as grazing, prescribed burning,
timber cutting, road construction and the use of
chemical for plant, insect and disease control are not
permitted unless such are necessary to maintain the
type or process for which the RNA was established
or to prevent the spread of insects and disease.
There is not a lot of flexibility to manage the wilder-ness
area or RNAs in regard to habitat manage-ment;
however, there remains a tremendous amount
of flexibility in the strategies and tactics that can be
Figure 2: Areas of Special Designation,
Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
13
used to manage these areas (ie: fire suppression tac-tics,
invasive species control, etc.).
The area bordered by the Blackbird Auto Tour
and County Highways 29 and 26 was internally des-ignated
as an “Old Growth Area” in the early 1990s.
The goal was to set aside a significant habitat block
in addition to the Wilderness Area and RNAs that
would be allowed to develop and be managed for
characteristics of old growth forest. Prescribed fire
was not excluded as a management tool, but large
scale timber harvests would not be allowed. Silvicul-tural
treatments would be used to create small can-opy
gaps of up to one acre in size to replicate wind
throw events.
There is also a significant area designated as
sanctuary for the benefit of breeding birds
(Figure 2). The lower one-third of the Refuge sup-ports
visitor use activities and the sanctuary occu-pies
the northern two-thirds of the Refuge. The
sanctuary is closed to the general public from March
1 to September 1 each year. Approximately the
northern half of the Refuge lies within the original
boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which
was established in 1867.
Ecological Context
Situated along the backbone of Minnesota, the
Refuge lies within a mile of the continental divide,
which separates the Mississippi and Hudson Bay
watersheds. Lake Itasca, the headwaters of the Mis-sissippi
River, lies approximately 25 miles northeast
of the Refuge. Many Refuge lakes and rivers contain
large wild rice or “manoomin” beds that produce
abundant waterfowl food in most years. Upland veg-etation
is diverse due to the Refuge’s location in the
transition zone between northern hardwood and
coniferous forests, which levels off into tallgrass
prairie, or the Red River Valley, a mere 10 miles
west of Tamarac NWR (Figure 3 on page 14).
Hence, many species of plants and animals are at
the extreme western edge of their range.
Historic Land Cover
Over thousands of years, the area’s vegetative
communities have undergone perpetual change, pri-marily
due to climatic changes following glaciation.
“Pollen core” records and pre-settlement conditions
and are often the best or only sources of information
on pristine, baseline conditions and natural environ-mental
and biotic variability. This information is
sometimes used as a reference of available vegeta-tion
at the various time periods. Pollen core records
provide a long-term context of what the landscape
was like since the time of the last glaciation, but are
often limited in availability (Tester 1995). The pre-settlement
vegetation represents a “snap-shot” in
the time of the era immediately prior to European
settlement within the area and by itself it does not
adequately represent changes in vegetative commu-nities
and their associated processes over time.
Pollen records from Itasca State Park, which had
the same glacial history and climate as the Refuge
due to its proximity, indicate transition in dominant
plant community types since the retreat of the Wis-consin
glacier (Tester 1995). Immediately following
this retreat, the land was likely barren and void of
vegetation; however, within a few years coniferous
trees such as spruce and pine began to dominate the
landscape due to the cool and moist environment.
These forests dominated the landscape until about
8,000 years ago, when more herbaceous species
became prevalent. This indicates the presence of a
savanna with scattered oak trees and large open
areas of prairie due to warmer and drier conditions.
Other studies indicate this warmer, drier period was
characterized by extremely variable climatic condi-tions
from drought to abundant precipitation
(Almendinger 1988). Several thousand years later,
the area became cooler and wetter again, giving rise
to an expansion of the coniferous forest (primarily
red and white pine) and other deciduous trees back
into the area with a decrease of prairie. This condi-
Figure 3: Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
14
tion has persisted until the present, with some
increase in hardwoods in recent years. Peatlands
formed approximately 3,000 years ago. These pollen
core records provide a testament to the range of
natural variability of vegetation within the larger
landscape.
When Euro-American settlers first arrived in
Minnesota in the mid-1800s, native plant communi-ties
occurred in complex patterns across the entire
landscape. Francis Marschner (1882-1966) mapped
the pre-European settlement vegetation of Minne-sota
based on Public Land Survey notes and land-scape
patterns. His maps provide a reference
condition of the vegetation in the area of Tamarac
NWR prior to European settlement. Caution should
be used when interpreting these historic vegetation
maps because of the scale and base data that
Marschner used, but it does provide a good context
of historic forest types. Based upon Marschner’s
interpretation for the area that is now Tamarac
NWR, pre-European settlement cover types were
comprised of mature stands of red and white pine,
jack pine barrens, aspen-birch, mixed hardwoods,
conifer bogs, swamps and numerous lakes (Figure 4
on page 15). After more than a century of extensive
settlement and development, the vast majority of
native plant communities within the state have been
destroyed or substantially altered. Although for-ested
communities have changed in composition
across much of northern Minnesota following nearly
150 years of logging, opportunities exist for sustain-able
management and conservation of forested com-munities
in large areas.
