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 Minnesota, and the remaining land is privately owned. 

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has 

been prepared for the Refuge that will guide management 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 established purposes of Crane Meadows NWR.

A 30-day public review and comment period for 

the Draft CCP provided an opportunity for everyone who cares about the Refuge and its future management – 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 refuge are discussed and evaluated by Service employees, partners, stakeholders, and the public with 

regard to species, habitats, visitor services, facilities, 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 identify and define the most suitable, or ‘preferred’ management plan for the Refuge. The CCP describes 

the results of that process and the details of the preferred alternative. In this document, the broad goals 

of the preferred alternative are defined and measureable 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 onand 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 emphasis 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 abundance, with special emphasis on Service 

Regional Conservation Priority Species. 

 Goal 3: People

As an active partner in collaborative conservation, the Refuge will provide quality wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, 

and outreach to a diverse audience. These activities will preserve cultural resources and promote understanding, appreciation, and support 

for Crane Meadows NWR, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and natural resource conservation. 

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 management 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 iterative and adaptive cycle, making this CCP a living 

document. A variety of different management applications 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 wetland 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 Summary.)

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 southern 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 benchmark 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 benchmark 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 southern dry savanna habitat to desired benchmark 

conditions (see Table 16 on page 83) on 30 percent (approximately 210 acres) of the total Service-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 (approximately 4,700 acres) southern dry savanna habitat (see Figure 3 on page V). Existing oak 

savanna will be retained (~200 acres), and restoration 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 coverage of oak woodland to 2 percent (approximately 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, according to historic guidelines, that supports firedependent vegetation communities on the Refuge 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 environmental 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 upwatershed of the Refuge acquisition boundary. 

Ensure compliance of all properties with FSA 

easements (annual monitoring) and Partners 

program volunteer agreements (5-year monitoring 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 conservation 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 species.

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 comprehensive survey to assess the extent of invasive 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 partners to open managed white-tailed deer and turkey hunts on specified Refuge units for hunters 

with disabilities and for youth hunters.

Objective 3.3: Fishing

Within 3 years, evaluate the potential to establish 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 wildlife 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, specifically:

Increasing participation in programs by 20 percent within 15 years. 

Establishing new interpretive displays that convey 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 cultural, 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 contributed by volunteers an average of 1 percent per 

year, and increase volunteer opportunities 

related to resource monitoring, environmental 

education, partnership development, land protection, and visitor services.

Objective 3.9: Law Enforcement

Work with local police authorities, state conservation 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 positions 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 Association, 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 process as guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), calls for the consideration of 

alternative management scenarios. Three management 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 relatively 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 monitoring efforts follow existing, broader state and federal efforts. Visitor use is concentrated on a single 

Refuge property, the Headquarters Unit, and consists 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-historic 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 monitoring and improving the upstream water resources 

that affect the Refuge, and calls for adherence to a 

well-developed prescribed fire plan. Land acquisition and work on private lands increases, and targets 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 Recreational Trail, and on the Sedge Meadow Unit. 

Specific, managed hunts are offered, and opportunities 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 attendance in Refuge programs and events, and 

increased participation in Friends Group and volunteer 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 Alternative 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 activities 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 opportunity, directs additional education and interpretation 

efforts to water resource topics, and highlights partnerships, 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 management option, and used to draft this CCP. The 

CCP based on this alternative presents the most 

viable combination of goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best achieve the Refuge 

vision, contribute to the NWRS mission, fulfill Refuge purposes and legal mandates, address key 

issues, incorporate sound principles of natural 

resource management, and serve the American public now and into the future. The CCP will guide management 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 management.

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-continental 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 ecological services, provide an element of water control 

and flood relief, and offer unique recreation, education, 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 managed by the state, and the remaining land is privately owned (see Figure 2 on page 3). The resulting 

landscape is a mosaic of land ownership and landuse 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 organizational, legal, and policy context of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Also included in Chapter 1 is the establishment 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 preferred alternative of the Environmental Assessment 

is described. This chapter also describes the goals, 

objectives, and strategies chosen for implementation. Chapter 5 describes how the goals and objectives 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 references, 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, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, restoration of 

wildlife habitat such as wetlands, collaboration with 

international conservation efforts, and the distribution of conservation funding to states, territories, 

and tribes. Through its conservation work, the Service also provides a healthy environment in which 

Americans can engage in outdoor activities. Additionally, 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 others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, 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 management districts, and 49 coordination areas covering 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 Refuge 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 specifically designated and managed for fish and wildlife. 

Overall, it provides habitat for more than 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile 

and amphibian species, 200 species of fish, and more 

than 280 threatened or endangered plants and animals. As a result of international treaties for migratory 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 recreational activities. Many refuges have visitor centers, 

wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental 

education programs. Nationwide, more than 40 million people visit national wildlife refuges annually.

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “...to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 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 incorporated into Part 601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (601 FW 1). The goals are:

 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

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 interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations 

that is strategically distributed and carefully 

managed to meet important life history needs of 

these species across their ranges.

 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are 

unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in 

existing protection efforts.

 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 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 System Improvement Act of 1997 and a Refuge’s establishing and authorizing legislation, several federal 

laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the 

administration of each Refuge. Key legislative policies 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 comprehensive conservation planning include:

 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-57)

 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 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 Refuge, 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 conditions 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 consistent 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 management decisions by providing a process for 

effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with affected parties, including federal 

agencies, state conservation organizations, 

adjacent landowners, and interested members 

of the public

 Demonstrating support for management decisions and their rationale using sound profes- Blue-winged Teal drake. Photo credit: Beau Liddell
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 capital improvement needs

Refuge History and Establishment

In pre-colonial times a number of Native American 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 navigated adjacent creeks and rivers. 

Among the first Europeans in the area were English 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 northern Minnesota. In the early 1800s a number of 

explorers passed through the region along the Mississippi River, including Zebulon Pike (1805) and 

Joseph Nicollet (1836). Methodist missionaries were 

among the first permanent European settlers, arriving 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 agriculture 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 neighboring refuge. The two refuges are under shared management. 

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 wetlands and other bottomland habitats. The complex 

has a history of extreme water fluctuations following seasonal variations in rainfall and runoff. Flooding 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 natural cycles provide excellent habitat for fish, invertebrates, 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 recreational uses such as hunting and fishing. This area 

was noted as a premier hunting destination in Minnesota as early as the 1930s. In the 1960s the Minnesota 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 passing through the wetland complex. 

 In 1990, a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan was 

created by the Service for the Midwest Region (Illinois, 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 indicated 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 species (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 partner in the acquisition of the first set of properties for 

the Refuge. The organization purchased seven properties 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 foundation 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 expanding 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, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and their habitats take precedence over 

other management and administration purposes.

 When in conflict, the purpose of an individual 

refuge may supersede the Refuge System mission.

 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 different authority than that used to establish the 

original unit, the addition takes on the purpose(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, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the 

terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, 

or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)

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 conservation easements in Morrison County totaling 1,683.2 

acres. The purpose of these easements “...for conservation purposes...” is derived from the Consolidated 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 System provide the foundation for the vision, and are 

enhanced by the unique characteristics of the Refuge 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 Refuge provides important habitat for cranes, 

waterfowl, and a diversity of other wildlife. Visitors enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent recreation 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 wildlife 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, universities, the Minnesota DNR, and non-governmental 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 preplanning, policy is reviewed, the core planning team is 

established, a planning record is created, interest 

groups are identified, and an initial planning timeline is drafted. Studies, reports, surveys, research 

and monitoring activities, previous planning efforts, 

historical documents, and other background information and data resources were gathered and 

reviewed during this period, and a number of studies were conducted including a aerial imagery-based 

vegetation study and a green infrastructure assessment of the local conservation landscape. 

Scoping

The formal planning process begins with the 

scoping period, which involves a thorough assessment 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 planning staff met to review existing baseline data, discuss 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 telephone communications between Refuge staff and 

the Service’s regional office. In addition to identifying information that would be needed in the planning process, Refuge staff also developed a list of 

stakeholders, and a preliminary list of issues, concerns, 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, nongovernment 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 opportunity 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 process, 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 meeting held the first week May 2009.

The final approval for scoping issues was 

received from the national FWS office in Washington, D.C., the third week of May 2009, following the 

preparation and routing of a scoping briefing statement.

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 Environmental Assessment. One of the proposed alternatives 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 safeguard specific habitat types, including prairie and 

oak savanna, was brought up in numerous comments. Related comments acknowledged the need 

for a prescribed burn program to mimic historic disturbance cycles and maintain a diversity of successional 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 benefit to wildlife, make law enforcement more difficult, 

and increase the potential for conflicts with neighbors. 

Background: With ownership of approximately 

1,800 acres of the 13,540 acres approved for acquisition, land acquisition continues to be among the primary 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 scattered land ownership and challenges to management 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 - specifically large-scale dairy, pork, and poultry installations. During public scoping, some people suggested 

that acquisition efforts focus on specific targets, 

such as critical habitat. Additional comments indicated that the public would like to see the Refuge 

shift from an opportunistic approach to land acquisition and conservation, in which the Service buys 

land anywhere within the boundary as willing sellers emerge and restores private lands as opportunities 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. Concerns related to water that were raised during scoping 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 concerns 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 recreation 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 populations at Crane Meadows NWR including habitat disturbance, contamination and disease, competition 

from exotic/invasive species, and the lack of monitoring and research necessary for management.

Background: Wildlife at Crane Meadows NWR 

includes an abundance of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and both statelisted 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 purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, phragmites, and 

carp; concerns about the effects of animal installations on local wildlife, such as avian transmitted diseases; 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 sanctuary 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 hunting is allowed on the Refuge because Service properties 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 Refuge 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 Refuge 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 facilities and programming are currently limited at 

Crane Meadows NWR. There is interest in expanding the visitor services programming to include 

facilities such as an outdoor classroom and increasing staff so that the Refuge can offer environmental 

education programming in area schools. 

Background: Education and associated interaction with area schools was the second most common 

topic found in public comments, after land acquisition. There is interest and potential for Crane 

Meadows NWR to become more active with environmental education in local communities. Paralleling this public interest, is the Service’s recent 

initiative, “Connecting People with Nature” which 

has an emphasis on getting people outdoors, especially children. Nature is important to children's 

intellectual, emotional, social, and physical development. Recommendations were made that the Refuge 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 prohibited 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 Meadows 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 existing visitor facilities. Comments advocated for a permanently 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 number of historical and cultural resources. Some studies 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 support in the form of staffing and partnerships will be 

needed.

Background: The Refuge currently has two fulltime positions: a private lands biologist/refuge operations specialist, and a maintenance worker. During 

public scoping, some comments urged the Service to 

increase staffing to provide the resources for additional programming, research, monitoring, law 

enforcement, and other management activities. The 

needs noted by the public include a full-time manager, personnel to staff a visitor center, and additional 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 organizations 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 partnership 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 species of mammals, and 23 species of reptiles and 

amphibians.

Alternatives Development

The practice of developing management alternatives 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 reasonable 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 ultimately reduced to three during the Alternatives 

Workshop held in September 2009. The Alternatives 

Workshop included both Service and state representatives, 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 prepared 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 Assessment, 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, organizations, 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 preferred alternative. Due to limited feedback, only 

minor grammatical and editorial changes were 

made to the draft in preparing the final CCP. Consequently, 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 budgeting process through Service-wide allocation 

databases. Most importantly, it will lay out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and visitor 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 legislative boundaries of the Refuge were reviewed for 

wilderness suitability. The Wilderness Act of 1964 

defines and outlines the requirements for a wilderness 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 wilderness is further defined...(as) an area of undeveloped 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 features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 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 practicable as Wilderness. Lands and waters within the 

defined acquisition boundary have been substantially affected by humans, particularly through agriculture, 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 complexes 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 surrounding 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 continent’s central prairies and northern boreal forests, 

Crane Meadows NWR’s location provides an interesting case study for the effects of global climate 

change as weather patterns and disturbance 

regimes change, biomes shift, and species distributions, phenologies, and interactions evolve. The Refuge also drains nearly 275,000 acres of upstream 

watershed area extending northeast to the periphery 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 acquisition 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 agriculture interests, and private residences. Land acquisition for the Refuge continues slowly as resources 

permit. Beyond the natural resource conservation 

innate to national wildlife refuges in the form of ecological services, habitats, and wildlife, the acquisition boundary also contains an array of 

archaeological sites and recreation opportunities. 

With a local staff of two and support from Sherburne NWR (the two refuges form the SherburneCrane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Complex), Crane Meadows NWR maintains strong relationships 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 Minnesota’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 Conservation 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 corridors, 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 Manual (DOI 2005) states that, “The agreed upon purposes 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 Administration (FSA, previously FmHA) easements are administered 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 Minnesota counties: Benton, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, 

Morrison, and Pine. Of these counties, Crane Meadows 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 easement properties. Ownership of the easement land is 

typically retained by private individuals, but with 

deed restrictions related to conservation management. Because of the high degree of variability 

between individual FSA easements, review of the 

easement files is necessary in evaluating Servicerelated management actions and enforcement activities. 

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 properties unless explicitly stated in an individual easement document. According to policy, FSA 

conservation easements are checked annually using 

aerial or ground surveys for compliance, including 

boundary signs, trespass, and various other infractions.

