Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Summary Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tamarac 
National Wildlife Refuge
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
July 2010
Contents
Comments Sought on the Draft CCP/EA ............1
See the Draft CCP/EA .........................................1
What the Draft CCP/EA Proposes.......................2
Refuge and District Vision and Goals .................2
Why a CCP?.........................................................5
Vital Statistics.....................................................5
Who We Are and What We Do ..........................5
The Planning Process ..........................................6
Refuge and District Issues ..................................6
Refuge and District Objectives .........................10
Alternatives Considered ...................................13
Tell Us What You Think.....................................15
Open House Scheduled July 20 ........................15
Future Refuge Land Cover Map ........................16
Refuge Hunting Zones Map..............................17
Refuge Visitor Facilites Map, Fall/Winter ........18
Refuge Visitor Facilities, Spring/Summer.........19
Comments Sought on
Draft CCP/EA for
Tamarac NWR and
Tamarac WMD
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has completed a Draft Com-prehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment (Draft
CCP/EA) that describes the goals,
objectives and strategies established to
guide Tamarac National Wildlife Ref-uge
and the Tamarac Wetland Manage-ment
District for the next 15 years.
The Draft CCP/EA is currently
available for public review and com-ment.
The document is available on-line,
and it is available on a compact
disk in portable document format (pdf).
A limited number of paper
copies are available at the
Refuge Headquarters.
The public review period is
an opportunity for everyone
who cares about the future of
Tamarac NWR and the Tam-arac
WMD to review the pro-posed
management direction
and comment on it.
This summary describes
the proposed Refuge man-agement,
describes the man-agement
alternatives
considered in planning, and
describes how people can
submit comments on the
Draft CCP.
See the CCP
You can view the full Draft
CCP/EA on-line at: 
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
Tamarac
Paper copies of the CCP are avail-able
at several libraries, including:
 Detroit Lakes Public Library
 Bagley Public Library
 Park Rapids Public Library
 Moorhead Public Library
 Frazee Library
 Mahnomen Library
 Perham Area Public Library
 Lake Park Library
 Hawley Library
 Pelican Rapids Public Library
Copies of the plan are also available
at the Refuge. You can request a copy
in a variety of ways:
E-mail the Refuge at: 
Tamarac@fws.gov
Call the Refuge at: 218/847-2641
Mail a request to:
Tamarac NWR
Attention: CCP Request
35704 County Road 26
Rochert, MN 56578
Tamarac NWR Tamarac WMD
Purpose  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds
and other wildlife: ...” Executive Order 7902, dated May
31, 1938.
 “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C.
715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
 “... as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “... all of
the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation
Act]... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions...” 16
U.S.C. 718(c)
Vision Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is treasured as an eco-logically
and culturally rich landscape of rolling forested
hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers and marshes
that nurtures a unique and diverse assemblage of plants
and animals. Towering red and white pine intermingle
with aspens, majestic old growth forests, jack pine barrens
and tamarack-spruce bogs. In the land where food grows
on water, bountiful wild rice provides for future genera-tions
of wildlife 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 revital-ize
their spirit and connect with a rich wildlife heritage.
Tamarac NWR will remain resilient to human influences
and provide an unbroken landscape of native plant commu-nities
to support healthy and productive native fish and
wildlife populations.
Tamarac Wetland Management District is a picturesque
canvas of a natural landscape transitioning from boreal
peatlands to mixed forests of aspen, birch and pine. This
diverse landscape affords the District unique opportuni-ties
to develop innovative partnerships centered on habitat
restoration and water quality improvements. The District
working with landowners and partners will strive to main-tain
healthy ecological systems providing habitat continu-ity
beyond boundaries to support a diversity of wildlife.
The District will serve as a model of land stewardship and
restoration practices while providing demonstration sites
for scientifically proven wildlife and natural resource con-servation
techniques.
Goals
Wildlife Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species
native to habitats naturally found on the Refuge with spe-cial
emphasis on Service Regional Conservation Priority
Species
Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species
native to habitats naturally occurring within the Tamarac
WMD with special emphasis on Service Regional Conser-vation
Priority Species
Habitat Protect, restore and enhance the wetland and upland habi-tat
on the Refuge to emulate naturally functioning,
dynamic ecosystems emphasizing a variety of habitat con-ditions
that were present prior to European settlement.
To protect, restore, and enhance wetland and upland habi-tats,
mimicking natural ecological processes where possi-ble,
within the Tamarac WMD for the benefit of federal
trust species.
People Provide people with opportunities to experience quality
wildlife-dependent activities and make a connection with a
natural, functioning landscape.
Provide people with opportunities to experience quality
wildlife-dependent recreation and promote ecologically
sound land stewardship.
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
2
What the CCP Proposes
Tamarac NWR
The changes proposed in the Draft
CCP/EA are intended to improve habi-tat,
improve our understanding of the
wildlife species that use the Refuge, and
give visitors a personal experience with
wildlife and native habitats.
Over the next 15 years, the Refuge is
proposing to emphasize natural ecologi-cal
processes. This means that water
control structures would be removed in
some locations where natural hydro-logic
flow is feasible, that forest man-agement
would promote a range of
natural variation but would also con-tinue
to allow the promotion of habitat
for priority bird species, and that
upland habitat that is essentially the
result of clearing for farms or logging
would be allowed to revert to forest. A
map of potential future habitat is
located on page 16.
Opportunities for people to use and
learn at the Refuge would be expanded.
Environmental education and interpre-tation
programs both on and off the
Refuge would focus on wildlife manage-ment
activities on the Refuge. The Ref-uge
would explore new partnership
opportunities with local tribes to
expand cultural interpretation on the
Refuge.
The Refuge’s hunting program
would be strengthened by clarifying
rules, and new hunting opportunities
for Wild Turkey would be considered. A
map showing proposed changes to the
hunting program is located on page 12.
A map showing the proposed visitor
facilities in the fall/winter is located on
page 18 and map showing the spring/
summer facilities is located on page 19.
