Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Grane Meadows
l{ ationq,l Wildli,fe R efug e
Gomprehens¡ve Gonservat¡on Plan Approval
Submitted by:
Anne Sittauer
Befuge Manager
Concur:
harles M. WooleY
cting Sgional Director
rd \rtt ?ø f to
Richard D. Schultz
Begional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Crane Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................I
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................4
Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................4
The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................4
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...............................................................................................4
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................................4
Laws and Directives for Refuge Planning ...................................................................................................................5
Purpose of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan ........................................................................................................5
Refuge History and Establishment ..............................................................................................................................6
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................7
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................................................8
Crane Meadows NWR Vision Statement ............................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................9
The CCP Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................................9
Preplanning .........................................................................................................................................................9
Scoping ...............................................................................................................................................................9
Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................10
Land Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................10
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................11
Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................11
Visitor Services ..........................................................................................................................................11
Hunting ...............................................................................................................................................11
Fishing ................................................................................................................................................11
Environmental Education ....................................................................................................................11
Trails ..................................................................................................................................................12
Facilities .............................................................................................................................................12
Archaeological Resources ..........................................................................................................................12
Support ......................................................................................................................................................12
Alternatives Development ................................................................................................................................12
Preparation, Review, and Finalization of the CCP ....................................................................................................12
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................................................13
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management ..................................................................................14
Section 1 – Refuge Environment .............................................................................................................................14
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................14
Other Units Administered .................................................................................................................................14
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ...........................................................................14
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
The Local Conservation Landscape ...........................................................................................................................15
Ecological Context ....................................................................................................................................................20
Historic Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................................23
Current Land Use / Land Cover ................................................................................................................................25
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................................25
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ................................................................................................27
North American Landbird Conservation Plan ....................................................................................................29
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001) ..........................................................................................................32
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002) .......................................................................................32
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ..................................................................................................32
Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy ..........................................................................................................33
Strategic Habitat Conservation ................................................................................................................................33
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives .....................................................................................................................34
Conservation Corridors and Green Infrastructure .....................................................................................................34
Socioeconomic Setting ............................................................................................................................................38
Population, Demographics, and Housing ..........................................................................................................38
Employment and Income ..................................................................................................................................38
Education ..........................................................................................................................................................40
Economic Value of Crane Meadows to the Regional Economy ........................................................................40
Potential Refuge Visitation ...............................................................................................................................40
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................41
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................42
Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................................................................................................................42
Hazardous Air Pollutants ..................................................................................................................................42
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................................43
Major Soil Constituents ....................................................................................................................................43
Minor Soil Constituents ....................................................................................................................................46
Water and Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................48
Wild Rice ..........................................................................................................................................................50
Refuge Habitats .......................................................................................................................................................54
Wetlands and Open Water ...............................................................................................................................55
Woodlands ........................................................................................................................................................57
Oak Savanna .....................................................................................................................................................57
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................61
Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................61
Refuge Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................61
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................61
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................62
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................................................63
Fish ....................................................................................................................................................................63
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................................63
Animals ......................................................................................................................................................63
Plants .........................................................................................................................................................63
Threats to Resources ...............................................................................................................................................64
Agricultural Development .................................................................................................................................64
Animal Barns and Poultry Houses ..............................................................................................................64
Center Pivot Irrigation ...............................................................................................................................64
Tiling, Channelization, and Draining ..........................................................................................................64
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................................64
Urban and Residential Development .................................................................................................................65
Contaminants ....................................................................................................................................................65
Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................65
Mitigation and Adaptation .........................................................................................................................67
Climate Trends of the Past Century ...........................................................................................................67
Climate Projections for the Next Century ..................................................................................................68
Midwest Key Issues ..................................................................................................................................69
Water Resources ...............................................................................................................................69
Agriculture .........................................................................................................................................69
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ............................................................................69
Outdoor Recreation .............................................................................................................................70
Administrative Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................70
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................................70
Section 2 – Current Management ...........................................................................................................................72
Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................................................72
Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................................72
Open Water ...............................................................................................................................................72
River/Streams ............................................................................................................................................72
Emergent Marsh ........................................................................................................................................72
Sedge Meadow .........................................................................................................................................72
Willow-dogwood Shrub Swamp ................................................................................................................72
Northern Floodplain Forest .........................................................................................................................72
Uplands .............................................................................................................................................................72
Grasslands (Southern Dry Prairie, Southern Mesic Prairie, and Wet Prairie) ...........................................72
Oak Savanna (Southern Dry Savanna) .......................................................................................................74
Woodlands (Oak, Oak-Aspen, and Jack Pine) ............................................................................................74
Agriculture (Cropland/Pasture) ...................................................................................................................74
Fish and Wildlife Management and Monitoring ......................................................................................................74
Migratory and Resident Birds ............................................................................................................................74
Native Resident Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................75
Fish and Other Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................................................75
Habitat Monitoring and Management ..............................................................................................................75
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................................................76
Hunting .............................................................................................................................................................76
Fishing ...............................................................................................................................................................76
Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................................................................76
Interpretation and Programs ..............................................................................................................................76
Habitat Day ................................................................................................................................................76
Platte River Clean-up .................................................................................................................................78
Bat Program ...............................................................................................................................................78
Bird Tour ....................................................................................................................................................78
Environmental Education and Outreach ............................................................................................................78
Friends Group ....................................................................................................................................................78
Volunteer Program ............................................................................................................................................78
Partnerships .............................................................................................................................................................78
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................................79
Private Lands Program (Partners for Fish and Wildlife) ............................................................................................80
Law Enforcement .....................................................................................................................................................81
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Staff and Budget ......................................................................................................................................................81
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................82
Goal 1: Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................82
Goal 2: Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................94
Goal 3: People ..........................................................................................................................................................97
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ..............................................................................................................................105
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................105
Funding ...................................................................................................................................................................105
New and Existing Projects .....................................................................................................................................106
Staffing ...................................................................................................................................................................106
Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................................................107
Step-Down Management Plans ..............................................................................................................................107
Monitoring and Evaluation .....................................................................................................................................107
Plan Review and Revision ......................................................................................................................................108
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .....................................................................................................109
Appendix B: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................113
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR .................................................................115
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species ........................................................................................145
Appendix E: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects ......................................................................155
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................157
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................163
Appendix H: Appropriate Use .................................................................................................................................183
Appendix I: References Cited .................................................................................................................................187
Appendix J: List of Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................................................193
Appendix K: Crane Meadows NWR CCP Communications List ........................................................................195
Appendix L: Oak Savanna Definition .....................................................................................................................197
List of Figures
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
v
Figure 1: Location of Crane Meadows NWR ..................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Land Ownership, Crane Meadows NWR ........................................................................................................3
Figure 3: FSA Easements Administered by Crane Meadows NWR .............................................................................16
Figure 4: Surrounding Conservation Lands, Crane Meadows NWR (1) .......................................................................17
Figure 5: Surrounding Conservation Lands, Crane Meadows NWR (2) .......................................................................18
Figure 6: Ecological Context, Crane Meadows NWR ...................................................................................................21
Figure 7: Minnesota’s Ecological Subsections and Landtype Associations ................................................................22
Figure 8: Presettlement Vegetation Based on the Marschner Map, Crane Meadows NWR ......................................24
Figure 9: Soil Survey Vegetation Data, Crane Meadows NWR ...................................................................................26
Figure 10: Land Cover Within a 10-mile Radius of Crane Meadows NWR ...................................................................28
Figure 11: Land Cover Within Crane Meadows NWR ....................................................................................................30
Figure 12: Ecological Regions Related to Crane Meadows NWR .................................................................................31
Figure 13: Diagram of the Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework .........................................................................34
Figure 14: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ........................................................35
Figure 15: Biophysical Suitability Model Results for Green Infrastructure ...................................................................36
Figure 16: Social Suitabililty Model Results for Green Infrastructure ...........................................................................37
Figure 17: Green Infrastructure Hubs and Links with Conservation Lands ....................................................................39
Figure 18: Soil Survey Farmland Status, Crane Meadows NWR ...................................................................................44
Figure 19: Soil Survey Drainage Classes, Crane Meadows NWR .................................................................................45
Figure 20: Soil Types, Crane Meadows NWR ................................................................................................................47
Figure 21: Platte-Spunk Watershed ...............................................................................................................................49
Figure 22: Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Map, Crane Meadows NWR ....................................51
Figure 23: Land Cover in the Platte-Spunk Watershed ..................................................................................................52
Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Sites, Crane Meadows NWR ..............................................................................53
Figure 25: National Wetland Inventory Wetland Vegetation Classes, Crane Meadows NWR ....................................59
Figure 26: Refuge Vegetation Based on 2006 Imagery, Crane Meadows NWR ...........................................................60
Figure 27: Development Near Crane Meadows NWR ...................................................................................................66
Figure 28: Refuge Unit Names, Crane Meadows NWR .................................................................................................73
Figure 29: Existing Visitor Services Facilities, Crane Meadows NWR ..........................................................................77
Figure 30: Desired Future Land Cover, Crane Meadows NWR ......................................................................................85
Figure 31: Existing Upland Habitat Source Areas, Crane Meadows NWR ....................................................................88
Figure 32: Original Acquisition Priorities (1992), Crane Meadows NWR ......................................................................93
Figure 33: Future Visitor Services Facilities, Crane Meadows NWR .............................................................................98
List of Tables
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
Table 1: Land Acquisition History at Crane Meadows NWR .........................................................................................7
Table 2: Marschner’s Pre-settlement Vegetation ........................................................................................................25
Table 3: Potential Vegetation Derived from Soil Survey (SSURGO) Information .........................................................27
Table 4: Land Cover Types in the Vicinity of Crane Meadows NWR ...........................................................................29
Table 5: Potential Visitation to Crane Meadows NWR in Five Categories .................................................................40
Table 6: Outdoor Recreation Activities of Minnesota Adults .....................................................................................41
Table 7: Soils Present at Crane Meadows NWR .........................................................................................................46
Table 8: Wild Rice Productivity at Crane Meadows NWR (2008) ................................................................................54
Table 9: Habitats Found at Crane Meadows NWR ......................................................................................................56
Table 10: Vegetation Cover Type Reclassification .........................................................................................................58
Table 11: Refuge Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ...........................................................68
Table 12: Refuge Visitation – Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................76
Table 13: Volunteerism at Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge .........................................................................78
Table 14: Morrison County Private Lands Program Accomplishments ..........................................................................81
Table 15: Six-year Operations and Maintenance Budget ..............................................................................................81
Table 16: Benchmark Conditions for Habitat Types, Crane Meadows NWR ................................................................83
Table 17: Habitat: Current and Proposed, Crane Meadows NWR .................................................................................84
Table 18: Burn Cycles for Crane Meadows NWR Habitat Types ...................................................................................92
Table 19: Wildlife Monitoring at Crane Meadows NWR ..............................................................................................95
Table 20: Future Visitor Services Facilities ....................................................................................................................97
Table 21: Additional Staffing Needs at Crane Meadows NWR ..................................................................................104
Table 22: New Project List, Crane Meadows NWR .....................................................................................................106
Table 23: Current and Proposed Staffing as Indicated by the 2008 NWRS Staffing Model .......................................107
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
I
Executive Summary
The wetland complex we know today as Crane
Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) has been
important to wildlife and people for thousands of
years. The Refuge is located in central Minnesota
and falls within a transitional zone between tallgrass
prairie and deciduous forest (Figure 1). The area of
the Refuge is a mosaic of open water, wetlands,
floodplain forest, wet prairie, dry prairie, savanna,
upland conifer and deciduous forest. The diversity
of habitat is matched by a diversity of wildlife.