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 conservation 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 surrounding Crane Meadows NWR. See Figure 4 on 

page 17 and Figure 5 on page 18 for illustration of 

the conservation lands within the acquisition boundary, those within 5 and 10 mile buffers of the acquisition 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 RiceSkunk Wildlife Management Area and the singleunit 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 Minnesota, 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 RiceSkunk WMA units include the Skunk Lake West Lesser and Greater Scaup, Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: 

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 betterment 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 forest 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 miscellaneous conservation lands outside of the Refuge 

acquisition boundary but within 5 miles of the Refuge. 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 Forestry 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 Mississippi River in Benton County include:

 Graham WMA (Main Unit is 329 acres, Northwest 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, Benton County Water Bank 

The Mississippi River County Park (209 acres) 

and the Brockway Waterfowl Production Area 

(FWS) in Stearns County are southwest of the Refuge 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 center, 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 recreGreen-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 landing, 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 vegetative communities are actively monitored and managed, 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 conservation 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, approximately 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 southeast, 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 Forest with 33,180 acres in the statutory boundary – 

17,164 acres are state-owned and 16,016 are privately owned. 

One additional feature of the conservation landscape in the vicinity of the Refuge is a former railroad 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 Refuge, is considered a multi-mode trail. It’s open to 

walkers, hikers, cyclists, horseback riders, and allterrain 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 environmental problems are approached. To continue providing 

the ecological services that sustain wildlife and 

human populations alike, the Service is looking outside Refuge boundaries and engaging in conversations 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 creating a diversity of weather conditions, and in general 

there is a strong seasonality to temperature and 

precipitation regimes. 

The geographic variability of winter frost determines to which division an area belongs, with Crane 

Meadows NWR in the Hot Continental Division (see 

Figure 6). This division is characterized by hot summers 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 summer 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 portion of this province encompasses nearly 12 million 

acres and is characterized by a precipitation that is 

approximately equal to the rate of evapotranspiration, 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 Conservation 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, terminal moraines in the northern reaches near Crane 

Meadows NWR have led to an abundance of surface 

waters, wetlands, and undeveloped drainage networks. Fire frequency, duration, and intensity 

played a major role in the configuration of pre-settlement 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-basswood forest, oak-hickory forest, and floodplain forest. 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 woodlands, 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 subsection 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 concern 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 portrays a rolling glacially-formed outwash plain, sandy 

soils with a coarse loamy surface mantle, and a presettlement 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 Minnesota. 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 intention 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 conditions. 

The survey descriptions for the lands within the 

Crane Meadows NWR acquisition boundary occur 

primarily in two townships. The Rice-Skunk wetland complex is in Agram Township, (T40N, R31W), 

and the southern extension of the Refuge is in Buckman 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 equaling 7.92 inches. The bearing trees described consist 

of only five species. The dominant bearing tree species 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 distinguishable 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 survey 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 typical description in this township may state something similar to, “The land is broken marshy prairie, 

some scattering oaks,” or “The land is gently rolling, soil great, the timber is scattering oak and pine 

(US OSG 1852).” 

The GLO Public Land Survey Notes in Minnesota 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 digitized by the Minnesota DNR. Consistent with the 

GLO notes but adding the spatial distribution, the 

Marschner map for Crane Meadows NWR (see Figure 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 acreages 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 contained 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 material, 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 primary soil unit and mapped. Figure 9 on page 26 uses 

data from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database to display the potential natural vegetation 

at Crane Meadows NWR. Using the information 

from this database, wetland areas and open water 

constitute nearly half of the area in the acquisition 

boundary (6,332 acres), another quarter (3,679 

acres) is in upland forest, and the remainder is 

either upland forest with prairie openings/oak 

savanna (1,836 acres), bottomland forest with wetland openings (1,717 acres), or simply bottomland 

forest (245 acres). All acreages (see Table 3 on 

page 27) are approximations based on USGS NRCS 

GIS data (USDA 2009). 

Current Land Use / Land Cover

According to work done by the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 

Morrison County’s 1,124 square miles are less than 

6 percent developed, and agriculture is the dominant land use comprising approximately 37 percent 

of the county. Additionally, over a quarter of the 

county is forested (29 percent) and another quarter 

is some form of grass/shrub/wetland (26 percent) 

cover type. Open water comprises just over 2 percent of the County (University of Minnesota 2007).

The 21-class land cover dataset developed by the 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

using 2001 Landsat imagery1 can be used to understand the geographic distribution of land use in the 

area around the Refuge (USGS 2003). Using a 10-

mile buffer, 67.7 percent of the land use surrounding 

the Refuge is row crops or pasture, forests make up 

another 14 percent, herbaceous wetlands 7 percent, 

grasslands another 3 percent, and open water is just 

under 2 percent. Developed or urban areas comprise just over 5 percent of the 10-mile peripheral 

zone, including the towns of Little Falls, Pierz, Royalton, and Rice, parts of the Camp Ripley National 

Guard Training Center, and major roadways. Figure 10 on page 28 and Table 4 on page 29 portray 

and summarize these data. 

The land use proportions change in an analysis of 

the land only within Crane Meadows NWR’s acquisition boundary. Agriculture is still a major component at approximately 33 percent, but is surpassed 

as the largest cover type by herbaceous wetlands 

(36 percent). Roads become the only distinguishable 

developed areas, and natural cover types increase 

slightly in proportion; forest is over 18 percent, and 

open water and grassland are around 5 percent each 

(see Figure 11 on page 30 and Table 4 on page 29). 

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

North American bird conservation efforts have 

evolved in recent decades from predominantly localized efforts to landscape-level initiatives with separate planning emphases on guilds of birds and a 

greater emphasis on collaborative management. 

With more than 700 species of birds in the United 

States, Crane Meadows NWR hosts a diversity of 

waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds. 

The Refuge’s position in the Mississippi Flyway (see

Figure 12 on page 31) makes this wetland complex 

Table 2: Marschner’s Pre-settlement Vegetation

General Vegetation Type

GIS Acresa

Acquisition Boundary Service-owned land

Conifer Bogs and Swamps 803.2 203.5

Oak openings and barrens 5871.5 242.5

Brush Prairie 197.1 0.0

Prairie 3,48.2 40.1

Wet Prairie 6,630.0 1,269.6

Total Calculated GIS Acres 13,850.0 1,755.7

a. All acreages are approximate GIS acres.

1. This medium resolution data is based on a 

classification of 30-meter Landsat imagery 

from 2001. The land surface is generalized to 

some extent in assigning pixel values, and 

land uses may have changed since the data 

was created.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Figure 9: Soil Survey Vegetation Data, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

an important stopover as birds travel from their 

breeding grounds in the North to their wintering 

areas in the South. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

 Waterfowl (family Anatidae, including ducks, 

geese, and swans) are economically important for 

both hunting and wildlife observation activities, can 

be used as indicators of environmental health, and 

are an important part of wetland ecosystems. Habitat loss resulting from agriculture, urbanization, 

and industrial activities has caused their numbers to 

decline in recent decades.

The North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan (FWS 1986, updated in 1994, 1998, and 2004) is 

a 15-year plan that sets up a framework for cooperative planning and coordinated management between 

the United States and Canada to increase populations to acceptable and desired levels. It describes 

appropriate waterfowl population goals, and also 

provides recommended actions for reaching the 

population levels. One major result of the plan was 

the establishment of joint ventures between private 

and government organizations within geographic 

regions to coordinate waterfowl research and management activities. These joint ventures assist in 

integrating continental migratory bird priorities 

into regional, state, and local level conservation programs. Constituents include individuals, businesses, 

nongovernmental organizations, and local, state and 

federal government representatives. 

Crane Meadows NWR lies within the Upper Mississippi/Great Lakes Joint Venture (UM/GL JV) 

region, yet it is only 10 miles from the border with 

the Prairie Pothole region (see Figure 12 on page 

31). The UM/GL JV was formed in 1993 and has 

protected, restored, and enhanced more than 

522,000 acres of habitat. Habitat conservation strategy handbooks for each bird-group – shorebirds, 

landbirds, waterbirds, and waterfowl – along with 

an overarching implementation plan were released 

in 2007 to provide guidelines for the habitat types 

and quantities required to sustain target bird populations. These new plans use the latest geospatial

Table 3: Potential Vegetation Derived from Soil Survey (SSURGO) Information

Landscape 

Position Cover Type Classification Forest Type Prairie Type

GIS Acresa

Acquisition 

Boundary

Service-owned 

Land

Upland Forest Deciduous - 316.9 2.3

Upland Forest Conifer - 2,601.9 197.5

Upland Forest Mixed - 759.9 173.8

Upland Savanna Mixed No Prairie Type Info 179.4 110.6

Upland Mixed Forest and Prairie Deciduous Tallgrass 827.3 60.8

Upland Mixed Forest and Prairie Mixed No Prairie Type Info 352.1 37.0

Upland Prairie With Some Trees Deciduous Tallgrass 476.7 19.9

Bottomland Forest Bottomland 

Mixed

- 245.0 20.0

Bottomland Forest With Some Prairie 

Areas

Bottomland 

Mixed

Wet 1717.4 89.1

Bottomland Prairie With Some Trees Bottomland 

Deciduous

Wet 1,461.6 129.4

Bottomland Prairie - Wet 3,864.1 797.8

Bottomland Bog - - 118.3 52.2

Bottomland Water - - 887.6 62.8

Total Calculated GIS Acres 13,808.2 1,753.2

a. All acreages are approximate GIS acres.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 10: Land Cover Within a 10-mile Radius of Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

analysis tools along with the most current scientific 

knowledge in their biological planning, regional 

landscape design, and strategies for projects, monitoring, research, communication, and outreach.

Established in 1987, the Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture includes one-third of North America’s Prairie Pothole Region contained within the United 

States (approximately 100,000 square miles). This 

landscape of depressional wetlands and grasslands 

combined with the Prairie Pothole Region in Canada constitute one of the largest and most productive concentrations of wetland habitat in the world. 

Native birds include 18 species of waterfowl, 96 species of songbirds, 36 species of waterbirds, 17 species of raptors, and five species of upland game 

birds. Due to productive soils and abundant water, 

much of the Prairie Pothole region has been drained 

and used for agriculture or grazing. The Joint Venture works to counter this trend by saving or restoring high priority wetland areas and adjacent native 

prairie and grassland habitat throughout the region. 

Their 2005 Implementation Plan calls for the protection of 1.4 million additional wetland acres and 

10.4 million acres of grassland (Ringelman 2005). 

North American Landbird Conservation Plan 

In contrast to the other three bird plans referenced here, the target species of the North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight 

2004) focuses on birds that inhabit predominantly 

terrestrial habitats. 

Approximately 448 landbirds breed in the U.S. 

and Canada, and as international resources this plan 

is drawn at a continental scale. Landbirds contribute to the economy in a number of ways. First and 

foremost they provide ecosystem services including 

pollination, seed dispersal, and the consumption of 

insect pests. They also provide recreation opportunities such as wildlife observation and photography. 

The loss, modification, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat constitute the primary threat for 

landbirds, including neotropical migrants, short-distance migrants, and largely resident species. This 

plan identifies 192 species of continental importance. Approximately half (100) of these species are 

on a ‘Watch List’ because of a threatened/endangered population status. The remaining 92, as well 

as 66 species from the Watch List, are considered 

‘Stewardship Species’ because they characterize 

and typify biogeographic regions of North America 

(See Figure 12 on page 31). These regions are based 

on Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) devised by 

Table 4: Land Cover Types in the Vicinity of Crane Meadows NWR

Cover Type

Percent

10 Miles Acquisition 

Boundary

Open Water 1.7 5.1

Developed, Open Space 4.7 1.7

Developed, Low Intensity 0.5 -

Developed, Medium Intensity 0.1 -

Developed, High Intensity - -

Barren Land - -

Deciduous Forest 12.8 17.6

Coniferous Forest 1.3 0.9

Mixed Forest - -

Scrub/Shrub 0.2 0.1

Grassland 2.8 4.5

Pasture/Hay 32.1 19.2

Cultivated Cropland 35.6 14.2

Woody Wetland 0.9 0.5

Herbaceous Wetland 7.2 36.2
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Figure 11: Land Cover Within Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

the North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

(NABCI), but have been merged into larger biogeographic units shown in Figure 12 (Rich et al. 2004). 

Second only to portions of the western U.S., the 

next highest diversity of breeding landbirds occurs 

in the transition zone between the eastern deciduous and northern boreal forest. Crane Meadows 

NWR lies in this transition zone and is classified as 

just inside the Prairie Avifaunal Biome. This area 

forms the heart of North America’s grasslands, with 

tallgrass prairie and oak-savanna on the eastern 

edge where Crane Meadows NWR is located. Just 

over 99 percent of the original tallgrass prairie has 

been lost to agriculture and urban development. 

Another characteristic of this region is the glacial 

depressions forming diverse wetland complexes and 

large river systems. This biome provides the wintering habitat for many Arctic species of landbirds, and 

nearly 40 percent of the species on the ‘Watch List’ 

used to identify species with multiple reasons for 

conservation concern across their entire range 

breed in this biome. 

Figure 12: Ecological Regions Related to Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001)

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001) was 

drafted by a national partnership of national, state, 

private, and academic organizations committed to 

shorebird conservation. The designation ‘shorebird’ 

is applied to those birds commonly known as sandpipers, plovers, oystercatchers, avocets, and stilts. 

Of the 214 shorebirds worldwide, 50 regularly breed 

or occur in the United States. 

The challenges of shorebird conservation stems 

from their great migration distances crossing multiple jurisdictions, low rates of reproduction, concentrated use of dispersed migration stopovers, a 

general loss of their habitat across the landscape, 

and a lack of shorebird population data. This plan 

groups the Bird Conservation Regions to create 11 

shorebird planning regions. Within each, a regional 

working group sets conservation goals, identifies 

critical habitats, assesses research needs, and recommends strategies for outreach and education. 

Founded on collaboration and cooperation between 

partners, the goal of the plan is to stabilize populations of shorebird species by protecting adequate 

quantities of wetland, shoreline, and grassland habitat to meet their breeding, wintering, and migrating 

needs (Brown et al. 2001). 