Location of Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
3
Location of Tamarac Wetland Management District
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
4
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
5
Tamarac WMD
Currently, habitat management
activities on the Tamarac WMD are
limited to the terms of individual ease-ments
and the nature of surrounding
lands. The proposed management
direction would emphasize the acquisi-tion
of land within the five-county Dis-trict.
All land acquisition would occur as
funding is available, and all acquisition
would be from willing sellers only. Pri-ority
would be given to core areas, cor-ridors
and critical sites.
Land management would focus on
maintaining and using the ecological
processes that shaped the land before
European settlement, including fire and
grazing.
Why a CCP?
Planning for national wildlife refuges
has always occurred, but the planning
process and products were not consis-tent
throughout the Refuge System.
This changed in 1997, when the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act established the plan-ning
process refuges would use and
specified the elements required in a
CCP. The Improvement Act and Ser-vice
policy now require the Refuge Sys-tem
to manage national wildlife refuges
based on a comprehensive conservation
plan.
Since the Improvement Act was
enacted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice
has been working to complete a
CCP for every refuge in the Refuge
System. The plans outline how a refuge
will fulfill its legal purpose and contrib-ute
to the Refuge System’s wildlife,
habitat, and public use goals. Compre-hensive
conservation plans articulate
management goals for a 15-year period
and specify the objectives and strate-gies
needed to accomplish these goals.
Comprehensive conservation plans give
a refuge’s neighbors, the local commu-nity,
Friends groups, outdoor recre-ation
enthusiasts and others a clear
picture of how a refuge will be managed
and the reasoning behind that manage-ment
direction.
Many factors, such as funding and
natural events like flooding or drought,
will influence the Service’s ability to
fully implement the Tamarac NWR
CCP/EA. Comprehensive conservation
plans outline management direction,
but they do not constitute a commit-ment
for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding
for future land acquisition.
Vital Statistics
Tamarac NWR
Located in Becker County, Tamarac
NWR is located 18 miles northeast of
Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, (population
7,400) and 60 miles east of Fargo, North
Dakota. The Refuge covers 42,738
acres, which includes 21 lakes and sev-eral
thousand marshes and wooded pot-holes.
Three rivers flow through the
Refuge. The Refuge was established in
1938 as a refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife.
The landscape is characterized by
rolling forested hills interspersed with
shallow lakes, rivers, marshes and
shrub swamps. Sixty percent of the
Refuge is forested with aspen, jack
pine, red pine, balsam fir, paper birch,
red and white oak, sugar maple and
basswood tree types. Large and small
wetland complexes comprise about 35
percent of the Refuge. Many Refuge
lakes and rivers contain large native
wild rice beds that produce abundant
food for waterfowl and other wetland
dependent species. Twenty-eight lakes
lie within the Refuge and three rivers
flow through the Refuge, while marshes
and wooded potholes number several
thousand. The remaining 5 percent of
Tamarac NWR is grassland, mostly
remnants of early settler clearings or
small farms.
Refuge 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 terri-tories
producing as many as 33 young in
recent years. Moose and gray wolves
are seen occasionally.
Tamarac WMD
The Tamarac WMD, established in
1987, stretches over 10,600 square miles
in Beltrami, Cass, Clearwater, Hub-bard
and Koochiching Counties. The
Tamarac WMD is responsible for
administering 8,908 acres of wetland
and conservation easements distributed
throughout these five north-central
Minnesota counties. The Tamarac
WMD is one of eight wetland manage-ment
districts within Minnesota. In
addition to easement enforcement and
management activities, Tamarac WMD
personnel also perform consultation
roles for Farm Service Agency (FSA)
Farm Bill programs, restore wetlands
on private lands, and render technical
assistance to landowners who desire to
enhance wildlife habitat on their prop-erty.
As the Tamarac WMD possesses
no land in fee title, it presents the para-mount
challenge of working effectively
with private landowners to achieve Ser-vice
and District goals.
Hunting on Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Who We Are and What
We Do
Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD
are administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the primary federal
agency responsible for conserving, pro-tecting,
and enhancing the nation’s fish
and wildlife populations and their habi-tats.
The Service oversees the enforce-ment
of federal wildlife laws,
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
6
management and protection of migra-tory
bird populations, restoration of
nationally significant fisheries, adminis-tration
of the Endangered Species Act,
and the restoration of wildlife habitat
such as wetlands. The Service also man-ages
the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem,
which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt desig-nated
Pelican Island in Florida as a
sanctuary for Brown Pelicans.
Today, the Refuge System is a net-work
of more than 550 national wildlife
refuges and other Refuge System units
covering more than 150 million acres of
public lands and waters. Most of these
lands are in Alaska, with approximately
16 million acres located in the lower 48
states and several island territories.
Overall, the Refuge System provides
habitat for more than 5,000 species of
birds, mammals, fish, and insects.
Refuges also provide unique oppor-tunities
for people. When activities are
compatible with wildlife and habitat
conservation, refuges are places where
people can enjoy wildlife-dependent
recreation such as hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, envi-ronmental
education, and environmen-tal
interpretation.
The Planning Process
The planning process for both the
Refuge and the District began in late
February 2007 with a kick-off meeting
between Refuge staff and regional plan-ners
from the Service’s office
at Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
The participants in this “inter-nal
scoping” exercise dis-cussed
a vision statement,
goals, existing baseline
resource data, planning docu-ments
and other pertinent
information. In addition, the
group identified a preliminary
list of issues, concerns and
opportunities facing the Ref-uge
and Tamarac WMD that
would need to be addressed in
the CCP.
Public input was encour-aged
and obtained using several meth-ods,
including open house events,
written comments during a public scop-ing
period and personal contacts.
March Wren singing. Photo Credit: Jim
Williams
Initial public scoping for the Tama-rac
NWR and WMD CCP began in July
2007 with a series of open house events
held in Detroit Lakes and at the Refuge
Headquarters (Tamarac NWR) and in
Bagley, Minnesota (WMD). Turn-out
was light at all events despite wide-spread
notification in area newspapers
and local television. Comment forms
were available at the events and were
made available at the Refuge Head-quarters
and Visitor Center during the
following weeks.