Minnesota Ecological Classification System
Recently, the Minnesota DNR established an
Ecological Classification System (ECS) for land
classification and ecological mapping for Minnesota
based upon the national hierarchy of nested units
(ie: Provinces, Sections, Subsections, Land Type
Associations, etc.). The vegetation classification is
hierarchical with units describing broad landscapes
to local native plant communities (NPC). The Min-nesota
ECS enables land managers to consider eco-logical
patterns for broad landscapes or for a single
small local unit, (ie: forest stand or native plant com-munity)
which is valuable at multiple planning levels
and crucial to the long-term ecological integrity and
stability of these ecosystems. One of the most
important considerations in the ECS classification is
the inclusion of ecological processes as an organiz-ing
principle (e.g., fire regime, successional or seral
stage, hydrology, etc.). In order to facilitate habitat
management and restoration, an assessment of cur-
Figure 4: Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Becker County Prior to European Settlement
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
15
Figure 5: Tamarac NWR in Relation to
Major Provinces of Minnesota
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
16
rent conditions including disturbance regimes, suc-cessional
pathways, rare communities, common
plant/animals and habitats, invasive species, water
resources, and soils is imperative. The comparison
of current conditions to historical and desired future
conditions is crucial in the development and refine-ment
of management goals, objectives and strate-gies.
Provinces are the highest level of classification
under the Minnesota ECS. These provinces were
defined using major climate zones, native vegetation
and biomes such as prairies, deciduous forests and
boreal forests. The four major provinces of Minne-sota
include the Laurentian Mixed Forest, Eastern
Broadleaf Forest, Prairie Parkland and the Tall-grass
Aspen Parklands. Tamarac NWR falls pri-marily
in the Laurentian Mixed Forest with the
exception of a small sliver along the southwestern
edge of the Refuge, which falls in the Eastern Broa-dleaf
Forest (Figure 5). Tamarac NWR lies near the
tallgrass prairie province but is clearly within a for-est
landscape.
Sections are units within provinces that are
defined by origin of glacial deposits, regional eleva-tion,
distribution of plants and regional climate.
Tamarac NWR falls primarily within the Northern
Drift and Lake Plains section, with a small sliver
falling in the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa
Morainal (Figure 6).
Subsections are units within sections that are
defined using glacial deposition processes, surface
bedrock formations, local climate, topographic relief
and the distribution of plants, especially trees. Tam-arac
NWR falls primarily with the Pine Moraines
and Outwash Plains subsection, and a small portion
in the Hardwood Hills subsection. The subsection
level will be the primary reference for landscape
level planning. The Pine Moraines and Outwash
Plains subsection should be the primary reference
for planning as greater than 97 percent of the Ref-uge
falls within this subsection. Considerations for
the Hardwood Hills subsection should be restricted
to the extreme southwestern corner of the Refuge,
along the west side of Tamarac Lake.
The Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Subsec-tion
is characterized by the mix of end moraines,
outwash and till plains, abundant lakes and wet-lands,
and large, heavily forested tracts. Kettle
lakes and wetlands are common on the outwash
plains (Minnesota DNR 2006). Before this area was
settled by people of European descent, forests of
jack pine mixed with northern pin oak were most
common on excessively drained portions of broad
outwash plains, and aspen-birch and pine (mixed red
and white) forests were the most common on the
irregularly sloped end moraines (Figure 6 on page
17). Mixed hardwood and pine forests, dominated by
a diverse mix of northern hardwoods and white pine,
were found in the most fire-protected areas at the
northern and eastern edges of the subsection. Fire
occurred on a 10- to 40-year interval within much of
the subsection, accounting for the dominance by
upland conifers and quaking aspen-birch forests
(Frissel 1973); however, natural fire protection was
provided by irregular topography, broad wetlands,
and relatively large lakes. Forest management and
tourism are the predominant land uses within this
area today; however, agriculture is becoming more
common. Near-shore habitat is being lost at a rapid
pace due to increased development along lakes, thus
negatively affecting fish and wildlife.
The Hardwood Hills Subsection is characterized
by many wetlands, prairie potholes, and kettle lakes
exist throughout the area. Before settlement by
people of European descent, vegetation included
maple-basswood forests interspersed with oak
savanna, tallgrass prairie, and oak forest, but the
topography and distribution of lakes and wetlands
provided a partial barrier to fire that resulted in
woodlands rather than prairie vegetation. Fire was
important in oak savanna development, whereas,
windthrow was common in the sugar maple-bass-
Figure 6: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the Ecological
Classification System of Minnesota
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
17
wood forests. Currently much of this subsection is
farmed and many wetlands have been drained.
Important areas of forest and prairie exist through-out
the subsection, but they are small and frag-mented.
Development, tourism, and outdoor
recreation, especially around lakes, are other signif-icant
land uses that are impacting wildlife within
this subsection.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have
been published over the last decade that can be used
to help guide management decisions for refuges.
Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved
from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more
regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented
perspective (Figure 7 on page 18).
Several trans-national migratory bird conserva-tion
initiatives have emerged to help guide the plan-ning
and implementation process. The regional
plans relevant to Tamarac NWR are:
 The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint
Venture Implementation Plan of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan;
 The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood Tran-sition
[land] Bird Conservation Plan;
 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and
 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.
All four conservation plans will be integrated
under the umbrella of the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative. Each of the bird conserva-tion
initiatives has a process for designating priority
species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in
Flight method of computing scores based on inde-pendent
assessments of global relative abundance,
breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to
threats, area importance, and population trend.