Crane Meadows NWR lies within the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) Shorebird 

Planning Region (see Figure 12 on page 31). This 

region contains five BCRs and 32 shorebird species, 

nine of which are of high conservation priority: 

Greater Yellowlegs, Whimbrel, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Short-billed Dowitcher, Marbled Godwit, Wilson’s Phalarope, Upland Sandpiper, American 

Woodcock, and the Piping Plover. This region is 

noted for its climatic variability, and its primary 

habitat threats are agriculture, river manipulation, 

and urban development. Objectives for meeting 

shorebird needs in this region include the protection 

of 9.6 million acres of ephemeral and permanent 

wetlands with associated upland habitats. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(2002)

The North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (2002) was created through voluntary, collaborative efforts of many individuals and organizations 

interested in the future of seabirds and other colonial nesting birds. In response to threats like habitat loss, invasive and exotic species introductions, 

pollution, industrial activity, and site disturbance, 

the activities proposed by the plan range from continent-wide monitoring to local conservation actions 

that promote the distribution, diversity, and abundance of waterbirds. The plan covers 210 species, 

including seabirds, coastal waterbirds, wading 

birds, and marshbirds. Of the freshwater habitats 

noted in the plan, nearly all are found at Crane 

Meadows NWR. These habitats provide for the 

nesting, feeding, roosting, and resting needs of 

waterbird species. Through inventory and monitoring this plan is able to help identify the most threatened birds and the most critical habitats (Kushlan et 

al. 2002). 

Crane Meadows NWR falls within the Upper 

Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) Waterbird Planning Region (See Figure 12 on page 31). 

Though the other regions differ between the waterbird and shorebird plans, the UMVGL region for 

waterbirds follows the same geographical boundary 

as the UMVGL for shorebirds. The region contains 

approximately 40 species of waterbirds, among 

them are priority species of terns, herons, bitterns, 

rails, and loons. Also, superabundant species are 

present including Double-crested Cormorants and 

Ring-billed Gulls. Freshwater habitats at Crane 

Meadows NWR that are used by waterbirds include 

wetlands, lakes, shorelines, rivers, floodplains, and 

small islands. Because of the Refuge’s proximity to 

the Mississippi River, it serves as an important 

stopover for migratory waterbirds within the Mississippi Flyway.

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Priorities

Every species and habitat is important, however 

there is a subset that requires immediate attention 

and efforts for their conservation, protection, and/or 

recovery. At the federal level, conservation priority 

is directed first toward migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and those species that are nationally 

threatened or endangered with extinction. 

In accordance with the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) the Service must direct 

ample resources towards its most important functions and responsibilities. In 1997 a group of 

employees and subject specialists in the Midwest 

Region (Region 3) of the Service gathered together 

to create a list of Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities. The report, published in January of 2002, identifies 243 species in the region as 

resource conservation priorities, along with habitat 

indicators, obstacles, strategies, and desired outcomes (FWS 2002). The report emphasizes species 

as conservation targets over habitats for three primary reasons:

 Species are the primary element of biological 

diversity; irreplaceable if extirpated.

 Identifying species implies maintaining specific 

habitats in a way that meets the life cycle 

requirements of the target species.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

 By assessing multiple species within a single 

landscape, locations can be identified where elements overlap and the most essential habitats 

occur.

In the report, Crane Meadows NWR falls within 

what is identified as the Mississippi Headwaters/

Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem. Appendix D gives a 

complete list of the Resource Conservation Priority 

species found at Crane Meadows NWR.

Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Strategy

In 2005, Minnesota completed the Minnesota 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (CWCS) (2006b), 

a 10-year strategic plan for managing Minnesota’s 

populations of rare, declining, or vulnerable animals, or “species in greatest conservation need 

(SGCN).” The plan, developed with the support of 

funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by Congress in 2001, assesses nearly 1,200 animal species and identifies 292 species in need of 

conservation. This strategic plan is the result of a 

partnership of conservation organizations across 

Minnesota dedicated to sustaining viable wildlife 

populations and the habitats that sustain them. 

Headed by the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, the partnership also includes the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, 

Audubon Minnesota, the University of Minnesota, 

and over 100 other agencies and conservation organizations. 

The 10-year plan is designed to provide information on the distribution and abundance of species, 

describe key habitats, identify threats, prioritize 

research and monitoring needs, outline and prioritize conservation actions, facilitate coordination with 

other wildlife conservation and land management 

agencies and organizations, and engage the public in 

the process. The plan adheres to a wildlife conservation approach which first protects the key habitats 

used by species in greatest conservation need, 

thereby also providing habitat for the majority of 

Minnesota’s wildlife. Consideration is then given to 

individual, species-specific needs and requirements 

that are not met by more general approaches to 

wildlife conservation.

Based on climate, geology, topography, soils, 

hydrology, and vegetation, Minnesota’s Ecological 

Classification System delineates four ecological 

provinces, 13 sections, and 25 subsections (see Figure 6 on page 21 and Figure 7 on page 22). At the 

province level, the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province in which Crane Meadows NWR is located contains both the largest number of SGCN (205) and 

the greatest number of species (51) unique to any 

single province. 

However, the primary organizational units used 

in the CWCS are the 25 ecological subsections in 

Minnesota. Crane Meadows NWR is located in the 

Anoka Sand Plain subsection, which contains 97 

SGCN, and one species that is unique to the subsection. Thirty-nine of these species are endangered, 

threatened, or of special concern at the federal or 

state level. Highlighted species in the area include 

Sandhill Cranes, Trumpeter Swans, Bald Eagles, 

Bobolinks, Lark Sparrows, badgers, Blanding’s turtles, and gopher snakes. Out of 14 generalized habitat types identified for Minnesota’s SGCN, the 

Anoka Sand Plain subsection contains seven. The 

habitat types used most by the SGCN are prairies, 

rivers, and wetlands, all of which are found at Crane 

Meadows NWR. Some of the best examples of dry 

oak savanna in Minnesota also occur in this subsection. Landcover summarized within the subsection 

finds over 50 percent of the subsection in agriculture and pasture, another 12 percent developed, 

approximately 5 percent as water, which leaves just 

under 30 percent in forest or wetland/open cover 

types (Minnesota DNR 2006b and 2009a). 

The information and strategies of the CWCS 

were used as a means to assist with development of 

Refuge objectives in the CCP. The townships that 

contain Crane Meadows NWR have been identified 

as having a high abundance of species of greatest 

conservation need within the Anoka Sand Plain subsections, which suggests that the Refuge plays an 

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

summary of other conservation plans and efforts for 

each subsection (Minnesota DNR 2006b). 

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Recognizing numerous advancements made in 

the fields of conservation, ecology, adaptive management, and technology, a panel of policy and technology experts from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U. S. Geologic Survey (USGS), and the National 

Conservation Training Center (NCTC) formed the 

National Ecological Assessment Team (NEAT) in 

June of 2004. The goals of this team were to discuss 

and make recommendations to the FWS on its 

approach to trust resource conservation, with efficiency, prioritization, and transparency as key drivers. The outcome of these meetings was the 

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework, 

which is an iterative cycle of: 1) biological planning, 

2) conservation design, 3) conservation delivery, and 

4) monitoring and research (see Figure 13 on page 

34 – from FWS 2006). 

The principles of SHC are not new to Service programs and projects, but the NEAT report formally 

establishes SHC as the new ‘business model’ or 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

operating platform for the Service in light of the 

21st century’s changing conservation landscape. 

Trends in the new millennium addressed by SHC 

include a focus on conservation science that is 

increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary, 

spans multiple jurisdictions, uses a range of scales, 

and intertwines ecology with socio-economic considerations. In addition, the face of the conservation 

workforce is changing, expectations from the public 

are increasing, and the complexity of environmental 

issues is intensifying. Whereas the previous era 

sought balance in the conservation and utilization of 

natural resources, the upcoming era has forced a 

recognition of limits to our environmental systems 

and the challenge of sustaining resources despite 

increasing pressures from threats such as urban 

development, energy consumption, water use, and 

climate change (FWS 2008a).

Stratetic Habitat Conservation emphasizes a 

landscape-scale consideration of resources and the 

importance of understanding and integrating the 

goals of collaborative partners as key ways to effectively achieve conservation objectives. This will 

require management support for work that not only 

spans program areas within the Service, but support that extends beyond our agency to the interests 

and programs of our conservation partners. The 

Service has been encouraged to take immediate 

steps in implementing the SHC framework. These 

steps involve setting measurable, outcome-based 

objectives to guide visible progress towards conservation goals, using spatially-explicit models to provide the means for systematic identification of 

conservation targets, and increasing the integration 

of science into planning and management decisions 

(FWS 2006 and 2008b).

The work outlined in this CCP for Crane Meadows NWR adheres to the SHC framework by conducting a thorough review of science relevant to 

management at the Refuge, feeding that information and issues identified during scoping directly 

into near- and long-term goals and objectives, and 

defining strategies to guide conservation delivery 

through the 15-year life of the plan and beyond.

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

In 2009, with SHC as the guiding philosophy, the 

Service established a national ‘geographic framework,’ or a continental platform on which to establish landscape-level conservation partnerships and 

implement conservation actions in the 21st century. 

The framework establishes boundaries for 22 geographic areas, each to serve as a base for the establishment of a Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

(LCC). Landscape conservation cooperatives will 

provide a spatial context and an organizational 

structure for facilitating conservation planning, 

shared science, information exchange, and decision 

support in response to broad-scale, complex, and 

dynamic issues such as climate change. 

Crane Meadows NWR falls within the Upper 

Midwest and Great Lakes LCC geographic area 

(see Figure 14 on page 35). This LCC formed near 

the end of 2009 to provide science support and 

engage partners in the Great Lakes region. The 

Great Lakes are the largest system of fresh, surface 

water in the world, and contains 5,472 cubic miles of 

water. The region has a diversity of habitats including deepwater zones, beaches, coastal wetlands, 

more than 35,000 islands, major river systems, 

boreal forests, and prairie-hardwood transition 

zones - the latter of which includes Crane Meadows 

NWR. Work has begun to assess driving issues, set 

conservation priorities in the form of species and 

habitats, and undertake research needed to fill gaps 

in our scientific understanding of the region.

Conservation Corridors and Green 

Infrastructure

Increasing urbanization and widespread land use 

changes are greatly affecting natural landscapes 

and healthy ecological systems by fragmenting and 

degrading habitats (Ahern 1995). In addition, the 

effects of global climate change have severe implications for natural systems and ecological balances. 

Strategically conserving lands to protect habitat, 

wildlife, and ecosystem services is an attempt to 

reduce and mitigate human impacts on the landFigure 13: Diagram of the Strategic 

Habitat Conservation Framework
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

scape. Traditional approaches to land conservation 

are often opportunistic, piecemeal, site specific, and 

narrowly focused. However, an increasing emphasis 

is being given to collaborative landscape conservation efforts that are proactive, strategic, comprehensive, and integrative. Regional analyses that 

consider larger geographic extents are helping to 

focus conservation efforts among a growing consortium of stakeholders and partners. Creating a network of ecological hubs and linkage corridors can 

increase the connectivity, resiliency, and effectiveness of the biological systems that preserve biodiversity and essential ecological services. 

Green infrastructure is one planning framework 

for strategic, landscape-level conservation design. 

This framework emphasizes the need to integrate 

ecologic, social, and economic considerations in the 

design of truly sustainable landscapes. A green 

infrastructure case study (Bowman, 2008) was conducted using basic GIS models to understand the 

opportunities and challenges of establishing conservation networks between Sherburne NWR and 

Crane Meadows NWR. Two overlay models incorporating a diversity of information and decision factors were developed to assess the biophysical and 

social suitability for green infrastructure in the fivecounty area between and surrounding these Refuges. The results are displayed in Figure 15 on page 

36 and Figure 16 on page 37. Areas in green identify 

regions with the greatest ecological integrity in the 

biophysical suitability model (Figure 15) and highest potential social support in the social suitability 

model (Figure 16) for future land conservation, with 

a gradation to red indicating lesser degrees of suitability. 

The biophysical suitability model incorporates 

GIS layers such as land cover; sensitive species; 

native plant communities and areas of biodiversity 

significance; wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams, 

floodways, watersheds, and major drainages; and 

roads, railroads, and municipalities. The results 

show strong support for connectivity between the 

Refuges, between Crane Meadows NWR and state 

landholdings to the east, and to areas across the 

Mississippi River directly southwest of Crane 

Meadows NWR. The red silhouettes of municipalities and transportation corridors are distinguishable 

as less suitable areas and potential barriers to a land 

conservation network.

The second model (Figure 16) assesses social 

implications for conservation corridors using marketing indices and past conservation activities summarized by zip code and township respectively. 

Though sets of social data are less common and 

Figure 14: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Figure 15: Biophysical Suitability Model Results for Green Infrastructure 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Figure 16: Social Suitabililty Model Results for Green Infrastructure
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

more difficult to acquire, this type of assessment 

may help identify areas and populations that favor 

and support the development of a network of conservation lands. Again, this data indicates stronger 

support between the Refuges, as well as in pockets 

east and southwest of Crane Meadows NWR.

Comparing these maps to the current lands with 

some form of conservation value (see Figure 17 on 

page 39) provides a measure of progress towards 

the network concept. A number of ecological hubs 

exist, and many small parcels are in potential corridor zones. This and other models and design criteria 

can be used to direct strategic conservation in the 

form of acquisitions, easements, and partnerships to 

fill gaps in the current conservation system. 

A similar analysis could also be used to assess 

potential corridors and connectivity between Crane 

Meadows NWR and Rice Lake NWR 50 miles to the 

northeast. Multiple corridor pathways may be possible due to the course of the Mississippi River west 

the Refuges, the presence of Lake Mille Lacs 

directly between the two, and the large quantity of 

protected lands north and east of Crane Meadows - 

south and west of Rice Lake (see Figure 5 on page 

18). 