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 conver-sations
with individuals representing
government agencies, NGOs and Ref-uge
users.
Refuge and District
Issues
Issues play an important role in plan-ning.
Issues focus the planning effort on
the most important topics and provide a
base for considering alternative
approaches to management while evalu-ating
the consequences of managing
under these alternative approaches.
The issues, concerns, and opportunities
expressed during the first phase of
planning have been organized under the
following headings:
Tamarac NWR
Wildlife Management
 Waterfowl Focus Shift to Natural
Diversity with Emphasis on Service
Resource Conservation Priority
Species
When Tamarac NWR was estab-lished
in 1938, the tail end of the Dirty
Thirties, much of the land had been
cleared, prairies were dry, forests were
less dense, and lakes were shallower.
The Refuge’s original master plan
emphasized getting water on the land
and focusing on the production of Wood
Ducks, Ring-necked Ducks, Blue-winged
Teal, Mallards, and Canada
Geese. The landscape has changed since
the 1930s, both in terms of the environ-ment
and Service policy. By expanding
Tamarac NWR’s original specific focus
on waterfowl to natural diversity of
wildlife native to Minnesota, with an
emphasis on Conservation Priority Spe-cies
in Region 3, Tamarac NWR dem-onstrates
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 biodi-versity,
as well contribute to wildlife
conservation at an appropriate regional
scale by trying to assist those species in
greatest need of attention. Identifying
Work with private landowners is an essential element in
conserving habitat. Photo Credit: FWS
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
7
the direction of waterfowl management
will dictate some habitat management
decisions.
Fishing on the Refuge. Photo Credit?
 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 Pri-ority
Species in Region 3 and consid-ered
by the state of Minnesota to be
endangered. The Refuge has a legal
responsibility to monitor the status of
these species. Additionally, given the
history of reintroduction of the Trum-peter
Swans at Tamarac NWR and
recovery from the brink of extinct of the
Bald Eagle, there is tremendous visitor
interest in these majestic bird species.
 Stocking Fish Where Appropriate
and Not in Conflict with Refuge
Purposes
Tamarac NWR is managed primarily
for waterfowl, which means that lake
levels are managed with the goal of pro-ducing
aquatic vegetation and inverte-brates
for ducks. There is interest in to
developing more fishing opportunities
by stocking fish in Refuge lakes. Some
of these include lakes where certain fish
species did not naturally occur.
 High White-tailed Deer Population
is Damaging Refuge Habitats
The recent high Refuge deer popula-tion
has limited conifer regeneration by
over browsing. Insects, amphibians,
mammals and some migratory songbird
populations can also be negatively
impacted. The Refuge needs to estab-lish
a sustainable deer population objec-tive
that balances habitat concerns,
hunting opportunities and eastern gray
wolf population objectives. Deer are a
major prey species for the resident wolf
packs. Use 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 struc-ture.
Zebra mussels have recently
infested a lake within the Refuge’s
watershed. The Refuge needs to better
understand what impacts exotic earth
worms are having on habitat and
explore ways to ensure that carp, zebra
mussels, and other invasive species do
not infiltrate the Refuge.
 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 maintain-ing
Refuge water control structures
and road culverts. To date, beaver con-trol
has been primarily addressed by
tribal recreational trapping, and to a
lesser degree, removal by contract, per-mit,
and Refuge staff. These efforts
have been ineffectual in controlling the
growth of Refuge beaver populations.
An expansion of the Refuge’s trapping
program may help reduce the beaver
population, however, fluctuating` fur
markets dictate interest and other
alternatives need exploration.
 Invertebrate Numbers and Health
Invertebrates are a critical food
resource for waterfowl, particularly
during migration, egg laying, and brood
rearing. An initial investigative survey
on Pine Lake suggested a general lack
of aquatic invertebrates in the lake. The
study underscores the need for more
information regarding the abundance
and diversity of Refuge invertebrate
populations. Water quality monitoring
may provide some answers to this con-cern.
Habitat Management
 Manage Water Levels to Promote
Wild Rice Production, Enhance
Tribal Harvest Opportunities and
Minimize Downstream Impacts
Refuge waters have a long history of
wild rice production and use by wildlife,
particularly waterfowl, and Native
American people. The basic purpose of
water level management has been to
enhance the area’s natural ability to
grow wild rice, and the other vegetation
and associated invertebrates estab-lished
within the aquatic ecosystem.
The Refuge has added stoplogs in
August to enhance tribal rice harvest-ing
opportunities in the past. This
action was thought to have benign con-sequences
for all parties involved, how-ever
the downstream lake shore owners
complained of lowered water levels on
Height of Land Lake. The resulting low
water caused boat launching and dock-ing
problems and posed safety concerns
for boaters and skiers that could poten-tially
hit submerged dead head logs,
now closer to the surface. The water
management program needs to address
this issue.
Additionally, there has been a
request to maximize rice production on
a yearly basis. However, recent
research indicates that stable water lev-els
will, over time, jeopardize the long-term
viability of a wild rice-dominated
lake. Wild rice systems require water
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
8
level fluctuations from year to year to
insure a sustainable system.
 Water Quality Monitoring Needs
A 2005 lake assessment by the Min-nesota
Pollution Control Agency indi-cated
that North Tamarac Lake could
possibly be listed as an Impaired Water
due to high levels of phosphorus.
The Refuge needs to develop a com-prehensive
water quality monitoring
program to establish a baseline for Ref-uge
waters (not just North Tamarac
Lake). Work with MPCA to determine
the parameters, sites, timing, labora-tory
use, long-term objectives, etc., for
this effort.
 Managing Invasive Plant Species
Exotic and invasive plant species
pose a threat to the maintenance and
restoration of the Refuge’s diverse hab-itats.
Canada thistle, plumeless thistle,
purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and
spotted knapweed and several other
invasive terrestrial plants are known to
occur on the Refuge. The Refuge cur-rently
uses chemical, mechanical and
biological methods of controlling inva-sive
plant species.