Established in 1992, Crane Meadows NWR has
acquired just over 1,800 acres of the approved
13,540-acre acquisition area. Approximately 900
acres are owned and managed by the state of Min-nesota,
and the remaining land is privately owned.
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has
been prepared for the Refuge that will guide man-agement
decisions over the next 15 years. The CCP
will ensure that the Refuge plays a role in fulfilling
the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) and the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS), as well as fulfill the estab-lished
purposes of Crane Meadows NWR.
A 30-day public review and comment period for
the Draft CCP provided an opportunity for every-one
who cares about the Refuge and its future man-agement
– neighbors, local and state government,
tribal government, non-governmental organizations,
and outdoor enthusiasts – to see how the Service
proposes to manage Crane Meadows NWR.
Summary Figure 1: Location of
Crane Meadows NWR
During the planning process, all factors of a ref-uge
are discussed and evaluated by Service employ-ees,
partners, stakeholders, and the public with
regard to species, habitats, visitor services, facili-ties,
operations, and other relevant issues. A range
of alternative management options are then defined
and presented to partners, stakeholders, and the
public during the planning process in order to iden-tify
and define the most suitable, or ‘preferred’ man-agement
plan for the Refuge. The CCP describes
the results of that process and the details of the pre-ferred
alternative. In this document, the broad goals
of the preferred alternative are defined and mea-sureable
objectives are identified to support each
goal. Specific implementation strategies are also
identified to meet these goals and objectives within
the 15-year timeframe.
Three goals were identified for Crane Meadows
NWR:
 Goal 1: Habitat
Conserve a diverse mosaic of habitats both on-and
off-Refuge, particularly sedge meadow,
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
II
shallow lake, oak savanna, prairie, and other
declining endemic habitat types, to meet the
needs of native plants and wildlife with empha-sis
on Service Regional Conservation Priority
Species. Crane Meadows NWR will remain
engaged in efforts to protect and enhance water
quality and natural hydrology in the watershed.
 Goal 2: Wildlife
Protect, restore, and maintain native wildlife
species to ensure biological diversity and abun-dance,
with special emphasis on Service
Regional Conservation Priority Species.
 Goal 3: People
As an active partner in collaborative conserva-tion,
the Refuge will provide quality wildlife-dependent
recreation, environmental education,
and outreach to a diverse audience. These activ-ities
will preserve cultural resources and pro-mote
understanding, appreciation, and support
for Crane Meadows NWR, the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and natural resource conserva-tion.
Objectives
The objectives are designed to guide the Refuge
toward the accomplishment of each goal. Additional
information, including rationales and strategies and
all tables and figures, can be found in Chapter 4 of
this document.
The goals and objectives of this plan are the man-agement
framework that provides direction and
continuity in Refuge programs over the next 15
years. Strategies and management activities are
suggested in this plan as ways to achieve specific
objectives. However, the planning process is an iter-ative
and adaptive cycle, making this CCP a living
document. A variety of different management appli-cations
may be adopted as technology improves,
new information becomes available, and new
approaches to natural resource conservation are
created.
Habitat Goal
Objective 1.1: Wetlands
Maintain existing wetland habitat, and restore
disturbed, altered, or degraded wetland areas
where feasible within 5 years of acquisition.
Over the long term (100-plus years) within the
full Refuge acquisition boundary, maintain
existing and restore drained or degraded wet-land
habitats in suitable areas to the desired
benchmark conditions to achieve a minimum of
8,000 acres (approximately 60 percent of the
Refuge) in a mosaic of wetland habitats with the
approximate desired acreages targets displayed
in Table 1. (see Figure 2 on page IV of this Sum-mary.)
Objective 1.2: Upland Prairie
Over the life of the plan:
Seed all newly acquired disturbed, altered, or
degraded upland areas to prairie (as a transition
step for southern dry savanna restoration)
using local ecotype seed characteristic of
savanna within 5 years of acquisition.
Restore 20 percent (approximately 75 acres) of
Service-owned upland prairie habitat to south-ern
dry savanna.
Within 3 years of plan approval identify the
highest quality Service-owned upland prairie
habitat to retain (see Figure 3 on page V for a
map of existing upland prairies on the Refuge).
Work in these areas to improve vegetation
structure and composition to desired bench-mark
habitat conditions and develop quality
prairie seed source areas. Benchmark habitat
conditions are described in Table 16 on page 83.
Crane Meadows NWR’s 2008 Habitat Day. Photo Credit: FWS
Summary Table 1: Habitat Vegetation: Current and Proposed, Crane
Meadows NWR
Habitat Type Habitata Service-owned Acres
(1,800)
Total Acquisition
Boundary Acres (13,540)
Currentb Approximate 15-
Year Objectivec
Current Approximate
Long-term
Objective
(100+ years)
Wetland Open Water 18 18 150 150
Wetland River/Stream 3 miles 3 miles 32 miles 32 miles
Wetland Emergent Marsh 100 100 1,600 1,600
Wetland Sedge Meadow 460 460 2,640 3,350
Wetland Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp 410 410 2,500 2,500
Wetland Southern Rich Conifer Swamp 0 0 0 100
Wetland Northern Floodplain Forest 50 50 435 300
Upland Prairie (Wet, Southern Mesic, and
Southern Dry)
380 305 910 500
Upland Southern Dry Savanna 5 210 185 4,700
Upland Jack Pine Woodland 10 5 85 0
Upland Oak Woodland 200 100 1,180 300
Upland Oak-Aspen Woodland 65 33 670 0
Upland Agriculture 10 0 2,940 0
Upland Conifer Plantation 10 0 200 0
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
III
Over the long term (100-plus years) within the
full Refuge acquisition boundary, maintain a
minimum of 4 percent (approximately 500
acres) upland prairie habitat at desired bench-mark
habitat conditions, transitioning the
remaining 3 percent (approximately 400 acres)
to southern dry savanna.
Objective 1.3: Southern Dry Savanna (Oak and Jack
Pine)
Over the life of the plan, begin restoring south-ern
dry savanna habitat to desired benchmark
conditions (see Table 16 on page 83) on 30 per-cent
(approximately 210 acres) of the total Ser-vice-
owned land. This acreage will come from
suitable existing upland prairie (approximately
75 acres) and oak woodland (approximately 135
acres) habitats.
Over the long term (100-plus years) within the
full Refuge acquisition boundary, establish and
maintain a minimum of 35 percent (approxi-mately
4,700 acres) southern dry savanna habi-tat
(see Figure 3 on page V). Existing oak
savanna will be retained (~200 acres), and res-toration
will occur on existing upland prairies
(~400 acres), oak woodlands (~1,550 acres),
conifer forests and plantations (~300 acres),
and agricultural areas (~2,250 acres).
a. Refuge vegetation was identified and quantified during a 2006 aerial imagery project conducted by the Service.
Habitat classes were later standardized using plant communities described the Minnesota DNR’s Field Guide
to the Native Plant Communities; Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (2005).
b. Current habitat acreages for both existing fee-title and acquisition boundary are approximate and based on
GIS area calculations.
c. These numbers only account for land currently-owned by the Service, and will change with any new land
acquisitions made by the Service over the 15-year planning period.
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
IV
Summary Figure 2: Desired Future Land Cover, Crane Meadows NWR
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
V
Summary Figure 3: Existing Upland Habitat Source Areas, Crane Meadows NWR
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
VI
Objective 1.4: Oak Woodland
Within 3 years of plan approval identify the
highest quality Service-owned oak woodland
habitat to retain (see Figure 3 on page V for a
map of existing oak woodlands). Begin thinning
50 percent of those stands outside the highest
quality oak woodlands selected to be retained to
the desired basal area (ranging from 5 to 50
square feet/acre) and species composition for
southern dry savanna habitat.
Over the long term (100-plus years) within the
full Refuge acquisition boundary, reduce cover-age
of oak woodland to 2 percent (approxi-mately
300 acres), transitioning approximately
1,550 acres to southern dry savanna. See
Appendix L for a complete description of the
desired habitat.
Objective 1.5: Water Resource Monitoring,
Management, and Watershed Conservation
Within 5 years of plan approval, begin regular
monitoring of the five major streams passing
through the Refuge acquisition boundary. Work
with partners to improve water quality with the
long-term goal of removing all Refuge waters
from state impaired waters lists.
Objective 1.6: Prescribed Fire
Implement and monitor a rotational prescribed
burn program over the life of the plan, accord-ing
to historic guidelines, that supports fire-dependent
vegetation communities on the Ref-uge
and reduces hazardous fuel loads.
Objective 1.7: Land Acquisition
Within 3 years of plan approval, update the land
acquisition priority map created for the environ-mental
assessment that established the Refuge.
Over the life of the plan, increase efforts to
make land acquisitions from willing landowners
in high priority areas.
Objective 1.8: Partners Program and FSA
Easements
Over the life of the plan, conduct a minimum of
100 habitat improvement projects through the
Partners program within Morrison County,
specifically targeting areas within, and up-watershed
of the Refuge acquisition boundary.
Ensure compliance of all properties with FSA
easements (annual monitoring) and Partners
program volunteer agreements (5-year moni-toring
cycle).
Wildlife Goal
Objective 2.1: Federal and State Threatened and
Endangered Species and/or Regional Species of
Conservation Priority
Participate in larger state and federal wildlife
population monitoring efforts for species of con-servation
concern. Within 5 years of plan
approval, develop and implement monitoring
programs for the Bald Eagle and Blanding’s
turtle.