Socioeconomic Setting

Crane Meadows NWR’s entire acquisition area 

falls within Morrison County, Minnesota, whose 

population accounts for only 0.6 percent of the state 

population of over 5 million people. Compared to 

state averages, the county’s population is growing 

more slowly, is less ethnically diverse, has a lower 

maximum education status, greater home ownership rate, a higher number of people per household, 

a greater number of persons below the poverty 

level, and is less densely populated (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009).

Population, Demographics, and Housing

The last decennial census was conducted in the 

year 2000. According to this data, Crane Meadows 

NWR’s acquisition boundary acreage (13,540) is 

approximately 1.9 percent of the total landmass in 

Morrison County (1,124.5 square miles). The 

county’s 2000 population was 31,712, indicating a 6.6 

percent increase over the 1990 population of 29,604, 

and a 27.8 percent increase over the 1900 population 

of 22,891. A 2008 estimate places the population at 

32,893 people. Larger communities, from greatest 

population to least, include Little Falls (county 

seat), Pierz, Royalton, and Randall, and the county 

averages 28.2 people per square mile (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009).

A study by the Minnesota State Demographic 

Center used the cohort-component method to project that the state population will grow to 5,709,700 

by 2015 and 6,446,300 by 2035, with the majority of 

growth occurring in the major suburbs of the Twin 

Cities, in the cities of Saint Cloud and Rochester, as 

well as in the lakes area in north central Minnesota. 

Morrison County is contained within this north central development region (Region 5), as are Cass, 

Wadena, Crow Wing, and Todd Counties. Morrison 

County is projected to grow to 36,050 by 2015 and 

40,110 by 2035; an 8.8 percent and 21 percent 

increase respectively (McMurry 2007).

The average age of the county residents is 36.9 

years, with 6.6 percent of the population under 5 

years of age, and 15.6 percent over 65. The county is 

of relatively homogenous ethnicity, with non-white 

minorities accounting for less than 3 percent of the 

population, no single minority comprising over 1 

percent of the county population, only 1 percent foreign born persons, and 3.9 percent (over 5 years of 

age) speaking a language other than English in the 

home. Perhaps influenced by the presence of Camp 

Ripley, 14.7 percent of the county residents are 

civilian veterans. 

There are 13,870 housing units in the county. Of 

these, 11,816 are occupied; 81.9 percent are owner 

occupied. There is an average of 2.64 persons per 

household (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

Employment and Income

According to the 2000 Census, of the available 

working population in Morrison County 16 years or 

older (16,043), 62.9 percent are employed, 3.8 percent unemployed, and 33.1 percent are not in the 

labor force. The economic sectors providing employment in the county include the following: 

 29.2 percent management, professional, and 

related occupations

 21.8 percent production, transportation, and 

material moving occupations

 20.7 percent sales and office occupations

 14.3 percent service occupations

 11.5 percent construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations

 02.4 percent farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

 At 73.1 percent, the majority of workers are private wage and salary, another 13.7 percent work 

for the government, and 12.5 percent are selfemployed. 

The average income for all types of households in 

Morrison County is $37,047, but increases to $45,451 

if counting only families generating income. According to 2000 data, 7.5 percent of the population lives 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Figure 17: Green Infrastructure Hubs and Links with Conservation Lands
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

below poverty level, slightly above the state average 

of 5.1 percent. More recent census estimations from 

2007 indicate that the county average is closer to 

10.4 percent, and the state, 9.5 percent. Average 

male income is $31,037, and average female income 

$22,244 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

Education

According to 2000 data, 25.7 percent of the population over 3 years of age is enrolled in school at 

some level. Education levels are lower than the state 

averages; 79.7 percent are high school graduates as 

compared to 87.9 state-wide, and 12.6 percent have 

bachelor’s degrees compared to the state average of 

27.4 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). The county public 

education system in Morrison County includes five 

high schools, three middle schools, and seven elementary schools. There is also one private high 

school, and two private elementary schools. Schools 

in the communities of Little Falls, Pierz, and Royalton are closest to the Refuge. There are no colleges 

or universities in the county, but there is an extension office of the University of Minnesota in Little 

Falls. Crane Meadows NWR works with two institutions of higher education in the region: Central 

Lakes College in Brainerd and Saint Cloud State 

University in Saint Cloud.

Economic Value of Crane Meadows to the 

Regional Economy

National wildlife refuges provide a number of 

benefits and services to individuals and society as a 

whole. Some can be tracked fiscally such as expenditures in local communities, payroll, and operations 

costs, while benefits such as recreation opportunities, species protection, ecosystem services, and 

environmental education do not come as directly 

connected with economic values. 

According to an assessment of the economic benefits of visitation to national wildlife refuges, in 2004 

Crane Meadows NWR had 4,998 (4,498 residents, 

500 non-residents) visits for non-consumptive recreational activities; primarily the use of nature trails, 

observation platforms, wildlife observation in general, and other similar recreation activities. It is 

estimated that individuals associated with these visits brought approximately $15,600 ($9,300 residents, 

$6,300 non-residents) in recreation-related expenditures (i.e. food, lodging, transportation, and other 

expenses) that year to local communities, and that a 

total benefit of $21,200 and two jobs in final demand 

was added to the regional economy because of the 

Refuge (Caudill and Henderson 2005.) The final 

demand calculation simply takes actual visitor 

expenditures and adds benefits gained by those 

local individuals who earned income from the visitors’ activities. 

Potential Refuge Visitation

In order to estimate potential Refuge visitation, 

2007 consumer behavior data was acquired and 

summarized for approximately 10, 30, and 90-mile 

zones around the Refuge (Table 5). The data is organized by zip code areas and tied to census demographics data. The three distances were selected 

because they represent reasonable driving distances to the Refuge for an outing by different 

groups, and because they encompass a number of 

major and minor population centers. The three closest local communities, Pierz, Royalton, and Little 

Falls, all fall within the 10-mile radius; Saint Cloud, 

Brainerd, and numerous smaller communities fall 

within the 30-mile radius; and the 90-mile area 

includes the major communities of the Twin Cities 

metropolitan area, as well as Fergus Falls, Willmar, 

and Hutchinson. Visitors from local communities 

are known to come to the Refuge for hiking and 

wildlife viewing. Little is currently known about 

Refuge visitation from longer distances, but their 

proximity to the Refuge makes these populations 

potential audiences. 

The consumer behavior data used in the analysis 

is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. The company collects and analyzes data on consumer demographics, product and brand usage, and exposure to 

all forms of advertising media. The results are then 

associated with other populations of similar demographic and socioeconomic composition throughout 

the country. A basic assumption in the analysis is 

that people in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend to have similar consumption, ownerTable 5: Potential Visitation to Crane Meadows NWR in Five Categories

Approximate 

Driving

Distance to 

Refuge

No. Zip

Codes

Total 2001

Population Photography Birdwatching Fishing Hunting

Contribute

to Environmental

Organizations

10 Miles 11 56,262.0 1,069.0 2,545.0 1,505.0 1,746.0 1,064.0

30 Miles 55 316,602.0 5,371.0 11,763.0 7,391.0 8,356.0 5,195.0

90 Miles 426 3,700,930.0 41,052.0 73,987.0 51,569.0 57,007.0 41,846.0
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

ship, and lifestyle preferences. Because of the 

assumptions made in the analysis, the data should 

be considered as a relative indication of potential 

recreation activity, not actual participation. 

The marketing categories chosen as surrogates 

to potential interest in recreating at Crane Meadows NWR include photography, birdwatching, fishing, and hunting. In order to estimate the general 

environmental orientation of the population, the 

number of people who might contribute to environmental organizations was also considered. Table 5

displays the consumer behavior numbers for each of 

the three distances to the Refuge. The projections 

represent the maximum local and regional populations that may travel to the Refuge with drive times 

of 10 minutes, 1 hour, and 1 and one-half hours. 

These numbers estimate a maximum, thus only a 

fraction of these people can be expected to travel to 

the Refuge and actual visitor numbers will be 

smaller.

We also considered the maximum number of students that might potentially participate in environmental education offered by the Refuge by looking 

at the school populations in Morrison County. The 

school enrollment in preschool through grade 12 

was 7,293 according to the 2000 census (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). The projected school age (5-19) population for the county in 2005 was estimated at 6,942, 

and is expected to increase only slightly to 6,990 by 

2015 and 7,020 by 2035 (McMurry 2007). 

Additional perspective on wildlife-dependent recreation is gained from Minnesota’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

2008-2012. Outdoor recreation is an important component of a healthy lifestyle, and when faced with a 

state-wide 132 percent increase in obesity since 1990 

(United Health Foundation 2006), may play an 

important role in the health of the state populations. 

The SCORP report outlines the trends in outdoor 

recreation in the state, identifying priorities and 

recommendations to increase and improve recreation experience opportunities. The report points 

out the importance of recreation to Minnesotans. A 

2004 outdoor participation survey found that recreation is very important to 57 percent of those surveyed, and moderately important to an additional 25 

percent. It identifies the top 10 recreation activities 

of Minnesotans 20 years of age or older (see 

Table 6), citing that more adults participate in boating and fishing activities than any other state, and 

that two-thirds of all recreation occurs within 30 

minutes drive from home. Despite these facts, participation in outdoor recreation such as hunting, 

fishing, boat usage, and park visits has decreased 

nationally and in Minnesota over the past decade. In 

Minnesota, and nationwide, the population is aging, 

becoming more ethnically diverse, and is increasingly concentrated in urban areas. These trends are 

changing the nature of recreation throughout the 

country, and recognizing these changes affords land 

managers the opportunity to adapt their approach 

to recreation provision (Minnesota DNR 2008a). 

Climate

The climate of east-central Minnesota is classified as ‘sub-humid continental’ and is characterized 

by significant variations in seasonal temperatures. 

Table 6: Outdoor Recreation Activities of Minnesota Adults a

Activity Percent 

Population 

Walking 54

Boating of all types 43

Swimming or wading all places 41

Driving for pleasure on scenic roads 37

Picnicking 36

Fishing of all types 30

Biking outdoors of all types 29

Visiting outdoor zoos 27

Camping of all types 26

Visiting nature center 25

a. Table from Minnesota SCORP (Minnesota DNR, 

2008a).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

This region has four distinct seasons with moderate 

spring and fall temperatures, short, warm summers, 

and cold, dry winters. The town of Little Falls, Minnesota, near Crane Meadows NWR, has an annual 

average temperature of 43.4 degrees Fahrenheit. 

For all of Morrison County the average temperature during the winter months is approximately 12 

degrees Fahrenheit with an average daily minimum 

of 1 degree. The lowest recorded temperature was 

minus 41 degrees Fahrenheit on January 9, 1977. 

Summer temperatures average 68 degrees Fahrenheit with a maximum daily average of 81 degrees. 

The highest recorded temperature in Little Falls 

was 101 degrees Fahrenheit on August 18, 1976. 

There is an average of approximately 136 frost-free 

days throughout the year, which constitutes the 

growing season. Frost often persists until mid-May 

and returns the end of September. The latest occurring frost in the spring is June 9, and the earliest in 

fall is September 3. 

Annual precipitation in Morrison County is well 

distributed throughout the growing season. Approximately 17.1 inches, or 65 percent of the total annual 

precipitation, occurs from May through September. 

The annual average precipitation in Little Falls is 

26.3 inches. The heaviest daily rainfall recorded in 

the county was 4.70 inches in Little Falls on August 

1, 1953. Snowfall persists from October through 

April and occasionally falls in May. The average 

annual snowfall in Little Falls is 50.4 inches, and 

snow usually persists on the ground all winter. 

Air Quality

Greenhouse gasses, fine particles, ozone, air toxins, mercury, and lead are all airborne pollutants 

that affect human health, as well as the health of 

natural ecosystems. The protection of air quality 

has been formally monitored and regulated since 

the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, and its subsequent revisions in 1977 and 1990 have intended to 

keep policy at pace with the evolving state of science 

and technology. The threats associated with global 

climate change have reinvigorated efforts to monitor both point sources of contaminants and nonpoint sources such as transportation and residential 

combustion.

According to the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency’s (PCA) 2009 report to the legislature, Minnesota air quality is “generally good and has been 

improving for most pollutants (MPCA 2009a, pg.1).” 

Partially because it cannot as easily be regulated, 

non-point sources are by far the greatest overall 

contributors to air pollution emissions. These emissions come from highway vehicles (38 percent), offhighway equipment (18 percent), or other small, 

non-point stationary sources (34 percent). Point 

source pollution by major facilities only contributes 

10 percent of the total state emissions (MPCA 

2009a).

To monitor the sources of air pollution, the EPA 

maintains composite databases of air pollution emissions estimates derived from state and local regulatory agencies, industry, and EPA records. The 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) contains emissions data from 2002 divided into two groups: criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. 

Criteria Air Pollutants

To protect public health, the Clean Air Act established concentration limits on six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 

sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. The 

NEI database documents 27 facilities in Morrison 

County whose emissions are estimated for one or 

more criteria air pollutants by state and federal 

agencies. The list includes a diversity of farms and 

industrial businesses such as a boat manufacturer, a 

food preparation company, an ethanol cooperative, 

and several stone processing or construction enterprises. The list also includes the major county 

wastewater treatment plants, Camp Ripley, and a 

local high school, airfield, landfill, and hospital. In 

2002, the total quantity of criteria pollutants emitted 

yearly by these facilities was approximately 1,555 

tons. Morrison County ranks it at 36 of 87 Minnesota counties with 0.28 percent of the state’s total 

point source emissions. The total quantity emitted 

by the state in 2002 from all sources was 40,009 tons 

(EPA 2009). 