These scores are often used by agencies in develop-ing
lists of priority bird species. The Service based
its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation
Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, shore-bird,
and waterbird status assessment scores.
Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy
In 2005, Minnesota completed the Comprehen-sive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), a stra-
Figure 7: Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
18
tegic plan to better manage populations of “species
in greatest conservation need” in Minnesota. The
plan was developed with the support of funding
from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by
Congress in 2001. The heart of the strategic plan is
for a partnership of conservation organizations
across Minnesota to work together to sustain the
populations of the identified species. Members of
the partnership include the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon 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.
Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Priorities
Every species is important; however the number
of species in need of attention exceeds the resources
of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3
of the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of
Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes:
 All federally listed threatened and endangered
species and proposed and candidate species that
occur in the Region.
 Migratory bird species derived from Service
wide and international conservation planning
efforts.
 Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic
plants and animals that represent an abbrevia-tion
of the Endangered Species program’s pre-liminary
draft “Species of Concern” list for the
Region.
Appendix D lists Regional Resource Conserva-tion
Priority species relevant to Tamarac NWR and
WMD.
Landscape Connectivity and Corridors
Forests throughout North America are becoming
increasingly fragmented and in some cases isolated.
Fragmented and isolated forests tend to take on
characteristics of habitat islands unless corridors
and connectivity to larger blocks of forest are main-tained.
Ultimately, biotic diversity is lost over time
within these isolated forests. Tamarac NWR’s posi-tion
near the edge of three major biomes, coupled
with increasing development by humans, makes it
extremely susceptible to isolation from the rest of
the forest province extending into Minnesota from
northeastern North America. The Ponsford Prairie
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
19
is an open landscape to the east of the Refuge that
was once historically a forested area. If develop-ment
or agriculture were to expand to the northwest
or southwest from the Ponsford Prairie it could
threaten Tamarac NWR’s connectivity to the rest of
the intact forest.
If Tamarac NWR intends to maintain the biolog-ical
integrity, diversity and environmental health, it
is imperative that connectivity is maintained to the
forested ecosystems of Minnesota. Refuge staff has
discussed the possibility of maintaining the connec-tivity
to other natural resource land management
areas such as Itasca State Park, Chippewa National
Forest, state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets,
Smoky Hills), wildlife management areas (Hubbel
Pond), county and tribal lands through corridors,
conservation easements and stewardship planning
with both land management agencies and private
landowners.
Other Conservation Lands in the Area of
Tamarac NWR
The Refuge is an integral part of a significant
complex of federal, state, tribal and county lands
administered for natural resources (Figure 8 on
page 20). The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources manages the 3,342-acre Hubbel Pond
Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which borders
the Refuge to south, the Greenwater Lake Scientific
and Natural Area, Itasca State Park, and three
large state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets and
Smoky Hills) that lie within 25 miles of the Refuge
to the east. Many other small state WMAs lie within
short distance of the Refuge as well. The Becker
County Natural Resources Department is responsi-ble
for managing the county's nearly 75,000 acres of
tax-forfeited lands, most of which lie within the east-ern
half of the county. A significant portion of this
tax-forfeited land lies along the northwestern
boundary of the Refuge. The northern half of the
Refuge lie within the White Earth Reservation,
although most of the land adjacent the Refuge in not
in tribal ownership. The Chippewa National Forest,
which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is
located approximately 45 miles northeast of the Ref-uge.
The Refuge staff work closely with these land
management agencies as well as the Many Point
Boy Scout Camp, a private entity, and other private
citizens on issues of mutual concern.
Social and Economic Context
Tamarac NWR is located in Becker County, Min-nesota.
The City of Detroit Lakes is the largest
town, 22 miles south of the Refuge headquarters
with 7,348 people listed in the 2000 Census. The
racial makeup of the county is 89 percent white, 7
percent Native American, 0.3 percent African
American with Asians, Hispanic and other races
contributing 3 percent (Table 1 on page 21).
Area Economy
Table 2 on page 22 shows the economy of the
region surrounding the Refuge. The area population
increased by 11.3 percent from 1995 to 2005, com-pared
with a 10.0 percent increase for the state of
Minnesota and a 11.4 percent increase for the U.S.
as a whole. Area employment increased by 30.8 per-cent
from 1995 to 2005, with the state of Minnesota
showing a 16.0 percent increase and the U.S. a 17.0
percent increase. Area per capita income increased
by 23.7 percent over the 1995-2005 period, while the
state of Minnesota and the U.S. increased by 17.3
and 13.2 percent respectively.
Climate
The climate at Tamarac NWR is characterized by
warm summers and long, cold winters. Tempera-tures
range from minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit to
107 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual average precipita-tion
is 25 inches with an average annual snowfall of
46 inches. Frost can occur in almost any month
although June, July and August are usually frost-free.
The annual average growing season is 115
days. Most climatic models predict that this area
will warm by 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius within
the next 50 years.