Although Tamarac NWR believes,
from general observation, the water
bodies of the Refuge are fairly clear of
aquatic invasive plants, the potential for
infestation is high due to the large num-ber
of boating visitors.
More invasive plant species, both ter-restrial
and aquatic, are predicted to
spread to the area. The Refuge needs to
establish an invasive species monitoring
program. Closer coordination with
county weed task forces would help
with the early detection monitoring,
preventative measures development
and removal strategies. Outreach with
neighboring lake associations has been
requested.
 Forest Management
Forest habitat within the transitional
zone was once characterized by upland
conifer, upland deciduous, mixed
upland, lowland conifer, mixed lowland
forest, and lowland deciduous communi-ties.
These communities have been
altered over the past 200 years by log-ging,
agriculture and development. This
has created grassland and forest open-ings
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 fed-eral,
state, tribal and county lands. Con-nectivity
between the Refuge and other
conservation units could benefit wildlife
and habitats.
Visitor Services
 Inadequate Parking Facilities
Inadequate parking areas raises
safety concerns and does not invite use.
 Hunters with Disabilities Limited by
Lack of Accessible Facilities
Hunters with disabilities are limited
to hunting on roads that are already
open to vehicles. There is interest in the
Refuge providing more access.
 Tribal and State Hunting Season
Conflicts
On the north half of the Refuge, the
tribal seasons overlap with state sea-sons.
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, creat-ing
quality hunt conflicts for hunt-ers
and possible safety concerns.
Additionally, many non-tribal
hunters scout out locations for
deer hunting during the state
grouse season and are not wear-ing
the required blaze orange,
which creates safety concerns.
All hunters should be aware of the
different hunting seasons on the
Refuge and use safe hunting prac-tices.
The Refuge needs to insure
visitors are informed.
 Native American Cultural Practices
The site of Tamarac NWR has a
long, rich history of Native American
Indian cultural traditions. The Refuge
remains an important site for tradi-tional
practices of the local Ojibwe
tribe. Wild rice is harvested by tribal
members in concert with the rice abun-dance.
Access to ricing lakes is balanced
with wildlife management activities.
Other activities such as plant collection
and harvesting leeches have potential
conflicts with wildlife management
objectives. There are opportunities for
incorporating traditional Ojibwe prac-tices
into the Refuge’s interpretive pro-grams,
events and signage.
 Lake Access Regulations are
Confusing
The regulations related to lake
access are confusing. One Refuge lake
is open only for the winter, some are
open only during the summer, some are
open both winter and summer. Some
lakes are open to fishing but not to
other uses. In some instances, roads
provide vehicle access to a boat landing,
but walking on that road is prohibited.
This complexity makes it difficult for
the visiting public to follow the Refuge’s
regulations.
 Bank Fishing Access Regulations
Are Unclear
Bank fishing restrictions are unclear
for the visiting public.
Wildlife observation, Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
9
 Expanded Hunting Opportunities
The Minnesota Department of Natu-ral
Resources has asked Tamarac NWR
to consider opening bear and turkey
hunting seasons.
 Additional Public Use Activities
Requested
Visitors have expressed interest in
uses not currently allowed or expanding
some that are limited.
 Leaving ice houses overnight is
currently prohibited in accordance
with federal regulations.
 Motorized vehicles are not allowed
on frozen lakes. This activity has
been requested to access ice fishing
locations.
 Horseback riding is currently
allowed on county and township
roads, auto tour route and Bruce
Blvd. Increased spread of invasive
plants through horseback riding
activities on the Refuge is a threat to
the maintenance and restoration of
the Refuge’s diverse habitats.
 The North Country National Scenic
Trail is a footpath proposed to route
through the Refuge in the public use
area south of County Hwy 26.
 Canoeing and tubing on the Ottertail
River is currently not allowed
through the Refuge due to its
location within the sanctuary area
and disturbance to wildlife.
 Fishing with Motorboats
In some cases, motorboat use inter-feres
with Refuge visitors engaged in
wildlife observation. There is concern
that boat trailering and motorized fish-ing
activity is not compatible with other
uses along the Refuge’s auto tour route.
 More Demand for Environmental
Education Programming
Tamarac NWR’s environmental edu-cation
program is growing and lacks the
facilities and staffing to meet demand
for environmental education program-ming.
School groups, home school
groups, colleges and others have
expressed interest in Refuge-based
environmental education opportunities.
 Division of Outreach Workload
Among FWS Offices
Agassiz NWR, Glacial Ridge NWR,
Rydell NWR, Hamden Slough NWR,
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management
District and Fergus Falls Wetland
Management District are all less than a
2 hour drive of Tamarac NWR. There
are many benefits to having other sta-tions
nearby, however this proximity
also makes it confusing for Refuge staff
to divide up the outreach workload and
articulate the differing Refuge pur-poses
to the public. Because the Ref-uges
are so close and there is potential
for audiences to overlap, there are
opportunities for outreach efforts to
have a broader perspective and impact.
Facilities/Roads
 Volunteer/Intern Housing Needed
The Refuge needs to provide housing
for volunteers and interns who come to
do extended projects. The nearest com-munity
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 stu-dents;
Recreation Vehicle pads would
be useful for volunteer Refuge hosts
working on the Refuge.
 Potential to Demonstrate Green
Facilities
Federal buildings, particularly U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service facilities, can
play an important role in demonstrating
practical and efficient “green” building
technologies. There are opportunities
on Tamarac NWR to demonstrate these
technologies.
 Speeding Creates Safety, Wildlife
Mortality and Maintenance
Problems
Vehicle speed on all public roads
needs to be kept to a minimum to
improve visitor safety and to reduce
dust, wildlife mortality, and long-term
maintenance costs. Many of these pub-lic
roads are administered by the
county and townships. Tamarac NWR
needs to continue to work with these
local governmental agencies responsi-ble
for speed limits to insure safety and
to maintain the character of a National
Wildlife Refuge.