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The National Emission Inventory also identifies 

15 facilities in Morrison County that emit hazardous 

air pollutants. The NEI monitors 188 hazardous air 

pollutants that are known to or suspected to cause 

serious health problems. This list of facilities 

Prairie opening. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

directly overlaps and is a subset of the criteria air 

pollutant emitters. All but three facilities (wastewater treatment plants) are in Little Falls. In this list, 

the number of pollutant types emitted by each facility ranges from 17 to 33, and all but 3 emit 0.01 percent or less of the total state emissions. According to 

these 2002 data, approximately 455,000 pounds of 

hazardous air pollutants are emitted yearly by these 

facilities (EPA 2009). The county ranks number 22 

of 87 Minnesota counties in the quantity of hazardous air pollutants emitted at 1.14 percent of the 

state total (EPA 2009). 

Though an ambient air quality station was active 

in Little Falls from 1996-1997, there are currently 

no air quality monitoring stations in the county.

Geology and Soils

Crane Meadows NWR is located on the Anoka 

Sand Plain, a large, flat sandy outwash landscape 

thought to be lacustrine in origin and created by glacial recession (Minnesota DNR 2009a). This landform contains small dune features, low ground 

moraines, outwash plains, kettle lakes, and tunnel 

valleys (Wright 1972). The Refuge consists of primarily flat uplands with some gently rolling hills, 

and peat-filled lowlands interspersed with shallow 

lacustrine wetlands. 

Morrison County is underlain by layered bedrock 

of both metamorphic and igneous rock – primarily 

Cambrian and Ordovician dolomite, sandstone, and 

shale (Morey 1976). The bedrock surface slopes 

southward and subsurface depth to bedrock can 

range from 0-200 feet. 

Nearly all of the Midwest was covered by glaciers 

during portions of the Pleistocene Epoch, which 

ended about 10,000 years ago. There were four 

major southward advances of the Laurentide Ice 

Sheet over the last 2 million years, including the 

Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan and Wisconsinian 

stages. The Wisconsinian was the most recent, with 

three glacial maxima. The last of these maxima 

(Tioga) began 30,000 years ago, reached its maximum extent 21,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 

years ago. The Tioga glaciation had the greatest 

impact on the modern interglacial landscape configuration in North America by leveling large areas, 

creating numerous lakes, rivers and wetlands, and 

leaving a number of glacial deposits. As a result, 

Morrison County is characterized by glacial features such as rolling morainic hills, drumlins, eskers, kames, and outwash plains. Two major lobes of 

ice advanced during the most recent glacial period. 

The Superior Lobe came down first, extending from 

eastern Ontario, across what is now Lake Superior, 

and down through the Anoka Sand Plain, depositing 

reddish-brown sandy loam soils. The second, the 

Des Moines Lobe, came down from Manitoba and 

reached as far south as Iowa. The Grantsburg Sublobe of the Des Moines lobe also pushed into the 

Anoka Sand Plain area, carrying a limestonederived, light brown sandy loam. These two lobes 

formed a substrate over which large amounts of sediment-laden water ran as the lobes retreated. An 

evolving sequence of large rivers, streams, and 

lakes distributed sand deposits over the glacial till 

layers. Dunes and other aeolian features were 

added to the diversity of landscape features during 

a warm period from 4,000-8,000 years ago. The sand 

plain wetland/upland complex at Crane Meadows 

NWR is the result of this turbulent geologic history. 

It is located within a geographic area characterized 

by its flat topography, sandy soils, and shallow 

water table (Anoka Conservation District 2009).

Information on farmland suitability and drainage 

characteristics has been collected by the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and is contained in their Soil Survey Geographic Database 

(SSURGO). According these data 95 percent of the 

area in the Refuge acquisition boundary is not prime 

farmland, with only 352 acres of prime farmland, 

and 309 acres of farmland of statewide importance 

(see Figure 18 on page 44). Drainage is also an 

important soil characteristic affecting land suitability for a number of human uses and determining 

habitat type for wildlife. SSURGO information indicates that 58 percent of the Refuge lands have poor 

drainage characteristics, 35 percent have good 

drainage, and the remaining 6.4 percent is open 

water (see Figure 19 on page 45) (USDA-NRCS 

2009). 

According to the SSURGO database, 18 major 

soil series occur within Crane Meadows NWR 

acquisition boundary, with open water comprising 

6.4 percent of the Refuge (See Table 7 on page 46

and Figure 20 on page 47). All of the soils found on 

the Refuge are very deep and were formed as a 

result of glacial events. The primary constituent soil 

series are Menahga, Seelyeville, Markey, Isan, 

Bowstring, and Duelm, together accounting for over 

75 percent of the Refuge soils. The remaining minor 

constituent soil series each constitute less than 5 

percent of the Refuge acreage (USDA-NRCS 2009). 

Most soils in this area are subject to wind or water 

erosion without conservation measures in place, 

contain excess water, or have insufficient water 

holding capacity. 

Major Soil Constituents

The major soil constituents are organized by 

landscape position – upland to bottomland. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Figure 18: Soil Survey Farmland Status, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Figure 19: Soil Survey Drainage Classes, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Menahga soils (18.8 perent) cover the largest 

extent of any soil series on the Refuge and form 

many of the sandy upland areas at Crane Meadows 

NWR. Often supporting jack pine forest, Menahga 

soils are very deep, excessively drained or well 

drained soils with rapid permeability, formed in 

thick, sandy glacial outwash sediments on outwash 

plains, and may include moraines and drumlins. 

Duelm soils (6 percent) are also primarily upland 

soils, but represent conditions more favorable for 

tall prairie grasses and deciduous forest habitats. 

They are very deep and moderately well-drained 

sandy soils on outwash plains. 

Isan soils (10.6 percent) are often found in the 

interface between sandy uplands and poorly drained 

bottomland areas on the Refuge. Isan soils are very 

deep, poorly and very poorly drained, have moderately rapid permeability, and formed in sandy glacial outwash plains. Native vegetation was grasses 

and sedges with occasional willow and alder.

Seelyeville soils (18.4 percent) are second most 

abundant in total Refuge acres and form many of 

the bottomland sedge meadow areas on the Refuge. 

Like the upland soils on the Refuge they are very 

deep and formed on outwash plains, glacial lake 

plains and moraines. However, these soils are very 

poorly drained – often forming in depressions, composed of up to 51 inches of organic material from 

decomposed herbaceous plants, and have only moderate permeability. Vegetation typically consists of 

sedges, grasses, and scattered alters, willow, tamarack, and bog birch. 

Markey soils (12.4 percent) are similar to Seelyeville, very deep, very poorly drained, and organic, 

but are at the interface between sandy and organic 

bottomlands and tend to have more forest cover. 

The herbaceous organic material ranges from 15-50 

inches in depth, but is typically overlying sandy 

deposits from outwash plains, lake plains, flood 

plains, river terraces, and moraines. Permeability 

and drainage varies depending on the soil horizon, 

with slow permeability in the organic layers and 

rapid permeability in the sandy horizons. Most of 

these bottomlands are forested with black ash, 

quaking aspen, balsam fir, black spruce, tamarack, 

northern white cedar, and paper birch, with some 

areas in cattails, marsh grasses, reeds, and sedges.

Bowstring soils (9.6 percent) are formed in floodplain environments and tend to surround the main 

stream courses on the Refuge. Bowstring soils are 

very deep, poorly drained, and formed as a stratification of decomposed organic material and thin layers of sandy or loamy material. Native vegetation is 

sedges with scattered willows and alders, and in 

some locations these soils are used to produce wild 

rice.

Minor Soil Constituents

Meehan (4 percent – some areas complexed with 

Isan) form mixed upland forests, and are deep, 

somewhat poorly drained, have rapid or very rapid 

permeability, and form in deep sandy alluvium on 

outwash plains. These areas tend to be a mix of conifer and deciduous forests, with trees such as jack 

pine, white and black spruce, paper birch, northern 

pin oak, red pine, eastern white pine, quaking aspen, 

balsam fir, and red maple.

Hubbard (3.5 percent) soils are commonly vegetated by upland oak savanna or tall grass prairie, 

and are very deep, excessively drained, and form in 

sandy glacial outwash plains. 

Table 7: Soils Present at Crane Meadows 

NWR

Soil Series Name GIS Acres a Percent

Menahga 2601.9 18.8

Seelyeville 2538.7 18.4

Markey 1717.4 12.4

Isan 1459.4 10.6

Bowstring 1325.4 9.6

Water 887.6 6.4

Duelm 827.3 6.0

Meehan 555.1 4.0

Hubbard 476.7 3.5

Pierz 352.1 2.6

Fordum 245.0 1.8

Pomroy 211.4 1.5

Mahtomedi 196.7 1.4

Sartell 179.4 1.3

Rifle 118.3 0.9

Watab 105.4 0.8

Chetekb 7.3 0.1

Nokasippib 2.2 0.0

Flakb 0.7 0.0

a. All acreages are approximate GIS acres.

b. Written description not included.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Figure 20: Soil Types, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Pierz (2.6 percent) typically begin as upland prairie and later succeeded to a mixture of upland deciduous and conifer forest. They are very deep, welldrained, and form in a loamy mantle over sandy and 

gravelly sediments.

Fordum (1.8 percent – complexed with Winterfield) soils are a bottomland soil series. Recently 

formed soils, they are a part of floodplain systems 

directly adjacent to stream or river channels and 

are created as a part of meanders, overflow channels, scours, and other micro-relief features. They 

are poorly drained, moderately deep, and contain a 

loamy upper alluvium strata and sandy lower alluvium strata. The vegetation can be either forest (silver maple, red maple, quaking aspen, big tooth 

aspen, paper birch, American elm, white spruce, yellow birch, and tag alder are common) or marsh 

grasses, reeds, sedges, and shrubs.

Winterfield (1.8 percent – complexed with Fordum) are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, rapidly permeable sandy alluvium soils on flood plains 

with frequent, short-term inundations. They are 

often covered by lowland hardwoods including elm, 

red maple, swamp white oak, and quaking aspen.

Pomroy (1.5 percent) are often forest or wooded 

pasture – primarily deciduous, with scattered conifer areas. The soils are very deep, moderately well 

drained, and form in a mantle of glacial outwash or 

loamy glacial till. 

Mahtomedi (1.4 percent) hosts mixed deciduous 

and conifer forests, and are very deep, excessively 

drained, readily permeable, and form from sandy 

glacial outwash.

Sartell (1.3 percent), like Hubbard, are covered 

by savanna habitat with occasional red oak, bur oak, 

or jack pine trees. They are very deep, excessively 

drained, have rapid permeability, and form from 

glacial outwash sediments.

Rifle (0.9 percent) are characterized by bog 

woodland vegetation, including tamarack, black 

spruce, paper birch, balsam fir, black ash, northern 

white-cedar, and a ground cover of sphagnum moss, 

leather leaf, blueberry, and Labrador tea. They are 

very deep (51 inches or greater), very poorly 

drained, have rapid permeability, and form in 

ground and end moraines, or outwash and lake 

plains.

Watab (0.8 percent) are often deciduous forest, 

and very deep, compact, poorly drained, and form in 

a mantle of sandy glacial outwash or dense loamy 

glacial till.

Water and Hydrology

Crane Meadows NWR falls within the PlatteSpunk Watershed (MN HUC 7010201) of the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin. The Upper Mississippi 

River Basin begins at the headwaters of the Mississippi River, extends southward throughout central 

Minnesota, and ends near the city of St. Paul, Minnesota. The Platte-Spunk River sub-watershed 

begins in southern Crow Wing County, runs diagonally northeast to southwest through Morrison 

County, includes the northwest section of Benton 

County, and ends in northeast Stearns County (see 

Figure 21 on page 49). There are approximately 

56,000 people and 1,919 farms within the 652,667-

acre watershed. The primary resource concerns 

include soil erosion, woodland management, surface 

and groundwater quality, and surfacewater and 

wetland management (USDA NRCS 2008.)

The wetland complex that comprises the majority 

of Refuge includes two large shallow lakes, Rice 

Lake (320 acres) and Skunk Lake (314 acres), and 

one smaller open water basin, Mud Lake (56 acres). 

The Rice-Skunk Lakes wetland complex is also the 

confluence of four major waterways: Rice Creek and 

the Platte River, which flow into Rice Lake from the 

north, and Skunk and Buckman Creeks, which enter 

Skunk Lake from the east and southeast and pass 

through to Rice Lake (see Figure 2 on page 3). The 

headwaters of these four creeks ultimately pass 

through the Refuge as well, and include Wolf, Little 

Mink, and Big Mink Creeks above the Platte River, 

Hillman Creek above Skunk Creek, and Kuntz and 

Mischke Creeks above Buckman Creek. In addition 

to waters that drain through the wetland complex, 

the southern spur of the Refuge contains the upper 

reaches of a cold water stream, Little Rock Creek. 

There are approximately 32 linear miles of stream 

and river channels within the acquisition boundary 

that migrate and meander slowly through the wetland complex. In total, the drainage from more than 

272,000 acres of upstream land passes through the 

Refuge. The majority, (256,254 acres or approximately 400 square miles) passes directly through 

the Rice-Skunk Wetland Complex (353:1 watershed 

to basin ratio) before eventually making its way to 

the Mississippi River near Rice, Minnesota 8 miles 

down the Platte River (DNR 2006a). The remaining 

effective watershed area drains through the Little 

Rock Creek System and finally drains into the Mississippi River just north of the city of Sartell. 

This wetland complex has a history of extreme 

water level fluctuations following seasonal variations in rainfall and runoff. Flooding is common in 

the spring due to snowmelt and runoff from surrounding uplands and via watercourses that drain 

into the area. Typically water levels decrease during 

the summer months, then a resurge of flooding 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Figure 21: Platte-Spunk Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

occurs in the fall. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains information on the 

100-year floodplain levels for insurance purposes. 

An area of 6,888 acres, approximately 50 percent of 

the Refuge acquisition boundary, falls within these 

designated flood zones (see Figure 22 on page 51). 

These zones overlap, and are a surrogate for areas 

of bottomland habitat, and indicated that less than 

50 percent of the Refuge is suitable for development 

– residential or agricultural – based solely on flood 

potential. 