Objective 2.2: Migratory Birds
Participate in larger state and federal wildlife
population monitoring efforts. Over the life of
the plan, conduct periodic monitoring of marsh
birds, songbirds, and other migratory bird spe-cies.
Objective 2.3: Native Plant Species
Within 5 years of plan approval, collaborate
with the Minnesota DNR and other partners to
conduct baseline inventories of plant species on
the Refuge.
Objective 2.4: Invasive and Exotic Plant Species
Within 5 years of plan approval, conduct a com-prehensive
survey to assess the extent of inva-sive
plant species on Service-owned Refuge
lands. Within 10 years no more than 10 percent
of acquired Refuge lands will be affected by
invasive plant species.
Objective 2.5: Wild Rice
Keep informed of the wild rice trends in the
wetland complex and assist with monitoring and
documenting wild rice trends through routine
Service aerial imagery vegetation surveys.
People Goal
Objective 3.1: Welcoming and Orienting Visitors
Bring all Refuge literature, web resources,
kiosks, and directional signage into compliance
with Service standards within 10 years of plan
approval, and expand welcoming and orienting
facilities at locations described in Table 2 on
page VIII and illustrated in Figure 4 on page
VII.
Objective 3.2: Hunting
Within 5 years of plan approval, work with part-ners
to open managed white-tailed deer and tur-key
hunts on specified Refuge units for hunters
with disabilities and for youth hunters.
Objective 3.3: Fishing
Within 3 years, evaluate the potential to estab-lish
seasonal bank fishing opportunities on the
Platte River West Unit; over the life of the plan
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
VII
Summary Figure 4: Future Visitor Facilities, Crane Meadows NWR
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
VIII
evaluate the potential for new bank fishing
opportunities as additional properties are
acquired.
Objective 3.4: Wildlife Observation and
Photography
Over the life of the plan, maintain existing wild-life
observation and photography infrastructure
and opportunities, and expand and promote
opportunities along the Soo Line Trail corridor
and on the Sedge Meadow Unit to correspond to
a 20 percent increase in Refuge visitation from
2009 levels (see Table 2).
Objective 3.5: Environmental Education and
Interpretation
Increase Refuge environmental education and
interpretation provision from 2009 levels, spe-cifically:
Increasing participation in programs by 20 per-cent
within 15 years.
Establishing new interpretive displays that con-vey
key habitat, wildlife, and other natural
resource messages to visitors on the following
Refuge units: Highway 27, Sedge Meadow,
Platte River West, and Soo Line East (see
Table 2).
Objective 3.6: Outreach and Partnerships
Maintain relationships with current partners
and existing outreach activities, and identify
and participate in at least 10 new outreach
opportunities or community activities over the
life of the plan to increase collaboration,
improve the public understanding of Crane
Meadows NWR and the Refuge System, and
reinforce the importance of natural resource
conservation.
Objective 3.7: Cultural Resource Management
Over the life of the plan, work to protect all cul-tural,
historic, and archaeological resources on
the Refuge.
Objective 3.8: Volunteers and Friends Group
Over the life of the plan, increase Friends group
membership by 10 percent, increase the 3-year
moving average of annual service hours contrib-uted
by volunteers an average of 1 percent per
year, and increase volunteer opportunities
related to resource monitoring, environmental
education, partnership development, land pro-tection,
and visitor services.
Objective 3.9: Law Enforcement
Work with local police authorities, state conser-vation
officers, and law enforcement officers
from other national wildlife refuges to ensure
visitor safety and resource protection. Work to
minimize the potential for incidents, violations,
and other illegal activities on the Refuge.
Objective 3.10: Staffing
Increase staffing from the existing two posi-tions
to the four positions projected by the 2008
Summary Table 2: Visitor Services Facilities Needs
Unit Additional Facilities Timeframe
Headquarters Kiosk (near office), outdoor classroom 5 years
Highway 27 Directional signage, kiosk, parking area 10 years
Soo Line Easta Kiosk 15 years
Platte River West Kiosk 15 years
Sedge Meadow Kiosk, observation platform, trail/boardwalk, parking area, restroom 15 years
a. The facilities at these locations will require partnerships with Morrison County Trail Associa-tion,
Minnesota DNR, and private landowners.
Habitat Day, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo credit: FWS
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
IX
Region 3 staffing model to accomplish the work
set forth by the CCP.
Environmental Assessment
The comprehensive conservation planning pro-cess
as guided by the National Environmental Pol-icy
Act (NEPA), calls for the consideration of
alternative management scenarios. Three manage-ment
alternatives were developed as a part of the
Environmental Assessment included in the Draft
CCP (see http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
CraneMeadows).
The first alternative for the future management
of Crane Meadows NWR, Alternative A, depicts a
continuation of current Refuge management, or a
‘no action’ scenario, as required by NEPA. In the
case of Crane Meadows NWR, land acquisition is
minimal, conservation work on private lands is
extensive, and both occur opportunistically. As land
is acquired quality habitats are maintained in their
current state, degraded habitats are improved or
restored, and all habitats are considered to have rel-atively
equal priority. There is an active prescribed
fire program, and little involvement with local water
resources which are under the jurisdiction of the
state. Wildlife management is minimal, and moni-toring
efforts follow existing, broader state and fed-eral
efforts. Visitor use is concentrated on a single
Refuge property, the Headquarters Unit, and con-sists
of wildlife observation, photography, hiking,
cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing as seasons
and trail conditions allow. No hunting or fishing is
permitted. There are half a dozen annual programs,
supported by an active Refuge Friends Group and
local volunteers. Staff is limited to two positions:
refuge wildlife specialist and maintenance.
The second alternative, Alternative B, portrays a
long-term vision for habitat restoration to near-his-toric
benchmark conditions and increases recreation
opportunities for visitors over the 15-year planning
horizon. Historic and other ecological data is used to
identify desired quantities of individual habitat
types for the entire Refuge acquisition boundary. A
diversity of wetland and savanna habitats is favored
to reinforce historic conditions, while prairie and
woodland are reduced over the long-term. This
alternative includes active participation in monitor-ing
and improving the upstream water resources
that affect the Refuge, and calls for adherence to a
well-developed prescribed fire plan. Land acquisi-tion
and work on private lands increases, and tar-gets
high priority areas. Biological inventory and
monitoring increase for wildlife species of concern,
guilds of birds, native plants, and invasive species.
Visitor services are offered at a greater number of
locations. In addition to increasing facilities on the
Headquarters Unit, new opportunities are provided
along Highway 27 on the northern boundary of the
Refuge, along the county-maintained Soo Line Rec-reational
Trail, and on the Sedge Meadow Unit.
Specific, managed hunts are offered, and opportuni-ties
for quality fishing experiences will be evaluated
as new lands are acquired. It is projected that these
changes and new opportunities will result in
increased visitation to the Refuge, increased atten-dance
in Refuge programs and events, and
increased participation in Friends Group and volun-teer
roles. This alternative also calls for full staffing
at Crane Meadows NWR, including four positions:
refuge wildlife specialist, biologist, administrative
assistant, and maintenance.
The third alternative, Alternative C, retains
many of the concepts and objectives from Alterna-tive
B, but increases the emphasis given to water
resources both on-Refuge and in the watershed
upstream of the wetland complex. This alternative
more directly addresses the principal establishing
purpose of the Refuge, for ‘... the conservation of the
wetlands of the Nation…’, and seeks to maximize
efforts to understand, protect, and conserve the
water resources that affect the Refuge’s rare and
unique wetland complex. Using Alternative B as a
base, Alternative C restores additional wetland and
upland acres up-watershed of the Refuge, expands
water resource monitoring and improvement activi-ties
throughout the east half of the Platte-Spunk
watershed, targets a limited quantity of additional
lands with critical water resource value adjacent to
the existing Refuge boundary for acquisition,
increases and directs private lands work to priority
aquatic and riparian areas upstream of the Refuge,
emphasizes fishing as a primary recreation opportu-nity,
directs additional education and interpretation
efforts to water resource topics, and highlights part-nerships,
outreach opportunities, and volunteerism
that occur within, or directly affect the Refuge’s
watershed.
Aerial view of the Platte River 40 Unit, Crane Meadows NWR.
Photo credit: FWS
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
X
Alternative B was selected as the preferred man-agement
option, and used to draft this CCP. The
CCP based on this alternative presents the most
viable combination of goals, objectives, and strate-gies
that we believe will best achieve the Refuge
vision, contribute to the NWRS mission, fulfill Ref-uge
purposes and legal mandates, address key
issues, incorporate sound principles of natural
resource management, and serve the American pub-lic
now and into the future. The CCP will guide man-agement
decisions and actions on the Refuge over
the next 15 years and will be used as a tool to help
natural resource agencies, conservation partners,
local communities, and the public understand our
priorities.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
Established in 1992 to conserve and protect the
diminishing number of high quality wetlands that
remain on the American landscape, Crane Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is not only the
location of one of the most intact wetland complexes
in the state; it also protects and maintains important
wildlife, recreation, and archaeological resources.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
establishes a blueprint for how the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will manage Crane Meadows NWR
over the next 15 years. By establishing goals for
Refuge management and identifying objectives and
strategies for achieving those goals, the Refuge’s
neighbors, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Friends of Crane Meadows NWR, and
others with an interest in the Refuge’s future will
have a clear picture of how the Service proposes to
manage the Refuge and a rationale for that manage-ment.
Located in central Minnesota (see Figure 1 on
page 2), Crane Meadows NWR falls in a transition
zone between the northern forests and the mid-con-tinental
prairies and is situated on the Anoka Sand
Plain only 5 miles from the Mississippi River. The
critical and diverse wetland habitats characteristic
of the Upper-Midwest provide important habitat for
local and migratory wildlife, maintain essential eco-logical
services, provide an element of water control
and flood relief, and offer unique recreation, educa-tion,
and research opportunities.
Presently, the Service has acquired just over
1,800 acres of the approved 13,540-acre acquisition
area. Approximately 900 acres are owned and man-aged
by the state, and the remaining land is pri-vately
owned (see Figure 2 on page 3). The resulting
landscape is a mosaic of land ownership and land-use
types surrounded predominantly by agriculture.
The Refuge is home to many native species and
serves as a nesting ground and stopover location for
several notable migratory bird species including the
Greater Sandhill Crane. The Refuge also contains
relatively rare habitat types including oak savanna,
sand prairie and sedge meadows.