 ATV and Snowmobile Uses
County ordinances allow the opera-tion
of an ATV or snowmobile in the
right-of-way of county roads. Local
ATV and snowmobile enthusiasts have
respected Tamarac’s interest in prohib-iting
this activity, particularly in light of
the numerous trails available around
the Refuge. Additionally, most road
right-of-ways within the Refuge include
either steep or undeveloped ditches
which are unsafe to operators, thus lim-iting
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 opera-tion.
Tamarac WMD Issues
 Land Acquisition
Thousands of wetlands dot the Dis-trict
landscape, yet as of 2010, no fee-title
lands have been acquired or addi-tional
easements procured within the
Bald Eagle eaglet. Photo Credit: D. Braud
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
10
five-county Wetland Management Dis-trict.
Private lands work is a valuable
component of habitat restoration and
protection, however, perpetual protec-tion,
whether through the Service or
other agency programs, assures long-term
conservation benefits for wildlife
and wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities.
 Partnerships
Partnerships are an essential part of
accomplishing the goals of the Tamarac
WMD. Partnerships allow the Service
to reach beyond social and political
boundaries to achieve specific objec-tives
and, through involvement of indi-viduals
and organizations, inspire
future generations to care about con-servation.
Developing partnerships
requires a commitment of people and
funding.
Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
 Direction of the WMD
District activities have been primar-ily
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, Conserva-tions
Priority Species and critical habi-tats
across the landscape needs to be
determined. A commitment of staff and
funding is critical to achieving this goal.
 Easement Management Planning
and Implementation
Over 35 FmHA inventory property
tracts were transferred to the District
in the mid-1990s. Many of these tracts
possess undeveloped, out-dated, or
unfulfilled management plans, but could
yield significant ecological benefits to
the landscape. Service resources need
to be allocated to develop and carry out
up-to-date habitat management plans
on these Refuge System lands.
 Invasive Plants
Invasive plants are considered one of
the greatest threats to natural ecosys-tems.
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 pro-mote
private lands conservation and
demonstrate wildlife conservation tech-niques.
Refuge and District
Objectives
The Draft CCP/EA describes goals,
objectives, and strategies for Tamarac
NWR and WMD’s proposed future
management direction. Goals are
descriptive broad statements of desired
future conditions that convey a purpose.
Goals are followed by objectives, which
are specific statements describing man-agement
intent. Objectives provide
detail and are supported by rationale
statements that describe background,
history, assumptions, and technical
details to help clarify how the objective
was formulated. Strategies are the spe-cific
actions, tools, and techniques
required to fulfill the objective.
The objectives identified for both the
Refuge and the District are provided in
this section.
Tamarac NWR
Wildlife
Objective 1.1 Trust Resources:
Waterfowl: Maintain a minimum
annual population of 2,000 breeding
pairs of dabbler ducks (i.e.: Mallards,
Blue-winged Teal and Wood Ducks),
300 breeding pairs of diving ducks (pri-marily
Ring-necked Ducks), 250 breed-ing
pairs of Canada Geese and 25
breeding pairs of Trumpeter Swans on
the Refuge by providing optimal breed-ing
habitats. Note: This is considered a
threshold objective such that if the
breeding pair estimate falls below the
minimum specified objective for five
consecutive years it will trigger further
investigation and management action.
Objective 1.2 Other Trust
Resources – Non-waterfowl: Imple-ment
a monitoring and research pro-gram
to track the presence, abundance,
population trends, and/or habitat asso-ciations
of Trust Resources, including
but not limited to Region 3 Conserva-tion
Priority Species, habitats, commu-nities
and ecosystems. Priority for
monitoring will be given to those spe-cies
identified as Refuge resources of
concern.
Objective 1.3: Gray Wolves: Main-tain
adequate habitat and prey base to
support at least two packs of gray
wolves on the Refuge.
Objective 1.4: Deer Management:
Annually, maintain the Refuge deer
population (Minnesota Deer Manage-ment
Unit 251) at a density of 13-17
deer per square mile (pre-fawning den-sity)
based on annual winter surveys.
Objective 1.5: Fish: Maintain
diverse, balanced and natural fish popu-lations
where compatible with Refuge
goals and objectives, while maintaining
all Refuge water-bodies free of invasive
aquatic animal and plant species.
Habitat
Objective 2.1. Upland Grass:
Reduce anthropogenic grassland habi-tat
from 2009 levels (1,362 acres) by 947
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
11
acres (minus 70 percent) and manage
the remaining 415 acres for the diver-sity
of species present, including
Region 3 Conservation Priority Species.
Objective 2.2. Upland Brush (1000
Acre Tract): Decrease the dominance
of upland brush habitats within the
1,000 Acre Tract by 75 percent by con-version
to forest cover types initially
dominated by early successional forest
structure for the benefit of Region 3
Conservation Priority Species such as
American Woodcock and Golden-winged
Warblers, with long-term bene-fits
to forest interior songbirds.
Objective 2.3. Forest Openings:
Convert 32 anthropogenic forest open-ings
(totaling 63 acres) to forest cover
types through natural regeneration or
tree planting by 2025 based upon site
characteristics such as soil type, drain-age,
or surrounding habitat types. By
conversion to forest cover types these
areas will be initially dominated by
early successional forest structure ben-efiting
Region 3 Conservation Priority
Species such as American woodcock
and golden-winged warblers, with long-term
benefits to forest interior song-birds
once fully restored.
Objective 2.4. Food Plots: Convert
remaining food plots (35 acres), with the
exception of the plot adjacent the autot-our
trailhead, to forest cover types for
the benefit of interior
forest passerines.
Objective 2.5.