All open waters in the area of the Refuge are public and are managed by the state. During the first 

half of the 20th century there was high demand 

from local sportsmen in the area to provide minimum water levels in the Rice-Skunk shallow lake 

complex for hunting and boating navigability – particularly during drier periods of the year. In 

response, in 1961 the Minnesota Legislature mandated the construction of a weir for water level stabilization where the Platte River exits Rice Lake. 

After acquiring flowage easements, purchasing 

physical properties, and conducting studies and 

monitoring activities in the area, the George Selke 

Memorial dam was constructed between 1971 and 

1974. The dam consists of 300 feet of sheet piling 

with six 5-foot variable crest stoplog bays on the 

west end. Historical average annual water level fluctuations in the area of the dam varied from El. 1,095 

to 1,104 feet (mean sea level datum), with occasional 

flooding events of up to 1,107 feet. The crest of the 

dam was set at El. 1,097.0 feet – the normal full pool 

elevation of the Rice-Skunk wetland system. Stoplogs are placed in the bays only between late July 

and November 23 as necessary to facilitate public 

access (Minnesota DNR 2006a). Despite this major 

water structure, the remainder of the hydrology in 

the wetland complex remains relatively intact, its 

streams unchannelized, and its open waters undeveloped. 

According to the 2001 land cover data (see Figure 

23 on page 52), the portion of the watershed 

upstream of Crane Meadows NWR is comprised of 

31 percent pasture/hay, 24 percent deciduous forest, 

20 percent cultivated cropland, 14 percent herbaceous wetland, 4 percent grassland, 3 percent developed/open space, and 2 percent open water. The 

other cover types all have 1 percent or less coverage 

within the affected watershed for the Refuge. Pasture land and agriculture make up the dominant 

land use in the watershed at over 50 percent. 

Though agricultural land retains some natural 

value, there are a host of concerns and threats associated with this land use. See “Threats to 

Resources” on page 64 for more information these 

issue.

Water quality in the watershed, and within the 

Crane Meadows NWR wetland complex, has been 

sampled by various agencies over the past few 

decades. There are more than 40 sites in the drainage affecting the Refuge with data relative to the 

quality of waters, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Electronic Data Access database (MPCA 2009b). Figure 24 on page 53 shows the 

location of these monitoring sites. With the exception of Buckman Creek, all other tributaries leading 

into and flowing out of the Refuge, as well as some 

of the lakes within the Refuge, have some degree of 

water quality data available. The distribution of 

these sites allow for the assessment of waters entering the Refuge, the impact on the wetland complex, 

and the quality of waters exiting the Refuge. Data 

from these sites indicate that water quality within 

the watershed ranges from good, during low water 

conditions, to poor, during high water event samples. Poor water quality during high water events 

are likely the result of non-point source run-off 

upstream of the Refuge. Continued and expanded 

monitoring is needed throughout the watershed to 

assess the impacts of specific contaminants and 

identify their pathways into Refuge waters. 

Additional data provided by the MPCA indicate 

that portions of three waterways are state-listed as 

impaired within the Refuge Boundary. “Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to 

publish and update a list of waters that are not 

meeting one or more water-quality standards” 

(MPCA 2009c). The list, known as the 303(d) Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list, designates 

streams and lakes with impairments based on state 

water quality standards. Skunk Creek, Little Rock 

Creek, and the Platte River (downstream of the 

shallow lake complex) are all on Minnesota's 2010 

Draft List of Impaired Waters (MPCA 2009c) for a 

variety of water quality impairments. Of the three, 

only Little Rock Creek currently has a Total Maximum Daily Load pollution reduction study under 

way to identify pollution sources and improve water 

quality to meet state standards. It will be important 

for the Refuge to collaborate with state and local 

partners as additional work is done to monitor and 

address water quality issues in the watershed. 

Wild Rice

Wild rice (Zizania sp.) in Minnesota has great 

cultural, ecological, and economic value, and has 

been harvested in the Great Lakes region for thousands of years (Valppu 2000). It is important from 

an ecological perspective as well, by providing food 

and shelter for many fish and wildlife species. Wild 

rice serves as one of the most important food 

sources for waterfowl in North America, with an 

ability to produce more than 500 pounds of seed per 

acre and host a diversity of invertebrates that also 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Figure 22: Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Map, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Figure 23: Land Cover in the Platte-Spunk Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Figure 24: Water Quality Monitoring Sites, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

help feed many wetland species. At least 17 bird 

species on Minnesota’s ‘species of greatest conservation need’ list use the habitat provided by wild 

rice – primarily for reproduction and foraging (Minnesota DNR 2006b). The historic range of wild rice 

included the entire state, but it now occurs most 

commonly in the central and north-central portions 

of the state (55 Minnesota counties.) As an ‘annual’, 

the plant requires moving, relatively shallow water 

(0.5 – 3 feet), and germinates each spring from seeds 

dropped in previous fall seasons. The growth cycle 

and productivity can be threatened by a number of 

factors: water quality, seasonal water levels, lakebed conditions, climate change, other aquatic vegetation (including invasives), genetic modification, 

water-based recreation, shoreland development, 

and industrial activities (Minnesota DNR 2008b). 

Although the productivity of natural wild rice populations varies on a 3-5 year cycle, annual crops can 

be greatly affected by the aforementioned threats. 

The time period from late May to mid June is a particularly critical stage at which floating leaves first 

appear and fluctuations in water levels can uproot or 

otherwise significantly stress the plant. 

Limited development in the area has minimized a 

number of the aforementioned threats, but a few of 

the issues such as system water fluctuations and climate change could be affecting the annual production of wild rice at Crane Meadows NWR. The wild 

rice study submitted by the DNR to the Minnesota 

Legislature in 2008 stresses the importance of 

water levels during the critical floating leaf stage. 

The following passage may provide insights to factors influencing wild rice stands within the Crane 

Meadows NWR complex: 

“At the (floating leaf) stage, any rapid increase 

in water level can cause damage to natural 

stands. Changes in lake outlets that reduce flow 

capacity can also significantly impact wild rice 

by increasing the frequency and severity of 

these temporary flood events. For example, permanent dams, beaver dams, culverts, and debris 

such as mats of vegetation can reduce outlet 

flow capacity and impact wild rice habitat (Ustipak 1983)...Changes in upstream watersheds 

can also reduce the productivity of natural wild 

rice stands. Drainage ditches and tiles, pumps, 

and channelization can increase the quantity 

and speed of waters moving downstream. The 

resulting peaks in water levels can produce the 

same effects as reduced outlet capacity by creating abrupt “bounces” or rapid increases in 

water depth...Dams that maintain stable water 

levels can have long-term deleterious effects on 

natural wild rice, as well. Water levels that are 

held stable year after year can create conditions 

that favor perennial vegetation and shoreline 

encroachments that impair wild rice habitat (p. 

21-22).”

In this same report, wild rice inventories were 

noted for the water bodies within the Crane Meadows NWR wetland complex; Rice, Skunk, and Mud 

Lakes (see Table 8). This information estimates the 

potential wild rice coverage and associated productivity in each lake within the complex. 

Refuge Habitats

As discussed earlier in this CCP, the Refuge lies 

within the Anoka Sand Plain Subsection of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province of Minnesota (Minnesota DNR 2005). The narrow band of this 

province traverses diagonally (from northwest to 

southeast) across the state, forming a transition 

zone between tallgrass prairie to the southwest and 

deciduous forests to the northeast-leading to a distinctive set of vegetative communities. In pre-settlement times the flat, sandy outwash plain of the 

Anoka Sand Plain was characterized predominantly 

by oak barrens and openings in uplands prior to 

European settlement (Minnesota DNR 1993, 

Marschner 1930). Lowlands consisted of mostly 

conifer bogs, swamps, and wet prairies (Marschner 

1930). Conifer bogs were important in the landscape 

historically, but are no longer present on the Refuge 

due to land draining efforts for agriculture. This 

habitat type was a tamarack-dominated swamp; typically on shallow to deep peat in lowland basins and 

occasionally on floating mats at edges of ponds. 

Other trees species that may have been present in 

this habitat include elm, red maple, and paper birch 

(Minnesota DNR 2005). Fire suppression and agricultural practices began with European settlers 

around 1850. Such activities altered the landscape 

and significantly changed vegetative communities 

from those that existed previously in the presence of 

fire initiated by weather events and Native AmeriTable 8: Wild Rice Productivity at Crane Meadows NWR (2008)

Lake Name Size (Acres) Estimate Wild Rice Coverage (Acres)

Mud 23 9

Rice 323 250

Skunk 320 256
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

cans. Fire suppression in the uplands resulted in 

succession from oak savanna to oak woodlands 

(Wovka et al. 1995). 

The Refuge acquisition boundary currently contains a great variety of upland habitat types including woodlands, prairie, southern dry savanna 

remnants, conifer plantations, and agriculture. Refuge woodlands contain jack pine, northern pin oak, 

bur oak, and aspen. Small pockets of open prairie 

knolls and southern dry savanna remnants can be 

found throughout the area. Although many of these 

remnant communities are altered because of past 

cultivation or grazing, they contain native sand prairie species such as big bluestem, Indian grass, little 

bluestem, porcupine grass, junegrass, prairie sand 

reed, rough dropseed, and prairie dropseed. Common native forbs include hoary puccoon, prairie violet, rough blazing star, prairie larkspur, heath aster, 

black-eyed Susan, stiff goldenrod, lead plant, purple 

prairie clover, butterfly weed, and prairie smoke.

The lowland habitats on the Refuge consist of 

emergent marsh, sedge meadow, and willow-dogwood shrub swamp. The vegetative communities 

along the edges of Rice and Skunk Lakes and associated rivers/creeks, include wild rice, bulrushes, 

bur-reed, arrowhead, cattails, sedges, reed canary 

grass, and phragmites. Lowland marshes and meadows with completely saturated soil or areas covered 

with shallow water are dominated by sedges, blue 

joint grass, and prairie chordgrass. Pockets of floating sedge mats can be found in these areas as well. 

Lowlands also support a variety of shrub species 

such as willow, red-osier dogwood, and bog birch. 

The diverse vegetative composition and habitat 

types of this area correlate to a high diversity of 

wildlife species that are typical of wetlands, forests, 

and grasslands. The current habitat composition of 

the Refuge acquisition boundary consists of approximately 50 percent wetland, 20 percent agriculture, 

17 percent woodlands, 6.6 percent grassland/prairie, 

1.4 percent conifer plantation, 1.3 percent oak 

savanna, 1.2 percent pasture, and 2.5 percent developed areas. A list of habitat types, definitions, and 

acreages for both the acquisition boundary and Service-owned property can be found in Table 9 on 

page 56. For consistency, the habitat names used in 

Table 9 and throughout this document have been 

adapted from general vegetation classes to habitats 

defined by the Minnesota DNR (2005). See Table 10 

on page 58. 

Wetlands and Open Water

Due to its low position in a relatively flat landscape, diversity of water features, and distinctive 

geologic history, the wetland complex at Crane 

Meadows NWR supports a unique combination of 

wet bottomlands and droughty uplands. According 

to the National Wetlands Inventory, the proposed 

Refuge acquisition boundary encompasses approximately 7,787 acres (56 percent) of various wetland 

and open water habitats that together comprise an 

extensive and diverse wetland complex (FWS 2004). 

This inventory included areas recorded as partially 

drained/ditched; approximately 1,792 acres (13 percent) within the Refuge acquisition area, 267 of 

which occur on properties currently owned by the 

Service. The wetland types in the inventory include 

open water, emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, 

unconsolidated bottom, and a few lacustrine and riverine areas. The 2004 NWI inventory classified 

most of the system as palustrine, and 852 acres as 

either riverine or lacustrine. Of the palustrine environments, 4,509 acres were classified as emergent, 

941 acres were scrub/shrub, 181 were forested, 61 

were considered unconsolidated bottom, and 1,243 

acres contained a mixture of these classes (see Figure 25 on page 59, Cowardin et al. 1979, FWS 2004). 

Similarly, a 2006 vegetation mapping project for 

the Refuge acquisition boundary (see Figure 26 on 

page 60) cites 6,894 acres of wetland habitat excluding forested wetlands, which are covered in the following section. Habitat classes for this 2006 

classification include open water, rivers and 

streams, emergent marshes, sedge meadows, and 

willow-dogwood shrub swamps. Rice and Skunk 

Lakes account for approximately 643 acres of these 

Refuge wetlands and are characterized as emergent 

marsh. The four tributaries flowing into the lakes – 

the Platte River, Rice Creek, Skunk River, and 

Buckman Creek – combined with the Platte River 

exiting the complex, together account for a total of 

32 stream miles within the acquisition boundary. 

The Platte River flows into Skunk Lake from the 

northeast corner of the Refuge and flows out the 

southwest spur and ultimately into the Mississippi 

River. The Platte River watershed drains approximately 345 square miles. Rice Creek is further west 

and flows into Rice Lake from the north. The Skunk 

River flows into the Refuge from the east side, and 

Buckman Creek, located further south, flows into 

the Refuge from the southeast. Buckman Creek 

flows into Mud Lake first, then into Skunk, then 

Rice, and finally exits the Refuge via the Platte 

River (refer to map in Figure 2 on page 3). In addition to the lakes (emergent marshes) and tributaries, other important wetland habitats within the 

complex include a relatively intact, extensive sedge 

meadow and willow-dogwood shrub swamp. These 

two habitats extend along the perimeter of the lakes 

(emergent marshes), rivers and creeks and together 

cover approximately 5,140 acres of proposed Refuge 

lands (Figure 26 on page 60). During periods of 

heavy rainfall or high spring runoff, the entire complex can be inundated. During regular flow cycles, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Table 9: Habitats Found at Crane Meadows NWR

HABITATa DESCRIPTION

ACRESb

Authorized for 

Acquisition

Currently Owned

Open Water Portion of a lake with a water depth of >1m and without 

emergent vegetation (Cowardin et al. 1979). Skunk, 

Rice, and Mud Lakes are the three lakes with varying 

‘open water’ status.