The first chapter of this plan presents the organi-zational,
legal, and policy context of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System. Also included in Chapter 1 is the estab-lishment
of the Refuge, its history, purpose, and
vision. Chapter 2 outlines the process used to write
this plan, and describes the major issues pertaining
to management at Crane Meadows. Chapter 3
describes the Refuge in detail, including the current
management program. In Chapter 4, the future
management of the Refuge as defined in the pre-ferred
alternative of the Environmental Assessment
is described. This chapter also describes the goals,
objectives, and strategies chosen for implementa-tion.
Chapter 5 describes how the goals and objec-tives
of the plan will be accomplished in terms of
projects, staff, partnerships, and further planning
needs. The appendices present detailed information
not included in the narrative portion of the plan,
including planning term definitions, all cited refer-ences,
compliance requirements, refuge appropriate
use and compatibility determinations, and lists of
species, stakeholders, and projects.
Horned Grebes. Photo credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Figure 2: Land Ownership, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Crane Meadows NWR is administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary federal
agency responsible for conserving, protecting, an
enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations
and their habitats. The Service oversees the
enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management
and protection of migratory bird populations, resto-ration
of nationally significant fisheries, administra-tion
of the Endangered Species Act, restoration of
wildlife habitat such as wetlands, collaboration with
international conservation efforts, and the distribu-tion
of conservation funding to states, territories,
and tribes. Through its conservation work, the Ser-vice
also provides a healthy environment in which
Americans can engage in outdoor activities. Addi-tionally,
as one of three land managing agencies in
the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for the Nation’s
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Service is working with oth-ers
to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wild-life,
and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System was
founded in 1903 when President Theodore
Roosevelt designated a 3-acre island off the Florida
coast, Pelican Island, as a sanctuary for colonial
nesting birds. Today, the System has grown to a
network of more than 550 refuges, 37 wetland man-agement
districts, and 49 coordination areas cover-ing
approximately 150 million acres of public lands
and waters. Most of these lands are contained within
Alaska’s 16 national wildlife refuges with the
remainder distributed throughout the other 49
states and U.S. territories. Since 2006 Marine
National Monuments have been added to the Ref-uge
System, adding more than 50 million acres in
the Pacific Ocean to the Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands and waters specif-ically
designated and managed for fish and wildlife.
Overall, it provides habitat for more than 700 spe-cies
of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile
and amphibian species, 200 species of fish, and more
than 280 threatened or endangered plants and ani-mals.
As a result of international treaties for migra-tory
bird conservation and related legislation such
as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929,
many refuges have been established to protect
migratory waterfowl and their migration flyways
that extend from nesting grounds in the north to
wintering areas in the south. Refuges also play a
vital role in preserving threatened and endangered
species. For example, Aransas NWR in Texas
serves as the winter home of the Whooping Crane,
the Florida Panther Refuge protects its namesake,
Felis concolor coryii, one of the nation’s most
endangered mammals, while the Hawaiian Islands
Refuge is home to the Laysan Duck, Hawaiian monk
seal, and many other unique species.
Refuges also provide important recreation and
education opportunities for visitors. When public
uses are deemed appropriate and compatible with
wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places
where people can enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education,
environmental interpretation, and other recre-ational
activities. Many refuges have visitor centers,
wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental
education programs. Nationwide, more than 40 mil-lion
people visit national wildlife refuges annually.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
is “…to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future genera-tions
of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
Improvement Act of 1997 - Public Law 105-57).
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Revised goals for the National Wildlife Refuge
System were adopted on July 26, 2006, and incorpo-rated
into Part 601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wild-life
Service Manual (601 FW 1). The goals are:
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
Skunk Lake. Photo credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
 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 communities,
wetlands of national or international signifi-cance,
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.
Laws and Directives for Refuge
Planning
In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
Improvement Act of 1997 and a Refuge’s estab-lishing
and authorizing legislation, several federal
laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the
administration of each Refuge. Key legislative poli-cies
that direct refuge management include the
Endangered Species Act (1973), Clean Water Act
(1977), Land and Water Conservation Fund (1965),
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918). Appendix
F contains a partial list of the legal mandates that
guided the preparation of this plan and those that
pertain to Refuge management activities.
Laws and policies related directly to comprehen-sive
conservation planning include:
 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-57)
 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environ-mental
Health Policy (601 FW3)
 Compatibility Policy (603 FW2)
 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses (605 FW 1)
 Coordination with State Natural Resource
Agencies (601 FW 7)
 Public Participation in CCP Development (602
FW 3)
Purpose of a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
This CCP describes the management direction
and desired future conditions for Crane Meadows
NWR over the next 15 years. The plan provides
guidance and rationale for management actions and
will be used by the Refuge manager and staff as a
reference document when developing work plans
and making management decisions. Through the
development of goals, objectives, and strategies,
this CCP describes how the Refuge contributes to
the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, fulfills the purposes designated for the Ref-uge,
and uses the best available science for adaptive
management.
This plan will enhance the management of Crane
Meadows NWR by:
 Providing a clear statement of desired condi-tions
and management direction for the Refuge
 Maintaining continuity in Refuge management
over time
 Integrating Refuge activities with conservation
activities that occur in the surrounding region
 Ensuring that Refuge management is consis-tent
with all applicable laws, policies, and plans
 Providing Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the
general public with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around
the Refuge
 Facilitating public involvement in Refuge man-agement
decisions by providing a process for
effective coordination, interaction, and coopera-tion
with affected parties, including federal
agencies, state conservation organizations,
adjacent landowners, and interested members
of the public
 Demonstrating support for management deci-
Blue-winged Teal drake. Photo credit: Beau Liddell sions and their rationale using sound profes-
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
sional judgment, biological initiatives, and
public involvement
 Ensuring that Refuge management considers
the preservation of historic properties as part of
Refuge management and planning
 Providing a sound basis for budget requests to
meet Refuge operational, maintenance, and cap-ital
improvement needs
Refuge History and Establishment
In pre-colonial times a number of Native Ameri-can
groups including the Dakotah, and later the
Ojibwe, inhabited the central region of Minnesota.
Their life and culture are evidenced by the presence
of burial mounds and other artifacts in the area.
These Native American groups harvested wild rice
(Zizania spp.) from Rice and Skunk Lakes and nav-igated
adjacent creeks and rivers.
Among the first Europeans in the area were Eng-lish
and French fur traders in the 1600s. Morrison
County itself was named in honor of William and
Allan Morrison, two brothers who did a great deal of
trapping and trading throughout central and north-ern
Minnesota. In the early 1800s a number of
explorers passed through the region along the Mis-sissippi
River, including Zebulon Pike (1805) and
Joseph Nicollet (1836). Methodist missionaries were
among the first permanent European settlers, arriv-ing
around the middle of the 19th century. Building
missions and schools for the Ojibwe, they settled in
areas surrounding the Refuge such as Belle Prairie,
Sobieski, and Pierz. Logging interests increased
here around the turn of the century, harnessing the
Mississippi River to power a local sawmill in Little
Falls, Minnesota. The Historical Atlas of Minnesota
published in 1874 (Andreas) describes stands of
‘pine and mixed timber’ northeast of the Refuge,
‘mostly oak’ to the south and east, and ‘bur oak and
timber’ to the west. In the same period as agricul-ture
increased in the region additional mills were
built in Little Falls to grind flour.
Located 8 miles southeast of Little Falls, Crane
Meadows NWR is one of 12 refuges in the state of
Minnesota. Located about a 1-hour drive to the
southeast, Sherburne NWR is its closest neighbor-ing
refuge. The two refuges are under shared man-agement.
The wetland complex that comprises Crane
Meadows NWR includes two large shallow lakes,
Rice and Skunk, one smaller open water basin, Mud
Lake, and four watercourses that drain to this area;
the Platte River, Skunk River, Rice Creek and
Buckman Creek. These major hydrologic features
are surrounded primarily by sedge meadow wet-lands
and other bottomland habitats. The complex
has a history of extreme water fluctuations follow-ing
seasonal variations in rainfall and runoff. Flood-ing
is common in the spring due to snowmelt and
runoff from surrounding uplands and watercourses
that drain to the area. Typically, water levels
decrease during the summer months, then a resurge
and renewed flooding occurs in the fall. These natu-ral
cycles provide excellent habitat for fish, inverte-brates,
wild rice, and other aquatic vegetation,
which in turn supports large concentrations of
migratory waterfowl and other wildlife.
The wet conditions of this locality have limited
the types of land use on the Refuge through history,
and has directed attention in the area toward recre-ational
uses such as hunting and fishing. This area
was noted as a premier hunting destination in Min-nesota
as early as the 1930s. In the 1960s the Minne-sota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
began purchasing land in the complex, adding to the
agency’s system of Wildlife Management Areas
(WMA). In addition to acquiring almost 850 acres of
land in the early 1970s, the DNR constructed a weir
on the Platte River as it exits the wetland complex
to stabilize water levels and facilitate seasonal water
access to the shallow lakes. Over time, there has
been a trend toward land conversion from natural
cover types to agriculture and the intensification of
agriculture in the watershed, including the draining
and tiling of surrounding wetlands. These changes
have altered the flow dynamics of the hydrologic
system and impacted the quality of the water pass-ing
through the wetland complex.
In 1990, a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan was
created by the Service for the Midwest Region (Illi-nois,
Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin) in response to the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Of the six sites
identified for potential acquisition in Minnesota, the
Opossum. Photo Credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
wetland system at Crane Meadows NWR was
among the largest and most intact. The report indi-cated
that this area is: “One of the last undisturbed
wetland complexes in Central Minnesota. (An)
important area for waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes,
diverse vegetation communities, and nongame spe-cies
(FWS, 1990, p. 36).” The report identified an
area of 35,000 acres with conservation potential.
Subsequently, an environmental assessment was
conducted that, in June of 1992, authorized the
acquisition of 13,540 acres for a new refuge, Crane
Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) was a key part-ner
in the acquisition of the first set of properties for
the Refuge. The organization purchased seven prop-erties
totaling 1,070 acres within the acquisition
boundary in early 1990. The Nature Conservancy
then donated one property and leased the remaining
six to the Service in 1993, officially establishing a
land base of the Refuge. In the years to follow, 14
additional acquisitions were made as shown in
Table 1. The only congressional appropriation of
funds for land acquisition at Crane Meadows NWR
was made in 1995. Recent acquisitions have been
made from willing sellers through grants, donations,
and other funding sources.