Upland Conifer (Red,
White and Jack
Pine): Increase domi-nance
of upland coni-fer
(particularly red,
white and jack pine
but also white spruce
and balsam fir to some
extent), by increasing
both acreage (plus 616
acres) of dominance at
the Refuge scale and
basal area at the stand
level, to provide a
diversity of seral
stages while restoring historic composi-tion
and structure for the benefit of
Region 3 Conservation Priority Species
such as Bald Eagle, Cape May Warbler,
Northern Flicker, Olive-sided Fly-catcher,
Whip-poor-will, and gray wolf
along with a plethora of other more-common
forest passerines such as
Blackburnian Warbler, Black-throated
Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Red
Crossbill, etc. Note: Overall changes of
major habitat types will be reflected as
an increase in acres for upland conifer
(red, white, and jack pine) and mixed
upland forest (i.e.: aspen/pine, forested
broadleaf/coniferous mix, aspen/birch/
fir/spruce, etc.) and a decrease in acres
for upland deciduous (aspen, northern
hardwoods, basswood, oak, forested
broadleaf mix, etc.).
Objective 2.6. Upland Deciduous
Forest: Over the next 15 years, increase
upland deciduous forest by 319 acres
while managing the remaining acreage
(16,167) to maintain a diversity of seral
stages and restore historic composition
and structure for the benefit of Region
3 Conservation Priority Species using
this habitat type on the Refuge such as
American Woodcock, Golden-winged
Warbler, Eastern Towhee, etc., as well
as other forest interior species such as
Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, etc.
Objective 2.7. Mixed Upland For-est:
Increase acreage (plus 195 acres) of
mixed upland forest by increasing the
dominance of upland conifer (particu-larly
red pine, white pine, balsam fir
and white spruce) within deciduous for-est
stands to provide a diversity of seral
stages while restoring historic composi-tion
and structure for the benefit of
Region 3 Conservation Priority Species
such as Bald Eagle, Cape May Warbler,
Northern Flicker, Olive-sided Fly-catcher,
Whip-poor-will, and gray wolf
along with a plethora of other more-common
forest passerines such as
Blackburnian Warbler, Black-throated
Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Red
Crossbill, etc.
Objective 2.8. Lowland Conifer:
Maintain acreage of lowland conifer
(1,863 acres) and restore historic com-position
and structure when and where
possible, while providing a diversity of
seral stages. Region 3 Conservation
Priority Species using this habitat type
on the Refuge include Long-eared Owl,
Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cape May War-bler,
Connecticut Warbler and gray
wolf and numerous species in greatest
concern need of Minnesota.
Objective 2.9. Lowland Deciduous:
Maintain acreage of lowland deciduous
(756 acres) and restore historic compo-sition
and structure when and where
possible, while providing a diversity of
seral stages. Region 3 Conservation
Priority Species using this habitat type
on the Refuge include Wood Duck, Mal-lard,
Red-shouldered Hawk, American
Woodcock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged
Warbler and numerous species
in greatest concern need of Minnesota.
Objective 2.10. Mixed Lowland For-est:
Maintain acreage of mixed lowland
forest (462 acres) and restore historic
composition and structure when and
where possible, while providing a diver-sity
of seral stages. Region 3 Conserva-tion
Priority Species using this habitat
type on the Refuge include Wood Duck,
Mallard, Red-shouldered Hawk, Ameri-can
Woodcock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged
Warbler and numerous species
in greatest concern need of Minnesota.
Blackbird Lake at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
12
Objective 2.11. Lowland Brush:
Reduce the lowland brush habitat type
by 843 acres (32 percent) from 2009 lev-els
through conversion to marsh/wet-land
habitat type (primarily open sedge
meadows) and manage the resulting
acreage (1,815 acres) for the benefit of
shrub/shrub wetland dependent spe-cies,
including Region 3 Conservation
Priority Species such as the American
Bittern, American Woodcock, Golden-winged
Warbler and Black-billed
Cuckoo as well as numerous species in
greatest conservation need.
Objective 2.12. Marsh/Wetland:
Increase this habitat type by 716 acres
(11 percent) from 2009 levels (6,248
acres) by converting the lowland brush
habitat type for the benefit of wetland
dependent species, including Region 3
Conservation Priority Species such as
the American Bittern, Northern Har-rier,
Forster’s Tern, Black Tern Sedge
Wren, Yellow Rail, Le Conte’s Sparrow
and Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow.
White Earth tribal members harvest wild rice.
Photo Credit: FWS
Objective 2.13. Open Water: Main-tain
the open water (lacustrine) habitat
type (7,116 acres) based on 2009 levels
for the long-term sustainability of wild
rice and other native aquatic plants by
emulating natural hydrological regimes
and maintaining and/or restoring water
quality where feasible for the benefit
Region 3 Conservation Priority Species
such as the Bald Eagle, Common Loon,
Trumpeter Swan, Mallard, Blue-winged
Teal, Wood Duck and Lesser Scaup.
Objective 2.14. Invasive Species:
By 2025, reduce the area infested with
target invasive plants (e.g., purple loos-estrife,
leafy spurge, spotted knapweed,
thistle species, etc.) and animals by 50
percent from the documented 2005 level
and rapidly respond an where possible
control new infestations of these and
other highly invasive species as they
occur.
People
Objective 3.1. Hunting: Annually,
provide no less than 7,000 quality hunt-ing
experiences on the Refuge. Sev-enty-
five percent of hunters will report
no conflicts with other users, a reason-able
harvest opportunity and satisfac-tion
with the overall experience.
Objective 3.2. Fishing: Annually,
provide for 5,000 quality fishing visits to
the Refuge. Ninety percent of anglers
will report no conflicts with other users
and will know that they were fishing on
a national wildlife Refuge.
Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation
and Photography: Provide year-round
opportunities for at least 60,000 visits
annually to observe and photograph
wildlife and habitat.
Objective 3.4. Interpretation: Annu-ally
provide no fewer than 2,000 inter-pretive
experiences per year to create
connections between people and the
rich mosaic of wildlife and habitats
found within the forest-prairie transi-tion
zone of western Minnesota and an
understanding of wildlife management
activities on the Refuge.
Objective 3.5. Environmental Edu-cation:
Annually provide no less than
6,000 environmental education experi-ences
per year to create connections
between students and the natural
resources of the Refuge. The experi-ences
will also promote an understand-ing
of habitat diversity, natural
processes and wildlife management.