Geology and Glaciation
Formation of the regional terrain is the result of
glaciation, specifically and most recently, the
retreat of the Wadena lobe of the Wisconsin ice
sheet toward the northwest, leaving a complex
series of marginal and terminal moraines. The
Itasca moraine, which covers most of the Refuge,
and associated outwash plains are a direct result of
this glaciation. Moraines are formed by the deposi-tion
of soil and rock at the edges of a glacier as it
moves. Terminal moraines are associated with the
tip of a glacier, whereas, marginal moraines are
along sides of the glacier. Water from the melting
ice formed lakes and rivers, while glacial till that
was deposited formed the moraines. Within Tama-rac
NWR, a “chain of lakes” was formed along these
marginal moraines primarily due to the settling and
slumping of wet sediments. The outwash plains
were created when “meltwater” carried away fine
sediment from the retreating glacier. The outwash
plains on the Refuge are characterized by numerous
depressions such as kettles, shallow pits, and pot-holes,
hence known as “pitted” outwash plains.
Initially the Wadena lobe moved southeastward
into northern Minnesota from the limestone belt of
Figure 8: Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
20
Table 1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota
Population Becker County Minnesota
Population, 2006 estimate 32,230 5,167,101
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 7.4% 5.0%
Population, 2000 30,000 4,919,479
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2006 6.4% 6.7%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 23.2% 24.3%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 16.2% 12.1%
Female persons, percent, 2006 50.2% 50.3%
White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 89.6% 89.3%
Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.3% 4.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 7.3% 1.2%
Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.5% 3.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0 0.1%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 2.2% 1.5%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 1.0% 3.8%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 88.9% 85.9%
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 61.8% 57.0%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.0% 5.3%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 4.4% 8.5%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 82.9% 87.9%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 16.7% 27.4%
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 4,799 679,236
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 23.1 21.9
Households, 2000 11,844 1,895,127
Persons per household, 2000 2.49 2.52
Median household income, 2004 $40,182 $51,202
Per capita money income, 1999 $17,085 $23,198
Persons below poverty, percent, 2004 10.9% 8.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (2008)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
21
the Winnipeg lowland, depositing calcareous sandy
loam and gray till that contains Paleozoic limestone
from southern Manitoba. This deposition left behind
rich, calcareous fens that are interspersed amongst
the marginal moraines. The Wadena lobe retreated
northward and re-advanced to form the Itasca
Moraine approximately 20,000 years ago. The
deposits of sand and gravel drift found throughout
the Refuge, supported dense coniferous stands, ulti-mately
resulting in accumulation of organic material
in depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drain-age
is a problem in lower areas.
Soils
A heavy mantle of glacial drift covers all of
Becker County. The source material and the mode
of deposition of the drift contribute to important dif-ferences
in soil texture and nutrients that ultimately
affect vegetative growth (McAndrews 1966). In gen-eral,
Refuge soils run on the sandy side, from coarse
sand to sandy loams that are well to excessively
drained (Table 3 on page 22.). Soils on the northern
half of the Refuge are generally lighter than those
in the south where all extant grasslands occur. Sub-soils
are mostly limy clay loams. All areas soil tested
to date produced neutral to slightly basic pH read-ings.
Table 2: Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR
County
Population Employment Per Capita Incomea
2005b
Percent
change
1995-2005
2005
Percent
change
1995-2005
2005
Percent
change
1995-2005
Becker, Minnesota 31.9 10.0% 22.4 44.8% $28,968 30.0%
Hubbard, Minnesota 18.8 13.7% 8.0 3.0% $26,208 17.5%
Area Total 50.7 11.3% 30.5 30.8% $27,588 23.7%
Minnesota 5,126.7 10.0 % 3,498.6 16.0 % $37,290 17.3 %
United States 266,278.4 11.4 % 174,249.6 17.0 % $34,471 13.2 %
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2007.
Table 3: Distinct Classes of Soils Within
Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity
and Texture
Soil Moisture Class Sum Acres Acre %
01 - Dry Sand 9.2 0.02%
02 - Dry-Mesic Sand 728.8 1.69%
03 - Dry-Mesic Loam 15050.4 35.00%
04 - Mesic Sand 4613.1 10.73%
05 - Mesic Loam 1550.7 3.61%
06 - Wet-Mesic Sand 318.1 0.74%
07 - Wet-Mesic Loam 1444.5 3.36%
09 - Wet Loam 195.1 0.45%
10 - Peat 11200.4 26.05%
11 - Water 7891.9 18.35%
Total 43002.1 100.00%
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
22
Soil map units delineated in soil surveys usually
do not coincide exactly with habitat, although a
strong relationship often exists. The reason for the
lack of direct correlation is found in the concepts of
soil taxonomy and soil mapping methodology. Soil
properties that affect habitat type differentiation
are those that affect conditions in plant growth, such
as moisture and nutrients. Soil taxonomy, however,
is not based directly on such functional properties,
but rather on morphological features that can more
readily be measure and classified (ie: type of hori-zon,
color, structure and texture. These soil taxon-omy
parameters may or may not have a direct
bearing on plant growth; however, careful examina-tion
of the moisture and nutrient parameters of soils
is important in predicting plant growth, successional
pathways and subsequent disturbance regimes.
Water and Hydrology
Tamarac NWR is located near or at the top of two
major watersheds (Figure 9 on page 23). The Otter-tail
River watershed originates just north of the
Refuge in Elbow Lake. It flows southerly through a
chain of lakes along the eastern half of the Refuge,
eventually exiting the Refuge via Height of Land
Lake in a south-westerly direction. The Egg River,
which is a tributary to the Ottertail River, is primar-ily
contained within Refuge boundaries and flows
southerly through a chain of lakes along the north-western
half of the Refuge and merges into Ottertail
River in the central portion of the Refuge. The Buf-falo
River watershed originates in Pine Lake and
exits the Refuge in an east-west fashion via Tama-rac
Lake along the western boundary of the Refuge.