Refuge Purposes
National wildlife refuges are established under a
variety of legislative acts and administrative orders
and authorities. These orders and authorities
include one or more specific purposes for which the
refuge lands are acquired. The purposes are of key
importance in refuge planning, and are the founda-tion
for management decisions. The purposes of a
refuge are specified in, or derived from the law,
proclamation, executive order, agreement, public
land order, donation document, or administrative
memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expand-ing
a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve
their purposes, and unless otherwise indicated by
the establishing document the following rules apply:
 Purposes dealing with the conservation, man-agement,
and restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plants, and their habitats take precedence over
other management and administration pur-poses.
 When in conflict, the purpose of an individual
refuge may supersede the Refuge System mis-sion.
 Where a refuge has multiple purposes related
to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the
more specific purpose will take precedence in
instances of conflict.
Table 1: Land Acquisition History at Crane Meadows NWR
Year Total Properties
Acquired Total Acres Acquired Total Refuge
Acres
1994 7 1,070.00 1070.00
1995 6 312.69 1382.69
1996 2 100.99 1483.68
1997 - - -
1998 2 140.00 1623.68
1999 - - -
2000 - - -
2001 1 - 1687.50
2002 - - -
2003 - - -
2004 1 26.67 1714.17
2005 - - -
2006 1 40.00 1754.17
2007 - - -
2008 1 48.42 1802.59
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
 When an additional unit is acquired under a dif-ferent
authority than that used to establish the
original unit, the addition takes on the pur-pose(
s) of the original unit, but the original unit
does not take on the purpose(s) of the addition.
The Refuge's establishing authorities and related
purposes include:
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
“... for the development, advancement, manage-ment,
conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)
“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the
terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant,
or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986
“... the conservation of the wetlands of the
Nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various migratory bird
treaties and conventions ...” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b),
100 Stat. 3583
The Refuge is also responsible for 21 conserva-tion
easements in Morrison County totaling 1,683.2
acres. The purpose of these easements “…for con-servation
purposes…” is derived from the Consoli-dated
Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961 (7
USC 2002). The Service administers Farm Service
Administration (FSA) easements as part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Refuge Vision
The vision provides a simple statement of the
desired future condition of the Refuge. It provides a
sense of direction and an ideal for what the Refuge
will become through effective management. The
purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Sys-tem
provide the foundation for the vision, and are
enhanced by the unique characteristics of the Ref-uge
and local environment.
Crane Meadows NWR Vision Statement
Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is a
unique sand plain wetland/upland complex with
a rich mosaic of healthy sedge meadow, shallow
lake, oak savanna, prairie, shrubland, and forest
habitats. The Refuge encompasses a large
intact wetland system at the confluence of four
tributaries that feed high quality water to Rice
and Skunk Lakes and the Platte River. The Ref-uge
provides important habitat for cranes,
waterfowl, and a diversity of other wildlife. Visi-tors
enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent recre-ation
activities that inspire a heightened
environmental ethic and active support for the
Refuge and its programs. Crane Meadows
NWR is an outstanding example of sound wild-life
management and habitat restoration within
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Ring-necked Ducks on Rice Lake, in front of Crane Meadows
NWR property. Photo credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The CCP Planning Process
The CCP for Crane Meadows NWR was written
with contributions and assistance from citizens, uni-versities,
the Minnesota DNR, and non-governmen-tal
organizations (NGOs). The participation of these
stakeholders is vital, and their contributions have
been valuable in determining the future direction of
the Refuge. Refuge and Service planning staff are
grateful to all who have contributed time, expertise,
and ideas throughout the CCP process.
Writing a comprehensive conservation plan takes
an average of two to three years, and involves a
great deal of effort on the part of the Refuge and
regional planning staff. The process can be divided
into five stages; preplanning, scoping, alternative
development, draft preparation and review, and
final document preparation and approval.
Preplanning
Preplanning occurs before the formal planning
period begins, and at Crane Meadows NWR initial
conversations commenced nearly a year in advance
of the first official CCP meetings. During preplan-ning,
policy is reviewed, the core planning team is
established, a planning record is created, interest
groups are identified, and an initial planning time-line
is drafted. Studies, reports, surveys, research
and monitoring activities, previous planning efforts,
historical documents, and other background infor-mation
and data resources were gathered and
reviewed during this period, and a number of stud-ies
were conducted including a aerial imagery-based
vegetation study and a green infrastructure assess-ment
of the local conservation landscape.
Scoping
The formal planning process begins with the
scoping period, which involves a thorough assess-ment
of issues, concerns, opinions, thoughts, ideas,
concepts, and visions for the Refuge.
The scoping period was officially launched in
December 2008 with a kick-off meeting held at
Crane Meadows NWR. Refuge and regional plan-ning
staff met to review existing baseline data, dis-cuss
the Refuge vision statement and goals, and
review relevant planning documents. A list of
required CCP elements was also developed at this
meeting and during subsequent e-mail and tele-phone
communications between Refuge staff and
the Service’s regional office. In addition to identify-ing
information that would be needed in the plan-ning
process, Refuge staff also developed a list of
stakeholders, and a preliminary list of issues, con-cerns,
challenges, opportunities, new directions, and
potential sources of conflict to be addressed in the
CCP.
The next step was for the planning team to ask
neighbors, state agencies, tribal government, non-government
organizations and others interested in
the future of the Refuge to identify the issues and
opportunities they see confronting the Refuge. The
public scoping period began on January 21, 2009,
and ended on March 6, 2009. The comment period
was announced in local media, and people were
invited to submit comments to the Refuge. An open
house was held in the Refuge maintenance building
on February 19, 2009, to give the public an opportu-nity
to discuss ideas with Refuge staff and regional
Oak savanna, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo credit: FWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
planners. More than 50 people attended the open
house, and the Refuge received a total of 20 written
comments during the public scoping period.
During the last week of March 2009, the Refuge
hosted a planning workshop where participants
helped review, evaluate, and plan the biological and
visitor services programs at the Refuge. An initial
set of alternative management themes was also
developed during this workshop.
The semi-final stage of scoping took place at the
regional office. During this step in the scoping pro-cess,
leaders from the Refuge System, Migratory
Birds, Ecological Services and other key Midwest
Region programs further developed and refined the
list of issues that would be addressed in the CCP.
Refuge staff and planning staff met with a variety of
Service personnel in the Regional Office in a meet-ing
held the first week May 2009.
The final approval for scoping issues was
received from the national FWS office in Washing-ton,
D.C., the third week of May 2009, following the
preparation and routing of a scoping briefing state-ment.
The issues brought forth during the scoping
phase bring important topics to the attention of the
plan’s authors, and are used to inform the writing of
the alternative management scenarios in the Envi-ronmental
Assessment. One of the proposed alter-natives
will ultimately be chosen as the future
direction of the Refuge. The issues, concerns, and
opportunities expressed during the first phase of
planning have been organized under the following
headings:
Habitat
Issue Statement: If the integrity of this unique,
relatively unaltered wetland ecosystem is to persist,
it must be protected. The remaining intact wetland
and upland habitat needs to be combined with
restored adjacent areas to achieve a healthy, natural
system resembling historic conditions.
Background: The relatively unaltered state of
Crane Meadows NWR’s wetland habitats generated
a great deal of interest in habitat conservation at the
Refuge. In general, public comments emphasized a
desire to protect intact habitats and restore altered
habitats to historic conditions. The need to safe-guard
specific habitat types, including prairie and
oak savanna, was brought up in numerous com-ments.
Related comments acknowledged the need
for a prescribed burn program to mimic historic dis-turbance
cycles and maintain a diversity of succes-sional
habitat stages.
Land Acquisition
Issue statement: The slow growth of the Refuge
has proven frustrating for numerous supporters of
the Refuge. Small, scattered tracts of land make
habitat management less efficient, diminish the ben-efit
to wildlife, make law enforcement more difficult,
and increase the potential for conflicts with neigh-bors.
Background: With ownership of approximately
1,800 acres of the 13,540 acres approved for acquisi-tion,
land acquisition continues to be among the pri-mary
concerns for Crane Meadows NWR. Since its
establishment in 1992, the Refuge has worked with
willing sellers inside the approved acquisition
boundary, yet land acquisition has been slow and
has faced a number of challenges. Land acquisition
is dependent on the willingness of owners to sell to
the Service, the availability of funding, the patience
of private landowners with the lengthy process, and
the resistance to competition from other interested
buyers. As a result, property acquisition to date has
been opportunistic and piecemeal, resulting in scat-tered
land ownership and challenges to manage-ment
and law enforcement. In addition, agricultural
development has increased within and bordering the
Yellow-headed Blackbird, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo credit:
FWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Refuge acquisition boundary in recent years - spe-cifically
large-scale dairy, pork, and poultry installa-tions.
During public scoping, some people suggested
that acquisition efforts focus on specific targets,
such as critical habitat. Additional comments indi-cated
that the public would like to see the Refuge
shift from an opportunistic approach to land acquisi-tion
and conservation, in which the Service buys
land anywhere within the boundary as willing sell-ers
emerge and restores private lands as opportuni-ties
arise, to adopting a more strategic approach
that targets critical habitat.
Water Resources
Issue Statement: Water quality, a key factor in
the health of the Rice-Skunk wetland complex, is
threatened by hydrologic alteration, pollution, and
sedimentation from adjacent land uses.
Background: More than 55 percent of the Refuge
is comprised wetland habitats and open water. Con-cerns
related to water that were raised during scop-ing
range from issues of quality to quantity.
Furthermore, all open waters on the Refuge are
under state management and publicly accessible,
necessitating partnerships and larger collaborative
efforts. Specific comments received expressed con-cerns
about the impacts of increasing agricultural
development in the form of field drainage, center
pivot irrigation, and animal installations; nutrient
loading, eutrophication, and the presence of other
pollutants in area lakes and streams; water volume
fluctuations in the wetland complex, associated
effects on the annual wild rice crop, and the DNR
weir on the Platte River; and the access to recre-ation
on Rice and Skunk Lakes including potential
effects on wildlife.
Wildlife
Issue statement: There are numerous threats to
the long-term persistence of healthy wildlife popula-tions
at Crane Meadows NWR including habitat dis-turbance,
contamination and disease, competition
from exotic/invasive species, and the lack of moni-toring
and research necessary for management.