Objective 3.6. Refuge Access and
Secondary Uses: Throughout the life of
the plan, evaluate opportunities for new
access to the Refuge and recreational
uses not defined by the NWRS
Improvement Act of 1997. All public
access and secondary uses must be
compatible with the mission of the Ref-uge.
Objective 3.7 Outreach: Throughout
the life of the plan, increase local com-munity
support and appreciation for
fish and wildlife conservation and
endorse the Refuge’s role in conserva-tion.
Objective 3.8. Archeological, Cul-tural,
and Historic Protection: Over
the life of the plan, avoid and protect or
mitigate against disturbance of all
known cultural, historic, or archeologi-cal
sites.
Objective 3.9. American Indian
Cultural Practices: Opportunities to
engage in American Indian cultural
practices will be available at the level
offered in 2009.
Wetland Management District
Wildlife
Objective 1.1: Within 3 years of plan
approval, assimilate available informa-tion
on avian presence and abundance
within Tamarac WMD and identify
focal areas and strategies for habitat
improvement projects and land and
easement acquisition that delivers max-imum
benefits for waterfowl and other
Resource Conservation Priority (RCP)
species.
Habitat
Objective 2.1 Wetland Restoration:
Restore or enhance on average at least
60 acres of degraded wetlands on pri-vate
lands per year to benefit waterfowl
and other wetland dependent wildlife.
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
13
Objective 2.2 Wetland Manage-ment:
Maintain hydrological function of
wetlands, currently totaling more than
4100 acres, under easement or PFW
agreements. Acreage maintenance will
increase annually as additional lands
are restored and preserved.
Objective 2.3 Grassland Establish-ment
and Management: Judiciously
select sites sustaining dynamic wetland
complexes for potential establishment
of grassland communities. Strive to
compose a grassland unit with a large
patch size and diverse assembly of
native grasses and forbs.
Objective 2.4 Forest Management:
Identify, prioritize, and implement for-est
conservation projects based on land
capabilities that yield the highest bene-fits
for Regional and Tamarac WMD
priority species.
Objective 2.5 FmHA Conservation
Easement Planning and Manage-ment:
Within 5 years of approval of this
plan, develop or update and implement
habitat management plans on 16 FmHA
conservation easements to benefit RCP
species of Regional and District prior-ity.
Objective 2.6 Exotic Plant and Ani-mal
Control: Promote the eradication
or control of invasive plants and animals
impacting native habitats on easement
lands by using a variety of methods
including biological agents, chemical
controls, burning, mowing, grazing, and
re-establishing native vegetative com-munities.
Target species include spot-ted
knapweed, leafy spurge, purple
loosestrife, Canada thistle, common
tansy, wild parsnip, and common buck-thorn.
Objective 2.7 Acquisition: Pursue
opportunities to acquire critical habitat
for Service trust resources through fee
title or easement purchase, where PFW
program agreements and other natural
resource agency programs are insuffi-cient
to fulfill perpetual protection
needs.
People
Objective 3.1: Environmental Edu-cation,
Interpretation and Outreach:
The majority of rural landowners and
partners within the Tamarac WMD will
be aware of the opportunities for habi-tat
restoration and management
offered by the Service.
Objective 3.2 Enforcement: The
Tamarac WMD will inspect all ease-ments
as well as future acquired lands
each year to ensure the perpetuation of
entrusted wildlife resources and gov-ernment
property. Violations that
involve theft,
damage, altera-tion,
or destruc-tion
of wildlife,
habitat, or gov-ernment
prop-erty
will be
immediately
addressed and
resolved within
one year from the
date of detection.
Objective 3.3
Partnerships:
The Tamarac
WMD will cooper-ate
and partner
with USDA, Min-nesota
DNR,
tribal govern-ment,
and conservation organization on
initiatives that further Service goals for
migratory birds and other Regional
RCP Species.
Alternatives
Considered
Tamarac NWR
Four alternatives are evaluated for
Tamarac NWR in the Environmental
Assessment conducted as part of the
planning process. These alternatives
include the preferred alternative, which
forms the basis for the objectives and
strategies and is detailed in Chapter 4
of the Draft CCP.
Alternative 1: Management of Habitat in
Context of Providing Migratory Bird
Benefits and Complemented with Priority
Public Use (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative combines many of
the habitat changes proposed in Alter-natives
2 and 3. However, priority pub-lic
use activities would be enhanced in
nearly all aspects of Refuge manage-ment.
Management of upland habitats
would focus on maintaining and using
ecological processes that shaped these
communities prior to European settle-ment.
Forest management would pro-mote
the range of natural variation but
would allow for some emphasis of prior-ity
bird habitat. Water control struc-tures
would be removed at locations
where natural hydrologic flow is feasi-ble.
Environmental education and inter-pretation
programs both on and off the
Refuge would focus on wildlife manage-ment
activities on the Refuge. Opportu-nities
for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, and wildlife photography
would give visitors a personal experi-ence
with wildlife and native habitats.
New Wild Turkey hunting opportuni-ties
would be considered. Refuge out-reach
and partnership activity would
emphasize natural processes, and
native habitat restoration and protec-
Trumpeter Swans. Photo Credit: Greg Stetz
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
14
tion to form ecologically functioning
connections to and from the Refuge.
Alternative 2: Pre-settlement Ecological
Processes
Refuge management actions would
approximate ecological processes that
promoted the native communities pres-ent
prior to European settlement,
emphasizing the use of natural hydro-logical
and fire regimes. Vegetative
communities and wildlife diversity
would then be expected to resemble
pre-settlement conditions. This alterna-tive
would probably result in significant
change in habitats from the present
condition. Grassland remnants and for-est
openings would no longer be artifi-cially
maintained. Forest management
would promote the range of natural
variation. Water control structures
would be removed at locations where
natural hydrologic flow is feasible.
Opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, and wildlife pho-tography
would give visitors a personal
experience with wildlife and native hab-itats.