These watersheds eventually drain into Hudson Bay
through the Red River of the North. The Continen-tal
Divide, which is located a couple of miles just
east of Refuge, divides the Red River and Missis-sippi
River Watersheds. There are 31 palustrine
wetlands (shallow lakes), 14 miles of riverine habi-tats
and approximately 1,500 small wetlands within
the Refuge.
Formation of the regional terrain is the result of
glaciation, specifically the retreat of the Wisconsin
ice sheet toward the northwest, leaving a complex
series of marginal and terminal moraines. The
deposits of sand and gravel drift found on the Ref-uge,
supported dense coniferous stands, ultimately
resulting in accumulation of organic material in
a. In 2006 dollars.
b. Population and employment in thousands; Per Capita Income in 2006 dollar
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
23
Figure 9: Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central
Minnesota
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
24
depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drainage
is a problem in lower areas. Elevation ranges from
1,400 to 1,650 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Gen-erally,
the higher elevations are in the north-north-east
and eastern portions of the Refuge. Broad
areas through the central portion of the Refuge are
between 1,450 and 1,500 feet above MSL, and the
lowest portions are in the extreme southwest corner
of the Refuge. Total relief of the Refuge is in excess
of 250 feet. The steeper slopes typically exist in the
northern one-third of the Refuge, whereas the
southern two-thirds is indicative of an outwash
plain, containing fewer areas with slopes in excess of
24 percent.
Refuge Habitats
Vegetation on the Refuge is diverse due to its
location in the transition zone between northern
hardwood and coniferous forests. (See Figure 10 on
page 25, and Table 4 on page 27)
Pre-settlement cover types were comprised of
mature stands of red and white pine, jack pine bar-rens,
stands of aspen, birch, and mixed hardwoods,
numerous lakes, conifer bogs and swamps. The
extensive logging of red and white pine virtually
eliminated the dominant pine cover types from the
landscape. Following the harvest, these timbered
lands were burned two to three times in as many
years. This practice resulted in appreciable
regrowth of aspen, birch, and hardwoods, but not
conifers.
Current cover types are significantly altered
from pre-settlement times (Figure 11 on page 26).
Red and white pine has been reduced by 92 percent
and jack pine coverage has been reduced by 89 per-cent.
Significant increases have occurred in mixed
hardwood and the aspen-birch cover types (plus 244
and 40 percent, respectively). The upland grass
cover type has increased due to remnant openings
that were created for farming at the time of settle-ment
.
Forest
Sixty percent of the Refuge is forested, domi-nated
by second-growth timber such as:
 aspen (Populus spp.)
 jack pine (Pinus banksiana)
 red pine (Pinus resinosa)
 white pine (Pinus strobus)
 balsam fir (Abies balsamea)
 black spruce (Picea mariana)
 tamarack (Larix laricina)
 paper birch (Betula papyrifera)
 red and white oak (Quercus spp.)
 sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
 American basswood (Tilia americana)
For the purpose of this plan, the 50 vegetative
cover types were combined into 12 general habitat
types (Table 4 on page 27). The vegetative cover
types were derived from aerial photo interpretation
conducted by the Upper Midwest Environment Sci-ences
Center in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, based on 2005
aerial photography. These 12 major habitat types
(Figure 10 on page 25) are described in the following
paragraphs.
Upland deciduous forest (16,166 acres): This hab-itat
type includes aspen, paper birch, oak, red and
sugar maple, basswood, northern hardwoods and
forest broadleaf mix cover types. This habitat type
comprises approximately 37 percent of the Refuge
land base. Aspen, particularly in the young to mid
age classes, dominates this habitat type within the
Refuge.
Mixed upland forest (4,347 acres): This habitat
type contains a mixture of hardwoods and soft-woods,
and includes an aspen/birch/spruce/fir mix,
aspen/pine and forest upland broadleaf/coniferous
mix cover types. This habitat type comprises
approximately 10 percent of the Refuge land base.
Red and white pines are prevalent in the overstory
along with a mix of hardwood, such as aspen and
birch. Jack pines are often mixed with pin oak and
burr oak on drier sandy soils.
Lowland deciduous forest (756 acres): This habi-tat
type primarily consists of black ash and lowland
forest broadleaf mix cover types. These communi-ties
are often referred to as black ash swamps. Spe-cies
composition includes green ash , black ash, and
occasionally American elm. The lowland hardwoods
are located mostly on medium quality sites which are
found along sluggish streams, swamp edges and in
depressions within the upland hardwoods.
Mixed lowland forest (463 acres): This habitat
type consists of a mix of lowland conifers and hard-woods,
primarily black ash, and includes the lowland
forested broadleaf/coniferous mix. The mixed low-land
forested broadleaf/coniferous is heavily domi-nated
by hardwoods in the overstory.
Upland coniferous forest (711 acres): This habi-tat
type consists of jack pine, red pine, white pine,
red cedar (non-native), white spruce/balsam fir and
forested coniferous mix as the dominant cover
types. As species that once dominated the landscape
as pure stands, red pine and white pine comprises
only 1 percent (482 acres) of the Refuge, including
plantations. Jack pine barrens, which were quite
prevalent prior to European settlement, only make
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
25
Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
26
up about one-quarter of a percent of the Refuge. Jack
pine is located in pure stands on dry sandy soils. In
heavier soils it is mixed with oak red pine and aspen.