Background: Wildlife at Crane Meadows NWR
includes an abundance of birds, mammals, fish, rep-tiles,
amphibians, invertebrates, and both state-listed
and federally-listed species. Comments
received during scoping related to wildlife issues
included the concern that increasing visitation on
the Refuge could have negative impacts on wildlife;
the need to further inventory and monitor plants
and animals, particularly rare or declining plant
species that may be present on the Refuge; the
threat of invasive species on the Refuge such as pur-ple
loosestrife, reed canary grass, phragmites, and
carp; concerns about the effects of animal installa-tions
on local wildlife, such as avian transmitted dis-eases;
depredation of crops by cranes, geese, and
deer; and the potential decline of the brown trout
fishery on the south spur of the Refuge.
Visitor Services
Hunting
Issue Statement: Some people would like to have
the opportunity to hunt on Refuge lands, others
would like to see the Refuge maintained as sanctu-ary
for wildlife. Nevertheless, the lack of a large,
contiguous land base presents challenges to offering
high-quality and safe hunting opportunities.
Background: Hunting was originally discussed
during public meetings that led to the establishment
of Crane Meadows NWR in 1992, and has remained
a public expectation ever since. Currently no hunt-ing
is allowed on the Refuge because Service prop-erties
are small and scattered, boundary signage is
limited, and boundaries are difficult to enforce.
Fishing
Issue Statement: Some individuals would like to
see the Refuge allow shoreline fishing opportunities,
and others expressed opposition to fishing from Ref-uge
shores.
Background: Fishing from boats, as well as spear
fishing are commonplace on the waters at Crane
Meadows NWR because all open waters at the Ref-uge
are managed by the state and are accessible to
the public. Fishing from the shores of the Refuge,
however, is not currently permitted.
Environmental Education
Issue Statement: Environmental education facili-ties
and programming are currently limited at
Crane Meadows NWR. There is interest in expand-ing
the visitor services programming to include
facilities such as an outdoor classroom and increas-ing
staff so that the Refuge can offer environmental
education programming in area schools.
Background: Education and associated interac-tion
with area schools was the second most common
topic found in public comments, after land acquisi-tion.
There is interest and potential for Crane
Meadows NWR to become more active with envi-ronmental
education in local communities. Parallel-ing
this public interest, is the Service’s recent
initiative, “Connecting People with Nature” which
has an emphasis on getting people outdoors, espe-cially
children. Nature is important to children's
intellectual, emotional, social, and physical develop-ment.
Recommendations were made that the Ref-uge
establish an outdoor classroom, increase staff
involvement with area schools, increase events and
programs for the public, and work to better define
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
and increase public understanding of the Refuge’s
identity, purpose, role in the community, and
responsibilities.
Trails
Issue Statement: Motorized vehicles that are pro-hibited
on the Refuge are permitted on the Soo Line
multiple-use trail that transects the Refuge, and
some people would like to see greater education and
law enforcement efforts to ensure appropriate trail
use.
Background: Trails received some comment from
the public – particularly the Soo Line multiple-use
trail which transects the acquisition boundary and
allows some motorized uses not typically associated
with national wildlife refuges.
Facilities
Issue Statement: Visitor services facilities on the
Refuge are not sufficient to welcome, orient, and
inform visitors.
Background: Facilities have expanded and
improved over the past few years at Crane Mead-ows
NWR, and their use continues to increase.
However, some people commented that visitor use
can be improved by increasing staff available to
greet the public, increasing landholdings within the
Refuge acquisition boundary, and augmenting exist-ing
visitor facilities. Comments advocated for a per-manently
staffed visitor center, increased signage
and brochures, a wetland boardwalk, and additional
platforms for wildlife observation and fishing.
Archaeological Resources
Issue Statement: There are a number of cultural
resources within the Refuge acquisition boundary
that are not adequately identified or protected.
Background: The Refuge and surrounding areas
were active Native American sites, and host a num-ber
of historical and cultural resources. Some stud-ies
have been conducted, but more research and
surveys of the area are needed to understand the
scope and extent of these cultural resources.
Support
Issue Statement: To meet current and future
management needs at the Refuge, additional sup-port
in the form of staffing and partnerships will be
needed.
Background: The Refuge currently has two full-time
positions: a private lands biologist/refuge oper-ations
specialist, and a maintenance worker. During
public scoping, some comments urged the Service to
increase staffing to provide the resources for addi-tional
programming, research, monitoring, law
enforcement, and other management activities. The
needs noted by the public include a full-time man-ager,
personnel to staff a visitor center, and addi-tional
help with the field activities such as
prescribed burning and habitat restoration.
The importance of partnerships and the benefit of
additional staffing at Crane Meadows NWR were
commonly discussed topics during CCP scoping.
With steadily increasing human populations and
associated effects on the landscape, it has become
imperative for natural resource agencies and orga-nizations
to collaborate and seek creative ways to
coordinate conservation efforts. This can both
reduce redundancy in conservation efforts, and
increase efficiency in protecting natural landscapes.
With approximately 900 acres of land within the
acquisition boundary and a parallel mission, the
Minnesota DNR offers a unique and important part-nership
opportunity. Recommendations were also
made to augment the relationship with Camp Ripley
north of the Refuge, whose 53,000 acres support
over 600 plant species, 202 migratory birds, 51 spe-cies
of mammals, and 23 species of reptiles and
amphibians.
Alternatives Development
The practice of developing management alterna-tives
as a part of the Refuge planning process is
derived from the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1970 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] This
act requires federal agencies to consider the
impacts of proposed actions and to develop a reason-able
range of alternatives to those actions.
The development of an initial set of alternative
management themes occurred during the Refuge
planning workshop in March 2009. The resulting set
of four alternatives was further refined and ulti-mately
reduced to three during the Alternatives
Workshop held in September 2009. The Alternatives
Workshop included both Service and state repre-sentatives,
and was used to define and clarify the
details for management under each of the three
alternatives. The draft objectives and strategies
were finalized in a meeting at Sherburne NWR in
January 2010.
Preparation, Review, and Finalization of
the CCP
The CCP for Crane Meadows NWR was pre-pared
by a team consisting of Refuge and Regional
Office staff, and state partners. The first complete
draft was completed in June 2010. The CCP was
then published in two phases, draft and final, in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The Draft Environmental Assess-ment,
Appendix A of the Draft CCP, presented a
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
range of alternatives for future management and
identified the preferred alternative, which was the
basis for the CCP.
The Draft CCP/EA was first reviewed and
revised by Refuge and Regional Office staff, a time
period that culminated with an internal review
meeting at the Midwest Regional Office on June 11,
2010. The Draft CCP/EA was then released to the
public for a 31-day review period running from July
7 to August 6, 2010. The public was notified of the
release with a notice in the Federal Register as well
as through local media outlets.
A summary brochure or the full Draft CCP/EA
was sent to approximately 265 individuals, organiza-tions,
elected officials, and local, state, and federal
agencies; and an electronic copy was made available
on the Service’s website.
An open house was held during the comment
period (July 20, 2010) in the Refuge maintenance
building, providing the public with an opportunity to
discuss the plan with Service staff. One comment
was submitted and three individuals attended this
event.
During the full public review period, only three
written comments were received by the Service,
none of which recommended changes to the pre-ferred
alternative. Due to limited feedback, only
minor grammatical and editorial changes were
made to the draft in preparing the final CCP. Con-sequently,
no formal Response to Comments
Appendix was produced for this CCP.
The final CCP will become the basis for guiding
management on the Refuge over the coming 15-year
period. It will also guide the development of more
detailed step-down management plans for specific
resource areas, and it will underpin the annual bud-geting
process through Service-wide allocation
databases. Most importantly, it will lay out the gen-eral
approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and vis-itor
services at Crane Meadows NWR, and will
direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the leg-islative
boundaries of the Refuge were reviewed for
wilderness suitability. The Wilderness Act of 1964
defines and outlines the requirements for a wilder-ness
area as follows:
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas
where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area
where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain. An area of wilder-ness
is further defined…(as) an area of undevel-oped
Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, without permanent
improvements or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions and which (1) generally
appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work
substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding
opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least
five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient
size as to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may
also contain ecological, geological, or other fea-tures
of scientific, educational, scenic, or histori-cal
value.”
No lands at Crane Meadows NWR were found
suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined by
the Wilderness Act. The Refuge does not contain
5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor does it have any
units of sufficient size to make preservation practi-cable
as Wilderness. Lands and waters within the
defined acquisition boundary have been substan-tially
affected by humans, particularly through agri-culture,
transportation infrastructure, and water
control.
Waterfowl on Rice Lake. Photo Credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Section 1 – Refuge Environment
Introduction
Crane Meadows NWR was established in 1992 to
protect one of the largest, most intact wetland com-plexes
remaining in central Minnesota. Described as
a ‘sand plain wetland/upland complex’, the Refuge
habitats are a unique mosaic of droughty, sandy
uplands consisting of prairies, oak savannas, and
mixed forests; and diverse, poorly-drained wetland
habitats including sedge meadow, shallow lake,
scrub-shrub, and bottomland forest communities.
These habitats provide valuable respite from sur-rounding
agricultural and developed land uses for
many species of migratory birds, fish, reptiles, and
other wildlife. Species present on the Refuge
include a number of state and federally listed plants
and animals such as the tubercled rein-orchid and
Blanding’s turtle.
In the thin transitional zone between the conti-nent’s
central prairies and northern boreal forests,
Crane Meadows NWR’s location provides an inter-esting
case study for the effects of global climate
change as weather patterns and disturbance
regimes change, biomes shift, and species distribu-tions,
phenologies, and interactions evolve. The Ref-uge
also drains nearly 275,000 acres of upstream
watershed area extending northeast to the periph-ery
of Lake Mille Lacs, making it an important filter
for the Mississippi River just 5 miles downstream.
Within the 13,540-acre area proposed for acquisi-tion
encompassing the wetland system, the mix of
land ownership includes the Service (just over 1,800
acres), state landholdings (approximately 900
acres), as well as hunt clubs, a diversity of agricul-ture
interests, and private residences. Land acquisi-tion
for the Refuge continues slowly as resources
permit. Beyond the natural resource conservation
innate to national wildlife refuges in the form of eco-logical
services, habitats, and wildlife, the acquisi-tion
boundary also contains an array of
archaeological sites and recreation opportunities.
With a local staff of two and support from Sher-burne
NWR (the two refuges form the Sherburne-
Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Com-plex),
Crane Meadows NWR maintains strong rela-tionships
with conservation partners and
surrounding communities through its Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program, Friends group, and a
number of popular Refuge programs.