New hunting experiences would
be considered including black bear
(without baiting and use of dogs), Wild
Turkey, and Mourning Dove. Environ-mental
interpretation and education
programs would emphasize the role of
ecological processes in creating natural
pre-European settlement habitats and
cultural history. Off-Refuge outreach
and partnership activity would empha-size
natural processes, corridors, and
restoration.
Alternative 3: Focused Management for
Priority Migratory Birds
The focus of this alternative would be
management for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Region 3) priority wetland and
grassland birds. Wetland management
for priority bird species would include a
mixture of high water for emergent
vegetation control and drawdowns that
vary spatially and temporally to favor
the seasonal occurrence of various bird
groups.
Where possible, water management
would mimic natural processes to pro-vide
for a diverse wetland bird commu-nity.
Some grassland remnants and
forest openings would continue to be
maintained to promote diversity. For-est
management, including active tim-ber
harvests, would be oriented toward
priority migratory birds.
Environmental interpretation and
education programs on and off the Ref-uge
would focus on the importance of
managing for Service priority wetland
and forest birds and their habitats.
Opportunities for hunting, fishing, wild-life
observation, and wildlife photogra-phy
give visitors a personal experience
with wildlife and native habitats. Out-reach
activities would focus on habitat
restoration and protection with an
emphasis on on-site conservation
actions.
Alternative 4: Current Management
Direction of Conservation, Restoration,
and Preservation (No Action)
The Council of Environmental Qual-ity’s
regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act
require that all environmental assess-ments
include the alternative of taking
no action. In the case of a CCP, no
action means that the Refuge will con-tinue
on the same path of management.
Current management is focused on
providing a variety of upland and wet-land
habitats to benefit an array of
migratory and resident species. Forest
lands are harvested to maintain early
and mid-successional stages. Wetlands
are actively managed to benefit migra-tory
birds, especially waterfowl.
Sixty percent of the Refuge is for-ested.
Forested uplands currently
include a mix of aspen stands, jack pine,
red pine, balsam fir, paper birch, red
and white oak, sugar maple and bass-wood.
Thirty-five percent of the Refuge
is comprised of large and small wetland
complexes. About 1,500 acres, or five
percent, of Tamarac NWR are grass-land,
mostly remnants of early settler
clearings or small farms.
Public use under Alternative 4 is
served by a variety of on-Refuge envi-ronmental
education, an auto-tour
route, annual open houses, foot trails, a
visitor contact station, and observation
platforms. The hunting program con-sists
of a firearms and archery deer sea-son
and small game hunting. Fishing is
a popular activity on several Refuge
lakes. Off-Refuge outreach by Refuge
staff includes school talks, radio pro-grams,
informational kits, displays at
fairs, etc. All six wildlife-dependent
public uses encouraged on the National
Wildlife Refuge System take place at
Tamarac NWR.
Tamarac WMD
Alternative 1: Restoration and
Management of Habitat by Facilitating
Natural Ecological Processes but also
Providing for Migratory Bird Benefits.
This alternative will result in a more
active and growing WMD. Wildlife
resources of concern will be identified
and targeted for protection and
enhancement. Management of upland
habitats will focus on maintaining and
using ecological processes that shaped
these communities prior to European
settlement including fire and grazing.
Growth of the WMD will include fee
and easement acquisitions as funding is
available. Priority will be given to core
areas, corridors and critical sites.
Tamarac NWR scene. Photo Credit: Gale Kaas
Frazee
Alternative 2: Pre-settlement Ecological
Processes
Under Alternative 2, WMD actions
will approximate ecological processes
that promoted the native communities
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
15
present prior to European settlement,
emphasizing the use of natural hydro-logical
and fire regimes. Vegetative
communities and wildlife diversity will
then be expected to resemble pre-set-tlement
conditions. Actions on private
lands, such as the use of prescribed fire
and grazing, will be used if possible.
The WMD will not grow as much as
under Alternative 1 but landowner
interaction will be similar.
Alternative 3: Current Management
Direction (No Action)
Current management is focused on
providing habitats to benefit migratory
birds, especially nesting waterfowl.
Landowners are primarily responsible
for maintaining habitat and controlling
invasive plant species. No
growth in easement land hold-ings
has occurred since the
mid-1990s. Emphasis will be
on maintaining relationships
with existing landowners and
enforcement issues. New
acquisitions and partnerships
will continue on an opportunis-tic
basis.
Tell Us What You
Think
Tamarac NWR, Tamarac
WMD and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service want the com-prehensive
conservation plan to be a
visionary and practical document that
improves habitat for wildlife and con-nection
to the environment for its visi-tors.
Your thoughts are an essential part
of accomplishing this. Have we missed
an issue? Have we overlooked an oppor-tunity?
Let us know during the 30-day
public review period. In order for your
comments to be considered during
preparation of the Final CCP, we need
to receive your comment by August 6,
2010.
You have a variety of opportunities
to communicate your thoughts on the
Draft CCP. First, you are welcome to
write us a letter. Address written com-ments
related to either the Refuge or
the District to:
Tamarac NWR/WMD
Attention: CCP Request
35704 County Road 26
Rochert, MN 56578
Comments are also welcome via e-mail:
r3planning@fws.gov (please spec-ify
“Tamarac NWR/WMD CCP Com-ment”
in the subject line).
If you are reading the Draft CCP/EA
on-line, an e-mail link is provided.
Open House Scheduled
The Refuge will host an open house
during the Draft CCP comment period.
The open house is scheduled from 6-8
p.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, at the
Refuge Visitor Center. Refuge staff will
be available during the open house to
discuss the Draft CCP/EA and future
management direction for the Refuge.
Fox kits. Photo Credit: FWS
Land Cover Proposed in the Draft CCP
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
16
Hunting Zones, Tamarac NWR
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
17
Potential Future Visitor Facilities, Fall/Winter, Tamarac NWR
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
18
Potential Future Visitor Facilities, Spring/Summer, Tamarac NWR
July 2010 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District
19
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge
35704 County Highway 26
Rochert, MN 56578
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/tamarac
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov
Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov/midwest