Lowland coniferous forest (1,863 acres): This
habitat type consists of pure stands of tamarack,
mixed black spruce/balsam fir and lowland conifer-ous
mixed stands. The lowland forested coniferous
mix is dominated by lowland conifers such as tama-rack,
black spruce and balsam fir.
Wetlands
Thirty percent of the Refuge is comprised of large
and small wetland complexes dominated by wild
rice, sedges and cattail.
Marsh/Wetland (6,248 acres): This habitat type
consists of cattail, giant reed grass (Phragmites),
mixed emergent aquatics, rooted-floating vegeta-tion,
sedge meadow/bluejoint grass, sedge meadow/
cattail mix, reed canary grass and wet meadow
cover types. This is the third most abundant habitat
type and comprises approximately 14 percent of the
Refuge land base.
Open Water
Open Water (7,116 acres): This habitat type con-sists
of open water, submergent vegetation and wild
rice cover types. Although open water is not a plant
community, it is classified as such because through-out
a majority of the year, the surface consists of
open water but vegetation can occur within these
areas. Most of these open water habitat types are
natural, but some have been enhanced through the
construction of water control structures and dikes.
Wild rice is an important staple food for waterfowl
migrating through the Refuge in the fall, as well as
subsistence for Native Americans. This habitat type
is the second most abundant habitat type and com-prises
approximately 16 percent of the Refuge land
base.
Grassland
About 1,360 acres (3 percent) of grassland are man-aged
on the Refuge, mostly remnants of early set-tler
clearings or small farms. The tallgrass prairie
(Prairie Pothole region in the Red River Valley)
begins about 10 miles west of Tamarac NWR.
Upland grass (1,362 acres): This habitat type
consists of cool season grasses, other grasses and
forbs, and warm season grasses. All of these sites
were anthropogenic habitats created as a result of
logging and early settler clearings that were planted
into agriculture crops in the early days of the Ref-uge.
In recent years, most of these sites have been
converted primarily to warm season grasses. Many
non-native species of grass and other herbaceous
plants are quite prevalent throughout many of these
areas.
Shrub
Upland shrub (1,519 acres): This habitat type is
dominated by upland shrub species such as hazel,
willow, dogwoods and other upland shrubs. Typi-cally
few to no trees are present in the overstory
and very little herbaceous cover exists where the
shrub layer is dense.
Lowland shrub (2,658 acres): This habitat type
consists of lowland areas typically within a wetland
where the dominant vegetation is shrubs. These
areas include bog birch, tag alder, willow and scrub/
shrub lowland types. Generally, there is a thick her-baceous
cover beneath the shrubs consisting of a
variety of sedge species. Large expanses of these
areas typically surround the shallow lakes within
the Refuge as well as closed wetland systems. A lack
of fire within these habitats has resulted in brush
species invading and becoming dominant in these
areas.
Developed Land
Development (374 acres): This classification is
not a true habitat type but merely depicts areas on
the Refuge that have been developed such as build-ings,
maintenance facilities and roads.
Refuge Wildlife
Birds
Tamarac NWR is especially important for migra-tory
birds, both during the migrating and nesting
seasons. Fifty-three species of birds that are on the
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 Regional Con-servation
Priority Species list reside on the Refuge
or migrate through, although only 21 of these spe-cies
breed within the Refuge. The remaining 32 spe-cies
have been documented in migration. Many of
these species, as well as other species, are listed
Figure 11: Tamarac NWR Habitat
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
27
Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation
Number
of stands
Total
Acres
Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of
stands
Total
Acres
1559 16166 Upland Deciduous Aspen (Upland) 786 6698
Aspen/Oak 179 1785
Basswood 5 9
Forested Broadleaf Mix (Upland) 299 2346
Northern Hardwoods 199 4264
Oak 84 1035
Paper Birch 1 1
Red Maple/Sugar Maple 6 29
593 4347 Mixed Upland Forest Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce 240 1579
Aspen/Pine 190 1601
Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix (Upland) 163 1168
222 756 Lowland Deciduous Black Ash 95 313
Forested Broadleaf Mix (Lowland) 127 442
110 463 Mixed Lowland Forest Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix (Lowland) 110 463
171 711 Upland Conifer Jack Pine 19 94
Jack Pine Plantation 2 9
Red Pine 33 221
Red Pine Plantation 27 161
Red Pine/White Pine 10 34
White Pine 26 66
Spruce/Fir 43 95
Forested Coniferous Mix (Upland) 9 33
270 1863 Lowland Conifer Spruce/Fir Swamp 7 116
Tamarack 233 1625
Forested Coniferous Mix (Lowland) 30 122
279 1519 Upland Shrub Scrub/Shrub (Upland) 279 1519
536 2658 Lowland Shrub Bog Birch 10 273
Scrub/Shrub (Lowland) 442 2020
Tag Alder 38 98
Willow 46 266
180 1362 Upland Grass Cool Season Grasses 71 604
Grasses/Forbs 83 344
Hayfieldsa 6 1
Pasturea 4 6
Warm Season Grasses 16 407
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
28
species of greatest conservation concern by the Min-nesota
DNR. Of the 258 species of birds that have
been observed on the Refuge, 113 species are
reported to have nested here. A list of bird species
known to occur on Tamarac NWR is included in
Appendix C.