As one of the most recent additions to Minne-sota’s
12 national wildlife refuges, it contributes to
the Refuge System mission by enhancing the
“…national network of lands and waters for…fish,
wildlife, and plant resources, and their habitats…”
Other Units Administered
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements
The 1985 Farm Bill’s ‘Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act’ contained provisions for
the protection of wetlands against conversion to
agriculture. The Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA) was given authority for the Farm Debt
Restructure and Conservation Set-aside Conserva-tion
Easements – properties foreclosed on by the
federal government, otherwise known as “inventory
properties.” Lands appropriate for the conservation
easement program had important natural resource
interests such as wetlands, floodplains, riparian cor-ridors,
endangered species habitat, and the uplands
necessary to protect bottomland habitats.
An agreement between the FmHA and the FWS
authorized the Service, as the ‘easement manager,’
to protect these lands for conservation, recreational,
Crane Meadows NWR Office. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
and wildlife purposes. The Service Easement Man-ual
(DOI 2005) states that, “The agreed upon pur-poses
of this easement are the preservation and
maintenance of the wetland and floodplain areas
existing as of the date of this conveyance as well as
protection and enhancement of plant and animal
habitat and populations.” Farm Service Administra-tion
(FSA, previously FmHA) easements are admin-istered
by the Service as part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System pursuant to the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16
U.S.C. 668dd et. seq.), and thus they are subject to
compatibility regulations and other relevant NWRS
policy.
The Sherburne-Crane Meadows NWR Complex
is responsible for the FSA easements in six Minne-sota
counties: Benton, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs,
Morrison, and Pine. Of these counties, Crane Mead-ows
NWR staff is responsible for the oversight and
management of the 21 easements in Morrison
County, including a total of 1,683.2 acres (see Figure
3 on page 16).
The Service is authorized to protect and manage
important natural resource interests on FSA ease-ment
properties. Ownership of the easement land is
typically retained by private individuals, but with
deed restrictions related to conservation manage-ment.
Because of the high degree of variability
between individual FSA easements, review of the
easement files is necessary in evaluating Service-related
management actions and enforcement activ-ities.
In general, service employees are responsible for
habitat management and are granted access for
maintenance, monitoring, enforcement, and other
necessary management activities. The Service
Easement Manual describes management rights as
follows:
“…include, but are not limited to, inspection for
compliance with the terms of this easement;
research regarding water, wetlands, fish and
wildlife and associated ecology; and any other
activity consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of wetland functional values
(D.O.I. 2005).”
There is no public access to these easement prop-erties
unless explicitly stated in an individual ease-ment
document. According to policy, FSA
conservation easements are checked annually using
aerial or ground surveys for compliance, including
boundary signs, trespass, and various other infrac-tions.
The Local Conservation Landscape
With a greater emphasis now being placed on
land conservation networks, habitat corridors, and
the strategic growth of the conservation estate,
existing conservation landholdings may serve as the
foundation on which a web of lands with conserva-tion
values can be designed and created.
The Minnesota DNR is the single largest player
in the conservation landscape of Minnesota. There
are also a number of other constituent groups that
contribute to the conservation estate of the area sur-rounding
Crane Meadows NWR. See Figure 4 on
page 17 and Figure 5 on page 18 for illustration of
the conservation lands within the acquisition bound-ary,
those within 5 and 10 mile buffers of the acqui-sition
boundary, and the large conservation
landholdings in the broader landscape.
Within the Crane Meadows NWR authorized
acquisition boundary, three DNR divisions own a
combined acreage of almost 900 acres. The largest is
held by the Division of Fish and Wildlife (848 acres)
and is divided among the four units of its Rice-
Skunk Wildlife Management Area and the single-unit
Crane Meadows Wildlife Management Area.
State Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) form the
backbone of Minnesota DNR wildlife management
by providing important habitat for wildlife, as well
as public recreation opportunities including hunting,
trapping, fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing, snow
shoeing, and wildlife observation. Currently there
are more than 1,380 WMAs in the state of Minne-sota,
encompassing over 1.2 million acres.
The larger of the two WMAs inside the Refuge
acquisition boundary is the Rice-Skunk WMA at 659
acres. The largest of its four units is the Skunk Lake
East Unit (426 acres), and as the name infers it is
located on the southeast side of Skunk Lake. This
unit is accessible from 113 Street on the north side
of the parcel, with some limited access from the Soo
Line trail, and provides public access onto Mud
Lake during waterfowl season. The other Rice-
Lesser and Greater Scaup, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: Skunk WMA units include the Skunk Lake West
Beau Liddell
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
Figure 3: FSA Easements Administered by Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Figure 4: Surrounding Conservation Lands, Crane Meadows NWR (1)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Figure 5: Surrounding Conservation Lands, Crane Meadows NWR (2)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
Unit, 112 acres located on the southwest edge of
Skunk Lake, just north of a Crane Meadows NWR
tract, and providing access to Skunk Lake; the Rice
Lake Unit located east of where Rice Lake empties
into the Platte River. This 84-acre area contains the
George Selke Memorial Dam and provides public
access to the Platte River above the dam and to the
entire shallow lake complex. The last unit of the
Rice-Skunk WMA is called the Platte River 40. This
37-acre tract is located along the east side of the
Platte River south of County Road 35.
The other WMA within the Refuge boundary is
the Crane Meadows WMA. Its 189-acre tract is
located just south of Kettle Road and provides
water access onto Buckman Creek.
The Division of Forestry owns a 40-acre property
located in Agram Township (southeast quarter,
southeast quarter, Section 16). During the original
land surveys in Minnesota, sections 16 and 36 of
each township were given to the state as timber
units to help fund local school systems. If sold, the
revenue generated from these sections would either
go into a trust for the school or be used for the bet-terment
of the school system. Because the 40-acre
section in the Crane Meadows NWR acquisition
boundary consists of predominantly bottomland and
wetland habitats, it is not considered productive for-est
land and little interest has been shown in the
property.
The third and final state division represented
within the authorized acquisition boundary is the
Division of Parks and Trails Sauk Rapids office,
which owns an unnamed 3.5-acre public water
access area on the west side off County 256. This
parcel gives boaters access to the Platte River south
of the low-flow dam.
There are six additional WMAs and a few miscel-laneous
conservation lands outside of the Refuge
acquisition boundary but within 5 miles of the Ref-uge.
Rice Area Sportsmen’s Club WMA (580 acres)
is located approximately 1 mile east and Coon Lake
WMA (54 acres) is just over 3.5 miles east of the
Refuge. Four miles due south in Benton County
there is a 368-acre WMA, Sartell, which is the site of
the first habitat project funded by the state Duck
Stamp. The McDougall WMA (228 acres) is 4 miles
southwest of the Refuge, and it is bordered on the
south by 215 acres of The Nature Conservancy land
know as the McDougall Homestead. Popple Lake
(223 acres) is just over 2 miles west of the Refuge
and Ereaux WMA (527 acres) is located 3.5 miles
northwest of the Refuge. The same DNR Division
(Fish and Wildlife) also manages the Pierz Lake
Fish Management Area 1.5 miles northeast of the
Refuge, and a number of additional Division of For-estry
School Trust Fund sections are found within
the 5-mile radius.
Several conservation areas are located within a
10-mile radius of the Refuge’s acquisition boundary.
Areas south of the Refuge and east of the Missis-sippi
River in Benton County include:
 Graham WMA (Main Unit is 329 acres, North-west
Unit is 40 acres)
 Benton WMA (82 acres)
 Wisneski WMA (164 acres)
 Michaelson Farm WMA (276 acres along the
Mississippi River)
 Bend in the River Regional Park (289 acres)
 The Minnesota DNR, Division of Waters, Ben-ton
County Water Bank
The Mississippi River County Park (209 acres)
and the Brockway Waterfowl Production Area
(FWS) in Stearns County are southwest of the Ref-uge
and west of the Mississippi River. The Charles
A. Lindbergh State Park has two units west and
northwest of the Refuge, the Main Unit (436 acres)
and North Little Elk Heritage Preserve Unit (93
acres) respectively. With both units are located
along the Mississippi River, there is a visitors cen-ter,
the Lindbergh House and Weyerhaeuser
Museum, trails for hiking and skiing, picnic areas,
fishing, and canoeing access. Adjacent to the Main
Unit of the State Park is the 7.3-acre Pike Creek/
Mississippi Boat Landing, which provides boat
access, a parking area, fishing dock, and restrooms.
Otter Point WMA (34 acres) and Belle Prairie
County Park (138 acres) in Morrison County are
west and northwest of the Refuge, respectively. The
Belle Prairie County Park offers a variety of recre-
Green-backed Heron, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
ational amenities such as hiking trails, a boat land-ing,
parking areas, a picnic shelter, a playground,
restrooms, scenic overlooks, and open-site picnic
areas.
The southeastern tip of Camp Ripley also falls
within the 10-mile radius. Camp Ripley is a military
training site occupying 52,758 acres (approximately
82 square miles) in the northwestern extension of
Morrison County. The Mississippi River forms its
eastern boundary, and the Crow Wing River runs
along its northern border. Although the state-owned
land is managed by the Department of Military
Affairs and serves as a National Guard training site,
the site is managed via dual objectives to provide
military training and minimize disturbance to the
compound’s natural resources. The site is a mosaic
of upland and bottomland habitats, historical sites,
old farmsteads, unrestricted training areas, and
restricted access sites. The forests and other vege-tative
communities are actively monitored and man-aged,
including 16 Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) plots located on the compound. There are
active wildlife monitoring programs ranging from
fisheries surveys to monitoring two gray wolf packs
that inhabit the site. There is also an active hunting
program. The facility’s land conservation mission
extends beyond the boundaries in the form of an
Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB). Using con-servation
easements and other means, the goal of
this zone is to limit development and encroachment
within a 3-mile buffer of the site. By 2007, approxi-mately
175 willing landowners had enrolled in the
program, representing 25,000 acres of conserved
land (Dirks, Diets, and DeJong 2008).
Major conservation landholdings in the broader
landscape surrounding Crane Meadows NWR
include Sherburne NWR (30,700 acres) to the south-east,
Camp Ripley (see above) and the Pillsbury
State Forest – Minnesota’s first state forest (25,612
acres) to the northwest, and to the west are Mille
Lacs Kathio State Park (10,585 acres), Mille Lacs
WMA (38,729 acres), and the Rum River State For-est
with 33,180 acres in the statutory boundary –
17,164 acres are state-owned and 16,016 are pri-vately
owned.