 153.9 17.8

River/Stream Lotic or running water environment (Goldman and 

Horne 1983). The Platte and Skunk Rivers, and Rice 

and Buckman Creeks flow through the Refuge.

 32.0 miles 3.1 miles

Emergent Marsh Shallow water wetland (water depths 20-60 inches) 

dominated by cattails, bulrushes, and submergent and 

floating aquatic plants (coontail, milfoil, pondweeds, 

water-lilies, etc.); floating mats; areas along shorelines 

of lakes, ponds, rivers, or in shallow basins.

 1,599.3 102.2

Sedge Meadow Open wet meadow dominated by sedge, with broadleaved graminoids and < 25 percent shrub cover.2,640.4 458.9

Willow-Dogwood 

Shrub Swamp 

Open wetlands dominated by broad-leaved graminoids 

and > 25 percent shrub cover. Shrubs include willows, 

red-osier dogwood, speckled alder, and bog birch.

2,499.9 410.0

Southern Rich Conifer 

Swamp

Tamarack-dominated swamps on shallow to deep peat, 

occasionally on floating mats at edges of ponds. Found 

in basins on moraines and outwash plains. Other trees 

species include elm, red maple, and paper birch.

 0 0

Northern Floodplain 

Forest

Deciduous riparian forests on sand alluvial soils along 

rivers and streams. Typically dominated by silver 

maple, but on the Refuge this habitat includes ash, 

American elm, box elder, basswood, etc.

435.3 52.4

Wet Prairie Tallgrass-dominated herbaceous vegetation, some 

forbs, shrub layer is absent to sparse, and no trees. 

Typic species include prairie cordgrass, big bluestem, 

Indian grass, woolly sedge, and Canada goldenrod.

911.0 c 379.1c

Southern Mesic Prairie Tallgrasses dominant, but several mid-height grasses 

also important, forb rich, shrub layer sparse, no trees. 

Typic species include big bluestem, Indian grass, little 

bluestem, porcupine grass, stiff goldenrods, purple and 

white prairie clovers. Some Refuge areas have been 

planted to this habitat type.

Southern Dry Prairie Shortgrass-dominated herbaceous vegetation, some 

forbs, no trees. Typic species include little bluestem, 

side-oats grama, prairie dropseed, porcupine grass, 

junegrass, silk aster, purple coneflower, pasqueflower, 

harebell, etc.

Southern Dry Savanna Scattered trees 25-50 percent canopy cover (mostly bur 

oak with some black oak and jack pine), typically 

graminoid-dominated, forb-rich herbacious layer 

includes side oats grama, prairie dropseed, stiff 

goldenrod, silk aster, etc.

185.1 5.3
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Rice, Skunk, and Mud Lakes are generally less than 

3 feet deep and are rich in aquatic vegetation including dense stands of wild rice when growing conditions are favorable. In the past decade the wild rice 

crop throughout the wetland complex has been poor, 

with an exception in 2007 when the state of Minnesota experienced a severe drought and the rice crop 

was fairly dense. 

Woodlands

Based on the 2006 vegetation map (Figure 26 on 

page 60), the Refuge acquisition area has approximately 2,572.2 acres of woodlands including both 

upland and bottomland forests that support a variety of tree species. Areas of upland forest include 

oak woodlands (1,181.5 acres) dominated by bur oak 

and northern pin oak, oak-aspen woodland (671.9 

acres) dominated mostly by aspen species, and jack 

pine woodland (84.5 acres) comprised mostly of jack 

pine but interspersed with quaking aspen and 

northern pin oak. Bottomland forests are designated as northern floodplain forests (435.3 acres) 

which is essentially a riparian zone following the 

watercourses and/or forested areas near and adjacent to the lakes. Tree species inhabiting bottomland forests include silver maple, aspen, elm, ash, 

basswood, box elder and a small amount of tamarack. Also included in this total are 199.5 acres of 

conifer plantations in private ownership, including 

spruce, and jack, red, scotch, and white pines. 

Oak Savanna

The distribution of oak savanna throughout the 

Midwest was widespread before European settlement. This habitat type once occupied as much as 50 

percent of Midwestern landscape covering 11 to 13 

million hectares (Nuzzo 1986). Most oak savanna 

habitat has been lost due to timber cutting, fire suppression, conversion to agriculture, and development. Only 0.02 percent of pre-European oak 

savannas remain today in small fragments and scattered remnants. Today, oak savanna is among the 

world’s most threatened plant communities. Small 

patches totaling approximately 185 acres of a native 

oak savanna subtype, identified as southern dry 

savanna, have been retained in the Refuge acquisition area from pre-settlement times. This oak 

savanna subtype is characterized by a relatively 

open community of scattered or clumped (25-50 percent canopy cover; 5-50 square-feet per acre basal 

Jack Pine Woodland Dry-mesic pine or hardwood forest dominated by 

evergreens (primarily jack pine). Other species may 

include red pine, quaking aspen, bur oak, and northern 

red oak.

84.5 8.8

Oak Woodland Dry-mesic hardwood forests; typically deciduousdominated, but at times mixed deciduous-conifer. Tree 

species include bur oak, pin oak, northern red oak, 

white oak, basswood, and American elm.

1,181.5 201.9

Oak-Aspen Woodland Commonly dominated by northern pin oak, with 

quaking aspen, paper birch, big-toothed aspen, bur oak, 

northern red oak or red pine also abundant. At Crane 

Meadows, this habitat is dominated by aspen.

671.9 66.0

Agriculture Land used for crop production and raising livestock. 

Common crops cultivated within the proposed Refuge 

boundary includes corn, small grain, and alfalfa. 

Livestock is dairy, pork, or poultry. 

2,942.2 10.8

Conifer Plantation Planted native or non-native conifers. Jack, red, and 

white pine are native to the area.

199.5 11.9

a. For consistency, vegetation classes from the 2006 vegetation assessment were compared to habitats defined 

by Minnesota DNR (2005) and reclassified to these standards (see Table 10).

b. All acreages are approximate GIS acres.

c. The 3 prairie types are not easily distinguished on the aerial imagery used to assess these habitat types. 

Acreages for all three prairie sub-types are combined here.

Table 9: Habitats Found at Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

HABITATa DESCRIPTION

ACRESb

Authorized for 

Acquisition

Currently Owned
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Table 10: Vegetation Cover Type Reclassification

2006 Vegetation Map Cover Types GIS 

Acres Habitat Type Summary GIS 

Acres

Agriculture 2,770.0 Agriculture 2,942.2

Pasture 172.3

Jack Pine Plantation 22.0 Conifer Plantation 199.5

Red Pine Plantation 98.3

Scotch Pine Plantation 39.4

Spruce Plantation 24.1

White Pine Plantation 15.7

Developed 1,70.1 Developed

Roads-Roadside 1,75.2

Bulrush (Scirpus) 6.8 Emergent Marsh 1,599.3

Cattail (Typha) 409.0

Giant Reed Grass (Phragmites) 240.2

Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris) 144.2

Wild Rice (Zizania) 40.0

Rooted Floating Aquatic 456.5

Submersed Vegetation 302.6

Oak-Jackpine Mixed Forest 84.5 Jackpine Woodland 84.5

Lowland Broadleaf 435.3 Northern Floodplain Forest 435.3

Alder Shrub 50.8 Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp 2,499.9

Willow-Dogwood Shrub 2,449.2

Northern Pin Oak-Bur Oak Forest 718.4 Oak Woodland 1,181.5

Upland Broadleaf 463.1

Open Water 153.9 Open Water 153.9

Blue Joint Meadow 569.5 Sedge Meadow 2,640.4

Sedge Bluejoint Mixed Meadow 1,498.5

Sedge Meadow 296.8

Wet Meadow-Mixed Emergents 275.7

Oak Savanna 185.1 Southern Dry Savanna 185.1

Cool Season Grasses 549.2 Prairie a 911.0

Warm Season Grasses (planted) 361.8

Aspen 671.9 Oak-Aspen Woodland 671.9

Southern Rich Conifer Swamp 0.0

River/Stream 32 Miles

a. The term “Prairie” refers to all prairie subtypes including: Southern Mesic Prairie, 

Southern Dry Prairie, and Wet Prairie.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Figure 25: National Wetland Inventory Wetland Vegetation Classes, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Figure 26: Refuge Vegetation Based on 2006 Imagery, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

area), short (15-45 feet), open grown bur oak trees 

that are usually interspersed with northern pin oak, 

may have black oak and jack pine components, and 

with a nearly continuous cover of both prairie and 

forest forbs and graminoids (Wovcha et al. 1995).

Grasslands

The Refuge contains approximately 911 acres of 

grassland habitat including a few small remnants of 

native southern dry prairie (sand prairie). Other 

open grasslands on the Refuge include southern 

mesic prairie, consisting mostly of native warm season grasses and tallgrass prairie species that were 

planted during restoration efforts; and wet prairie 

characterized by both warm and cool season 

grasses, sedges, and forbs. (Note: the diversity of 

prairie types and grassland habitats were not distinguishable during the 2006 aerial cover type classification). These grasslands support a variety of 

grassland-dependent wildlife species. Prairie habitats throughout North America have also declined 

significantly due to fire suppression and conversion 

to agriculture. 

Agriculture

Agriculture remains the leading economic activity in Morrison County. Because Crane Meadows 

NWR falls within the Anoka Sand Plain, the soil is 

porous sand and susceptible to rapid water percolation, typically undesirable for agricultural practices. 

However, once marginal farmland has now become 

profitable because of large-scale irrigation and fertilization. Incidentally, the rapid infiltration and 

passage of water through the sandy soils also leads 

to an increased transfer of fertilizers, pesticides, 

and other agricultural chemicals into surface and 

ground waters. 

Many of the Refuge in-holdings are currently 

being used for agricultural purposes. Crop production within the proposed Refuge boundaries consists 

mainly of corn, small grains, and alfalfa. Other agricultural uses in the immediate vicinity include diary, 

pork and poultry farms. A number of pasture/grassland areas are used for grazing livestock as well. 

Also, some sedge meadows and wetland edges are 

hayed during years of normal or below average precipitation. The wetland complex is experiencing 

pressure from large scale farming and, to a lesser 

extent, residential development on adjacent lands 

within the acquisition boundary. Several large-scale 

agricultural and livestock operations have developed in recent years. Large installations have been 

erected to house hundreds and even thousands of 

animals. It will be increasingly difficult for the Service to acquire lands where costly structures have 

been erected. Similarly, central pivot irrigation systems continue to be constructed at an alarming rate 

on and adjacent to the Refuge. Many woodlots, 

windbreaks, and fence lines have been removed to 

accommodate these large irrigation structures. 

Refuge Wildlife

Birds

The Refuge supports populations of many bird 

species and attracts more than 200 species each 

year with its diverse habitats. The abundance of 

wetland habitat attracts a variety of wetland-dependent species to the area including the Greater Sandhill Crane, a bird that was almost completely 

extirpated from Minnesota by the beginning of the 

20th century. Historical records show cranes used 

Rice and Skunk Lakes in pre-settlement times. The 

first recorded sighting after extirpation was in 1958. 

Sandhill Cranes have been recorded every year 

since, and the area has emerged as one of the most 

important nesting areas for cranes in central Minnesota, with a current estimate of 40 breeding pairs in 

the area. The Refuge also serves as a staging 

ground for thousands of cranes during fall migration.

Waterfowl are generally abundant in the spring 

and into the fall, and include most species of ducks 

and geese found in the Prairie Pothole Region of 

Minnesota. Some waterfowl species of conservation 

concern use the Refuge during certain life-stages 

including Northern Pintail (migration), Lesser 

Scaup (migration), American Black Duck (migration/winter), Mallard (breeding/resident), Canvasback (migration), and Trumpeter Swan 

(migratrion). The most common nesting species of 

ducks are Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood 

Duck. During spring and fall migration, up to 10,000 

ducks, a mixture of both divers and dabblers, and 

geese may be present at one time on Rice and 

Skunk Lakes and surrounding wetlands. High concentrations of Mallards, Ring-necked Ducks, Wood 

Grasslands at Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Ducks, Lesser Scaup, and Blue-winged Teal can be 

observed in the fall and thousands of Canvasbacks 

and Mergansers are present in early spring.

Other wetland-dependent birds found in the area 

include Great Blue Heron, American Bittern, Common Loon, Horned Grebe, Common Snipe, Sora 

(Rail), Sedge Wren, Black Tern, Foster’s Tern, and 

Northern Harrier. Exposed mud flats that occur 

sporadically on the edges of Refuge wetlands attract 

some shorebirds including Wilson’s Phalarope, 

Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper, 

and Spotted Sandpiper. 

More than 100 other bird species have been 

recorded during the breeding and migration seasons. Some of the common songbirds attracted to 

the woodlands and open grassland areas on the Refuge include:

 Eastern Kingbird

 Eastern Bluebird

 Northern (Baltimore) Oriole

 Rose-breasted Grosbeak

 Brown Thrasher

 Scarlet Tanager

Several songbirds of conservation concern also 

inhabit the Refuge woodlands and grasslands during the breeding season including: 

 Golden-winged Warbler

 Black-billed Cuckoo

 Red-headed Woodpecker

 Bobolink

 Eastern Meadowlark

Year-round residents include: 

 Black-capped Chickadee

 Red-breasted Nuthatch

 White-breasted Nuthatch

 Downy Woodpecker

 Hairy Woodpecker

 Pileated Woodpecker

 Red-bellied Woodpecker

 Ruffed Grouse

 Ring-necked Pheasant

 Wild Turkey

Common birds of prey that inhabit the Refuge 

include: 

 Bald Eagle

 Red-tailed Hawk

 Northern Goshawk

 Red-shouldered Hawk

 American Kestrel

 Osprey

 Sharp-shinned Hawk

 Coopers Hawk

 Barred Owl

 Great Horned Owl

See Appendix C for a list of all bird species found 

on the Refuge.