Waterfowl have been an important bird group
throughout the history of the Refuge. Primary nest-ers
include:
 Mallard Duck
 Wood Duck
 Blue-winged Teal
 Ring-necked Duck
 Canada Goose
 Trumpeter Swan
Duck nesting densities are among the highest
reported for the woodland transition zone in Minne-sota.
Spring surveys indicate slightly more than 40
breeding pairs of ducks per square mile. In addition
to the breeding population, approximately 50,000
ducks also migrate through the Refuge each fall
stopping to feed on the abundant annual wild rice
crops. The Refuge was the focal point for the 1987
Minnesota DNR Trumpeter Swan reintroduction
program. The Trumpeter Swan was extirpated from
Minnesota in the early 1900s. The population within
the Refuge has grown to more than 30 breeding
pairs and an annual production of around 100 cyg-nets
per year. Average brood size is nearly twice the
national average.
The Refuge is currently cooperating on a Minne-sota
DNR research study to relate the distribution
and welfare of a local population of ducks, specifi-cally
Ring-necked Ducks, to the pattern of Refuges
(including state refuges) existing in north-central
Minnesota. Understanding the factors influencing
the distribution of locally raised Ring-necked Ducks
in the fall may provide valuable insights into the dis-tribution
of refuges required to meet management
objectives for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota.
As recently as the early 1970s, the Bald Eagle
population was in jeopardy throughout the United
States. Only one Bald Eagle nest was active on the
Refuge. Since that time the number of eagle nests
has increased to approximately 30 occupied territo-ries
and 25 active nests on an annual basis, produc-ing
20-30 eaglets per year. Other raptors, such as
Red-tailed Hawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, Broad-winged
Hawks, Cooper’s hawks, and Sharp-shinned
Hawks breed and migrate through the Refuge.
The wetland ecosystems are particularly impor-tant
to other waterbirds. These wetlands are ideal
nesting sites for species including:
 Common Loons
 Great Blue Heron
 Forster’s Tern
 Black Tern
 American Bittern
 Least Bittern
 Yellow Rail
1104 6248 Marsh/Wetland Cattail 119 897
Giant Reed Grass (Phragmites) 47 108
Mixed Emergents 6 26
Rooted-Floating Vegetation 63 873
Sedge Meadow/Bluejoint Grass 589 2885
Sedge Meadow/Typha Mix 278 1457
Reed Canary Grass 1 2
Wet Meadow 1 3
243 7116 Open water Water 86 3464
Submergent Vegetation 110 2902
Wild Rice 47 751
19 374 Development Developed 16 46
Roadside 3 328
a. Hayfields and pasture in this table were mis-identified in the aerial photo interpretation and are actually cool season grasses.
Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation
Number
of stands
Total
Acres
Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of
stands
Total
Acres
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
29
 Sora Rail
 Virginia Rail
�� Sedge Wren
 Swamp Sparrow
Annual surveys of Common Loons indicate
nearly 70 adults, but production is less than 10 loon
chicks per year.
The diverse forests of Tamarac NWR are well
suited for providing habitat for migrating and nest-ing
passerines. Red-eyed Vireos, Ovenbirds,
Veery’s, Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted Gros-beaks,
Golden-winged Warblers and Chestnut-sided
Warblers are common breeders throughout the Ref-uge.
The Refuge has been actively engaged in the
Golden-winged Warbler research because of the
high nesting densities found on the Refuge due to an
abundance of early successional forest habitat
within the Refuge’s boundaries. The Golden-winged
Warbler is currently listed as a Resource Conserva-tion
Priority species for Region 3 (USFWS) and is
considered a neotropical migratory species of high
continental conservation concern by Partners in
Flight (PIF) (Rich et al. 2004). Since 1966, the
Golden-winged Warbler has declined by approxi-mately
3.5 percent per year across its breeding
range. An estimated 76 percent of the global popula-tion
of Golden-winged Warblers breeds within Bird
Conservation Region 12 (BCR12), and approxi-mately
40 percent the global population breed in
Minnesota (Rosenberg 2004). Surveys indicate
approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of this global
population reside within the boundaries of Tamarac
NWR.
Although not abundant on the Refuge, various
species of shorebirds can be seen throughout the
Refuge. The Refuge contains very little mud flat
habitats or shallow water (<10 cm) that most shore-birds
prefer. Despite low shorebird densities, the
American Woodcock breeds in significant numbers
throughout the Refuge, again primarily due to the
abundance of young forest habitats. The American
Woodcock is also a Resource Conservation Priority
species for the Midwest Region due to long-term
declines in breeding populations. In Minnesota,
there is more early successional forest than there
ever were historically, yet the declines persist. The
Refuge is currently engaged in research that is
examining low productivity rates or “recruitment”
as a possible cause for these declines.
Resident bird or year-round species include:
 Ruffed Grouse
 Wild Turkey
 Great-horned Owl
 Barred Owl
 Downy Woodpecker
 Hairy Woodpecker
 Pileated Woodpecker
 Blue Jay
 Black-capped Chickadee
 White-breasted Nuthatch.