One additional feature of the conservation land-scape
in the vicinity of the Refuge is a former rail-road
grade of the Soo Line Railroad that has been
converted to a recreation trail. Administered by the
county, west of trailhead at Highway 10 the Soo
Line Recreational Trail is paved. From April 1
through October 31 of each year the west trail is
available to walkers, hikers, cyclists, and in-line
skaters, and with adequate snow cover (3-plus
inches) from December 1 through March 31 the trail
is open to snowmobilers and cross-country skiers.
The east portion of the trail, which bisects the Ref-uge,
is considered a multi-mode trail. It’s open to
walkers, hikers, cyclists, horseback riders, and all-terrain
vehicles from April 1 through October 31
each year. The remainder of the year the east trail
has the same use as the west section.
The Refuge System is positioned well to play an
integral role in the design and implementation of a
regional conservation network, the foundation of
which is likely to be the existing conservation estate.
The growing emphasis on landscape-level issues has
demanded a shift in the scale at which environmen-tal
problems are approached. To continue providing
the ecological services that sustain wildlife and
human populations alike, the Service is looking out-side
Refuge boundaries and engaging in conversa-tions
with other members of the conservation
community. It is only through collaborative efforts
and partnerships – both public and private – that
natural resource issues of modern magnitudes and
larger geographic scales can be effectively
addressed.
Ecological Context
From largest to smallest spatial extent in the
National Hierarchy of Ecological Units, which
delimits geographic areas of different biological and
physical potential, Crane Meadows NWR lies in the
Humid Temperate Domain, the Hot Continental
Division, Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, the
Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal/Oak
Savanna Section, the Anoka Sand Plain Subsection,
and the Agram Sand Plain Landtype Association
(Bailey 1980, 1995; Cleland, et al. 1997).
The Humid Temperate Domain (see Figure 6 on
page 21) encompasses the non-arid mid-latitude
land masses from 30 to 60 degrees north latitude.
This includes the West Coast of the United States,
and most of the eastern half of the country. Polar
and tropical air masses interact in these zones creat-ing
a diversity of weather conditions, and in general
there is a strong seasonality to temperature and
precipitation regimes.
The geographic variability of winter frost deter-mines
to which division an area belongs, with Crane
Meadows NWR in the Hot Continental Division (see
Figure 6). This division is characterized by hot sum-mers
and cool winters, with a growing season of 3-6
months, varying with latitude. It is also dominated
by tall broadleaf trees with canopy cover in the sum-mer
and a leafless, dormant winter period (Bailey
1995).
The Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental)
Province (see Figure 6) marks the transition zone
between open grasslands to the west and the mixed
forests to the east, covering approximately 270,000
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
square miles of the nation. This ecotype extends in
an arc from Minnesota along the southern edge of
the Great Lakes, and reaches as far south as the top
of Alabama. It is typified by rolling moderate relief
and drought-resistant oak-hickory associations of
broadleaf forest with increasing maple-basswood
associations in northern ranges. The Minnesota por-tion
of this province encompasses nearly 12 million
acres and is characterized by a precipitation that is
approximately equal to the rate of evapotranspira-tion,
an annual precipitation range from 24 to 35
inches northwest to southeast, and a normal annual
temperature that varies from 38 degrees to 46
degrees Fahrenheit northwest to southeast. This is
a species-rich province, and many of the species are
at the western edge of their ranges. The Minnesota
DNR recognizes 205 Species of Greatest Conserva-tion
Need (SGCN) in this province, citing habitat
loss and degradation, invasive species, pollution, and
interactions with humans as major factors affecting
their survival (Minnesota DNR 2005, 2006b and
2009b, Bailey 2009).
The Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal/
Oak Savanna Section (see Figure 6) is a mosaic of
morainal, till, and outwash plain areas 30 to 500 feet
thick resulting from past glacial activity. In general,
poor drainage is associated with the section, leading
to an abundance of fluvial systems but relatively few
open water and wetland features. However, termi-nal
moraines in the northern reaches near Crane
Meadows NWR have led to an abundance of surface
waters, wetlands, and undeveloped drainage net-works.
Fire frequency, duration, and intensity
played a major role in the configuration of pre-set-tlement
habitats, therefore, the landscape came to
be dominated by prairie, savanna, and oak and
aspen woodlands; and patches of forest were able to
form along rivers, streams, and lakes. Descriptions
of the historic vegetation vary by account, but
include tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, maple-bass-wood
forest, oak-hickory forest, and floodplain for-est.
Elevation in the Section ranges from 1,000 to
1,600 feet (Minnesota DNR 2009c, USFS 2009).
The Anoka Sand Plain Subsection (see Figure 7
on page 22) is nearly 1.2 million acres of broad, flat,
sandy lake plain deposited by Gransburg sublobe
meltwater from the Des Moines lobe of receding
Pleistocene glaciers. Both drought and fire played
major roles in shaping the vegetation structure. The
vegetation communities consisted of aspen wood-lands,
oak barrens, prairie and savanna openings,
dry prairies, and brushlands on the droughty
Figure 6: Ecological Context, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
Figure 7: Minnesota’s Ecological Subsections and Landtype Associations
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
uplands, with bogs, fens, wet prairies, emergent
marshes, shrub swamps, and bottomland forest in
low-lying areas. Trees characteristic to this subsec-tion
include bur oak, northern pin oak, and jack pine
(Kratz and Jensen 1983). Bottomland forest formed
along the Mississippi, and upland prairie formed in
areas with enough moisture to sustain a diversity of
prairie grasses. Ninety-seven Species of Greatest
Conservation Need occur in this subsection, 39 of
which are threatened, endangered, or of special con-cern
at the federal or state level. This subsection
contains some of the best oak savanna habitats in
Minnesota, and provides important stopovers for
migratory birds (Albert 1995, Minnesota DNR
2006b and 2009a).
Crane Meadows NWR falls completely with the
Agram Sand Plain Landtype Association (LTA), one
of 291 LTAs in Minnesota defined primarily by their
soil complexes and vegetation communities (see
Figure 7 inset). The description of the LTA por-trays
a rolling glacially-formed outwash plain, sandy
soils with a coarse loamy surface mantle, and a pre-settlement
vegetation mixture of oak savannas, wet
prairies, and brush prairies.
Historic Vegetation
Land surveys were conducted by the General
Land Office (GLO) between 1848 and 1907 in Minne-sota.
These records note tree species and diameters,
general topography, soil quality, and vegetative
cover along a 1-mile by 1-mile grid of section line
transects. It is important to note that the Public
Land Survey notes were not taken with the inten-tion
to objectively document vegetation, but were
instead compiled to record land information for the
sale of the nation’s lands to generate revenue for the
federal government (Almendinger 1997). Despite
certain biases, these records can be used to gain
insights into the pre-settlement landscape and to
establish a baseline for historic vegetation condi-tions.
The survey descriptions for the lands within the
Crane Meadows NWR acquisition boundary occur
primarily in two townships. The Rice-Skunk wet-land
complex is in Agram Township, (T40N, R31W),
and the southern extension of the Refuge is in Buck-man
Township, (T39N, R31W). Both townships
were surveyed in December 1849 and August 1852.
There are countless accounts of entering and
exiting marshes, swamps, rivers, streams, and
brooks in survey descriptions for Agram Township.
The land is described as ranging from level, slightly/
gently rolling, to hilly, with widths of brush areas
and streams measured in links, with one link equal-ing
7.92 inches. The bearing trees described consist
of only five species. The dominant bearing tree spe-cies
is bur oak with an average diameter of 8-10
inches, and ranging from 5-24 inches. Black oak and
jack pine are also commonly used as reference trees.
The black oaks are slightly larger in diameter than
the bur oaks, with an average of 10-15 inches, and
the jack pines ranged from 8-30 inches with no dis-tinguishable
average. All three of these wooded
areas were encountered as “oak and pine barrens,”
“scattering timber,” or “occasional oaks” alluding to
an oak savanna cover type. Areas of willow-alder
brush are also very common in the descriptions.
Aspen appear sporadically, and there is only one
mention of a 10-inch maple in the entire set of sur-vey
notes. Prairie and grass areas are mentioned
less often, perhaps due to the limited utility of these
areas for survey delineation. There are numerous
accounts of “marshes unfit for cultivation” and
“mostly uncultivable willow and alder swamps.”
Interestingly, the Rice-Skunk wetland area has at
least two descriptions of wild rice, including, “The
lake is full of wild rice,” and “The lake is so filled
with vegetation and wild rice that it is impassible
(US OSG 1852).”
To the south, Buckman Township tends to have
slightly less marsh areas and wetlands, more grass,
more aspen, and a larger surface area described as
oak barrens with slightly smaller tree diameters (5-
10 inches) than the northern. There are more
descriptions of soil conditions being either poor or
great, and even occasional references to marshes
being good for hay. Again, bur and black oak, aspen,
and jack pine are the dominant bearing trees. A typ-ical
description in this township may state some-thing
similar to, “The land is broken marshy prairie,
some scattering oaks,” or “The land is gently roll-ing,
soil great, the timber is scattering oak and pine
(US OSG 1852).”
The GLO Public Land Survey Notes in Minne-sota
were analyzed in 1930 by Francis Joseph
Marschner, a geographer with the USDA’s Bureau
of Agriculture Economics. The survey notes, along
with supplementary information such as landforms,
were used to classify the state lands by vegetation
type, then compiled into maps subsequently digi-tized
by the Minnesota DNR. Consistent with the
GLO notes but adding the spatial distribution, the
Marschner map for Crane Meadows NWR (see Fig-ure
8 on page 24) shows two dominant vegetative
types: wet prairie and oak openings/barrens. Small
areas within the acquisition boundary are also
depicted as prairie, brush prairie, or conifer bogs/
swamps (Marschner 1930). Approximate GIS acre-ages
for these historic cover types are illustrated in
Table 2 on page 25.
In addition to the GLO survey notes describing
historic vegetation conditions, information con-tained
in soil surveys can be used to understand the
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Figure 8: Presettlement Vegetation Based on the Marschner Map, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
vegetative capacity of a landscape. The soils in a
given locality are a result of the parent rock mate-rial,
organisms, climate, and relief as they interact
over time. These factors, and the resulting soils,
limit which vegetation communities can take hold in
a geographic locale. Soil survey data collected over
the past century by the USDA’s Natural Resource
Conservation Service includes written descriptions
of native vegetation, which can be linked to the pri-mary
soil unit and mapped. Figure 9 on page 26 uses
data from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
Database to d