Mammals
The Refuge supports 53 species of resident mam-mals
and seven species of bats that migrate off-Ref-uge
to overwinter. Some of the mammal species
found on the Refuge are listed as RCPs for Region 3
(ie: gray wolf) and numerous other species are listed
species of greatest conservation concern by the Min-nesota
DNR (ie: Franklin’s ground squirrel). Two
packs of gray wolves have successfully produced
young on the Refuge, and a third pack’s territory
overlaps into Tamarac NWR. White-tailed deer,
beaver, striped skunk, raccoon, muskrat, mink and
red squirrels are abundant. White-tailed deer and
beaver can severely impact the Refuge’s ability to
restore or manage habitats. Currently there is an
overabundance of white-tailed deer state-wide. The
Refuge has recently supported a relatively high
density of deer (26 to 28 deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey)
and thus the adverse effects of browsing in forest
understory are significant with huge ecological ram-ifications.
Beaver can have significant effects on
water levels which can directly impact the produc-tion
of wild rice within lakes. Cottontail rabbits and
snowshoe hare populations follow a cyclical pattern.
Other furbearers, including red fox, coyote, bobcat,
fisher, otter, long and short-tailed weasels, are
locally common and seen in the area on a regular
basis. Based on state-wide surveys conducted by the
Minnesota DNR, most of the mammals that are con-
Golden-winged Warbler. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
30
sidered “predatory” are well above long-term
trends and historical records (ie: fox, skunk and rac-coon),
which have devastating effects on ground
nesting birds. A list of species known to occur within
the Refuge is included in Appendix C.
Fish
Fish surveys have been conducted on select lakes
and streams by the Minnesota DNR , the LaCrosse
Fishery Resource Office (USFWS), the White
Earth Natural Resources Department and various
universities in cooperation with the Refuge staff on
a periodic basis. Sampling by various methods has
documented 37 species of fish including:
 Walleye
 Yellow perch
 Black crappie
 Large-mouth bass
 Bluegill
 Pumpkinseed
 Rock bass
 Brown bullhead
 Yellow bullhead
 Black bullhead
 White sucker
 Northern pike
 Bowfin.
Numerous other fish species were also docu-mented
including shiners, dace, chubs, darters and
other minnow species (Appendix C). Walleye and
lake sturgeon are both listed as Regional Conserva-tion
Priority Species (USFWS) for Region 3; how-ever,
only the lake sturgeon is listed as a state listed
species of special concern.
The Minnesota DNR currently stocks Wauboose
and North Tamarac lakes with walleye fry on an
every-other year cycle. Likewise, the White Earth
Natural Resources Department stocks walleye fry
in Lost and Teacracker lakes on a similar cycle. The
White Earth Natural Resources Department in
cooperation with LaCrosse FRO recently stocked
lake sturgeon in Round Lake, which is immediately
upstream of the Refuge on the Ottertail River.
Although no lake sturgeon were stocked directly in
the waters of Tamarac NWR, they have the poten-tial
to enter the Refuge via the Ottertail River.
Some of the issues that threaten the Refuge’s
fishery and waterfowl are undesirable nuisance fish
species (bullheads, common carp and fathead min-nows),
poor survival of naturally produced walleye,
and winterkills. All the Refuge water areas, with the
exception of Lost and Wauboose Lakes have an
average depth of 8 feet or less and are thus subject
to frequent winterkills.
Carp are present within Ottertail River system,
but so far restricted in distribution by a box culvert
structure in the Hubbel Pond WMA, which is just
south of the Refuge. The possibility exists that carp
can bypass the box culvert via a ditch from Cotton
Lake to Height of Land Lake, thus potentially
entering the Refuge as far up the Ottertail River as
the Chippewa Lake water control structure and
could potentially destroy wetland habitats in Rice
and Blackbird lakes. Other fish species, like fathead
minnows and walleye, forage on amphipods, which
are the primary food resource of migrant and breed-ing
waterfowl. Fathead minnows may be present in
lakes that were previously fishless systems.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Eleven species of amphibians and five species of
reptiles have been recorded. Lakes, streams,
ditches and other wetland basins provide aquatic
habitat required for a variety of turtles, frogs, toads
and salamanders. Spring peeper, American toad,
wood, chorus, northern leopard, gray tree, Cope’s
gray tree and mink frogs are common. Garter
snakes and prairie skinks are common throughout
the Refuge. Snapping and painted turtles are also
common. The snapping turtle is listed a species of
special concern by the Minnesota DNR.
Reptiles and amphibians are important food
sources for many mammals, birds and fish. Their
numbers and diversity are often indicators of the
health of an ecosystem. Many species of reptiles and
amphibians are declining on a state and nationwide
scale.
Invertebrates
Twenty-five species of butterflies have been doc-umented
to date although formalized surveys have
not occurred. Refuge wetlands are presumed to con-tain
typical freshwater invertebrates found in the
A woodchuck takes a rest. Photo Credit: Dick Henry
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Tamarac NWR and WMD / Draft CCP
31
area but only limited sampling has been done as
well. There is speculation that some freshwater
invertebrate species have been negatively impacted
by fish species that were not historically present
within several wetland basins (ie: fathead minnows).
Freshwater invertebrates are an extremely impor-tant
food source for waterfowl, during spring migra-tion,
egg laying and brood r