Mammals

The Refuge lies within the known breeding range 

of 54 mammal species. Of these, 35 species have 

been confirmed on Refuge lands. Bison and elk were 

historically present on the landscape, but were 

extirpated in the early 1900s. 

The largest mammal that inhabits and breeds on 

the Refuge is the white-tailed deer. Other large 

mammals common to the Refuge include coyote, red 

fox, and on occasion black bear. Gray wolves will 

occasionally pass through the area, but do not have 

established packs on the Refuge. Other predators 

on the Refuge include mink, river otter, short-tailed 

weasel, and badger. Small mammals typical of this 

area include:

 Short-tailed shrew

 Star-nosed mole

 White-footed mouse

 Deer mouse

 Plains pocket gopher

 Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Observations of two state special concern species 

on the Refuge include plains pocket mouse and the 

prairie vole. Little brown bats and red bats have 

also been identified on the Refuge. Muskrat, beaver, 

raccoon, and mink are common in wetland habitat, 

while uplands harbor a variety of mice, voles, 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

shrews, and ground and tree squirrel species. See 

Appendix C for a list of all mammal species found on 

the Refuge.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Ten species of amphibians and 11 species of reptiles have been documented on the Refuge. Many of 

these species are dependent on Refuge wetlands, 

such as painted turtles, snapping turtles, and tiger 

salamanders while others, including eastern garter 

snake, brown snake, eastern and western hognose 

snake, and gopher (bull) snake, are associated with 

the upland habitats. The state-listed threatened 

Blanding’s turtle is dependent on both upland and 

wetland habitats. The eastern gray tree frog, Cope’s 

gray tree frog, wood frog, and western chorus frogs 

are commonly heard on the Refuge and inhabit 

wooded areas adjacent to sedge meadows, emergent 

marshes, or potholes. See Appendix C for a list of all 

herpetofauna found on the Refuge. 

Fish

Forty fish species have been identified in lakes 

and rivers on the Refuge. Game fish species include:

 Northern pike

 Walleye

 Smallmouth bass

 Largemouth bass

 Bluegill

 Black crappie 

A large population of carp and other roughfish 

also inhabit the open waters. Species that are indicators of ecosystem health within Refuge waters 

include redhorse suckers and shiners. Many fish in 

these areas experience winterkill caused by depletion of oxygen during the winter months. Much of 

the watershed is restocked naturally from the Mississippi River by way of the Platte River downstream from the Refuge. See Appendix C for a list of 

all fish species found on the Refuge. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Animals

Gray wolves, a federally-listed endangered species, are also currently listed under a threatened 

status in the state of Minnesota. Wolves do not have 

any established packs on the Refuge but intermittently pass through the area. In 2001, a program 

was initiated to reintroduce an experimental nonessential population of federally listed endangered 

Whooping Cranes. The intent was to establish an 

eastern migratory flock that would summer and 

breed in central Wisconsin and winter in west-central Florida. On rare occasions, individuals from this 

experimental population have been observed in the 

area near Crane Meadows NWR. The mosaic of 

vegetation communities, mainly the wetland complex at Crane Meadows NWR, can provide essential 

habitat for this species if the population continues to 

grow and disperse. Bald Eagles were federallylisted as endangered and later as threatened, but 

were delisted on August 9, 2007, and moved to a protected status under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This 

species is commonly observed in the area during 

spring and fall migration and the Refuge currently 

supports three nesting pairs. Peregrine Falcons 

were also once federally listed as endangered and 

were delisted in 1999 after their remarkable comeback. Currently, Peregrine Falcons are state-listed 

as threatened and are occasionally seen on the Refuge during spring and fall migration. 

State-listed threatened or special concern birds 

species documented on the Refuge include Trumpeter Swan, Wilson’s Phalarope, Horned Grebe, 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow, Short-eared Owl, 

Red-shouldered Hawk, American White Pelican, 

and Forster’s Tern. Greater Prairie Chickens were 

once documented using a cultivated field within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary. Two locally extirpated 

bird species, but historically present in the area and 

of conservation interest to the Refuge, are the Loggerhead Shrike and Upland Sandpiper. The Refuge 

supports a Blanding’s turtle population, a statelisted threatened species, and other reptiles with 

special concern status including snapping turtles, 

western hognose snake, and gopher snake. Two species of mussel with state special concern status have 

also been documented on the Refuge, the creek 

heelsplitter and black sandshell found in the Skunk 

River (see Appendix C for a list of the mussel species present at Crane Meadows NWR).

Plants

Three species of rare plants have been documented on the Refuge. Small populations of blunt 

sedge and Hill’s thistle (state-listed special concern 

species) were found in southern dry prairie (sand White-tailed deer fawn. Photo credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

prairie) and southern dry savanna remnants on the 

Refuge. The state-listed endangered tubercled reinorchid has been documented in two locations on the 

Refuge in southern mesic/wet prairie and sedge 

meadow habitats. 

Threats to Resources

Agricultural Development

Agriculture is the primary land use and leading 

economic activity in Morrison County. More natural 

areas have been converted to cropland in the county 

than to any other cover type, and many of these 

areas were already converted by the middle of the 

20th century. 

Threats associated with agriculture continue to 

pose the greatest challenges for the Refuge and its 

resources. This land conversion adversely impacts 

wildlife species by decreasing habitat availability, 

quality, and connectivity, and thereby increasing 

overall fragmentation of habitat. However, a parallel issue is the intensification of agriculture adjacent 

to the Refuge. Runoff from crop fields, pastureland, 

and feedlots creates non-point sources of pollution. 

Refuge resources are adversely affected by the 

application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers 

on neighboring and upstream lands. These substances are not only a source of contamination but 

can also lead to increased erosion, sedimentation, 

and eutrophication in the watershed and Refuge 

wetlands. Many of these substances, such as organochlorines and organo-phosphates, are known to be 

toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).

There are a number of agricultural practices in 

the area that pose threats to the Refuge and the 

area’s natural resources. 

Animal Barns and Poultry Houses

Large animal husbandry projects occur and continue to be developed near the Refuge acquisition 

boundary. At the time of writing, one installation 

exists within the acquisition boundary and five additional installations can be found within 1 mile of the 

boundary. In addition to habitat loss and fragmentation, these installations may pose threats regarding 

undesirable nutrient levels, wastes, contaminants in 

surface waters, and rapid infiltration through sandy 

soils into local aquifers. 

Public health issues for people such as E. Coli, as 

well as impacts on wildlife (e.g. avian influenza, salmonella, etc.) are also risk factors. The risks posed 

by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

(CAFOs) include environmental contamination with 

nitrogen, phosphorous, pathogenic bacteria, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia; noxious odor; habitat loss; and groundwater depletion (EPA and 

USDA 1999).

Center Pivot Irrigation

Center pivot irrigation systems have been 

erected in dryland farming areas increasing habitat 

loss and fragmentation. This activity also depletes 

groundwater sources and impact the levels of local 

water tables; create field scars and increase erosion, 

runoff, and sedimentation; impact adjacent habitats 

by increasing local moisture levels; degrade soils by 

increasing soil mineral levels and salinity if applied 

long-term; and these practices are typically accompanied by increased usage of pesticides, herbicides, 

and fertilizers – each with environmental implications (Johnson and Lewis 2007). 

Tiling, Channelization, and Draining

Another serious threat to the natural function of 

the Rice-Skunk wetland system is tiling and channelizing waterways for agriculture. 

This activity destroys wetlands and increases 

bottomland habitat fragmentation. In addition, the 

rapid removal of water from large areas leads to 

water volume surges in streams and wetlands, 

increased sediment, nutrient (especially nitrates), 

and agrochemical transport and deposition in waterways and Refuge wetlands, and reduces infiltration 

for groundwater recharge. Channelization also 

increases soil erosion, while tiling may help reduce 

surface runoff and erosion. 

Invasive Species

Several invasive species occupy the Refuge, many 

of which are exotic. Invasives are often able to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions and do 

not require the same external mechanisms for pollination and seed dispersal as natives. These species 

have the potential to negatively impact biodiversity 

and the quality of important habitat for native wildlife species. They also complicate efforts to preserve 

or restore natural vegetation communities. 

Currently, the following invasive plants pose the 

greatest threat to Refuge uplands: 

 Siberian elm

 Black locust

 Buckthorn

 Canada thistle

 Leafy spurge

 Common tansy

 Spotted knapweed

Proliferation of aspen may also lead to problems 

in upland restoration sites.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Invasive and exotic species also pose a threat to 

Refuge wetlands. Purple loosestrife is an exotic species, is invasive to the wetland areas near the Refuge, and merits routine monitoring due to its high 

level of invasiveness. Reed canary grass is also an 

aggressive invasive species that competes with and 

displaces native wetland vegetation. Phragmites 

requires monitoring for increases in abundance 

within the complex; as some subspecies are invasive 

and others native. These species can reduce the 

quality of habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife 

species. Routine monitoring is required to understand and prevent the spread of these and other 

invasive species on the Refuge.

Urban and Residential Development

The Refuge is located 7 miles southeast of the 

closest town, Little Falls, Minnesota, which has an 

estimated population of 8,200 and 545 housing units. 

Within the last decade, the population of Little Falls 

has grown by 5.5 percent. 

The population of Morrison County increased by 

10 percent in the last 20 years, and 3.6 percent in the 

last decade to reach a current count of 33,000 people. The number of housing units in Morrison 

County has increased 12.8 percent within the last 

decade, with approximately 16,000 house or condo 

units (U.S. Census 2009). Increased population and 

development may impact the Refuge resources and 

land acquisition by adding to habitat loss and fragmentation, changing property ownership and zoning, and increasing other human activities that may 

conflict with the Refuge purposes and the Refuge 

System mission. 

Even more relevant to the Refuge than growth 

and development within the county and adjacent 

towns is development in and immediately adjacent 

to the Refuge. Because the Refuge is not at full 

acquisition within its congressionally designated 

acquisition boundary, private landowners are free to 

build and develop any areas not owned by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

To gain a sense of development levels and distribution, 2008 Farm Services Agency imagery was 

used to identify existing structures both within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary, and within a 1-mile 

buffer of the Refuge (see Figure 27 on page 66). 

More than 35 developed sites (residences, farmsteads, and agricultural installations) with approximately 100 associated structures such as houses, 

garages, barns, storage silos, and others were identified within the acquisition boundary. The wetland 

complex itself has limited the amount of development in the center of the Refuge, and the majority 

of these developed sites lie along the periphery of 

the acquisition boundary. 

An additional 250 developed sites with more than 

600 structures exist within 1 mile of the Refuge. The 

highest concentrations of developed sites follow 

Highway 27 along the northern boundary of the 

Refuge, and surround the shorelines of Pierz Lake 

to the northeast. Moderate or little development has 

occurred on the west, south, and east flanks of the 

acquisition boundary (Figure 27 on page 66). As the 

city of Little Falls grows, it is likely that development surrounding the Refuge will increase – particularly on the north and west sides.

Contaminants

An aerial survey of possible contamination sites 

in the area was conducted by the Service in August 

of 1991. No unusual sources of contaminants were 

found other than abandoned private waste sites. 

The Greater Morrison County Sanitary Landfill 

is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the Refuge. Surveys of the area surrounding the landfill 

have indicated contamination in the form of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) in the underlying 

groundwater. However, measured VOC levels are 

low (less than 300 parts per billion at the edge of the 

groundwater plume) and have not been detected 

beyond 500 feet from the landfill boundary. The 

general direction of the upper aquifer groundwater 

movement beneath the landfill heads away from the 

Refuge-to the southeast toward the Platte River. 

Other potential sources of contamination (i.e. 

high concentrations of phosphorous, manure, etc.) 

are associated with agricultural lands currently 

within and adjacent to the Refuge acquisition 

boundary as discussed in the previous section.

Climate Change

The increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere resulting 

from the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to 

the gradual rise in surface temperature, commonly 

referred to as global warming. In addition to rising 

air and water temperatures, there are a number of 

other effects associated with a changing global climate including intense heat waves, shrinking permafrost zones, winter snow cover, sea ice, and 

glaciers, ocean acidification, changing precipitation 

patterns and associated effects on water availability 

(drought, flooding), a general decrease in open 

water areas and soil moisture levels, increasing fire 

severity – intensity, extent, and frequency, migrating plant productivity and agricultural zones, habitat shifts at all scales from ecosystems and biomes 

to specific sites, dislocation of species as habitat 

ranges experience shifts, reductions, and/or expansions, increasing issues with plant and animal pathogens and pests – both exotic and endemic, and more. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Figure 27: Development Near Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Several examples of potential climate change 

impacts on wildlife have been identified. The following are just a few issues that may require further 

attention as climate change progresses (Green et al. 

2000, Schneider and Root 2002).

 Habitat available for cold water fish such as 

trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be 

reduced.

 Forest distributions and compositions may 

change, with some species shifting their range 

northward, higher in altitude, or being replaced 

as other tree species move in to take their place.

 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat due to more severe and frequent 

drought events.

 Changes in the seasonality of life cycle stages 

such as migration and nesting could put some 

animals out of sync with the life cycles of their 

prey species.

 Herpetofauna may have trouble meeting the 

moisture conditions required for reproduction, 

and even respiration in their local habitats, and 

difficulty dispersing through inhospitable environments. 

 Animal and plant species, including invasive or 

pest species, shift their ranges north in latitude 

as winter climatic conditions become more moderate and the warm seasons lengthen.

The resiliency of natural systems is tied to biodiversity. The diversity of organisms may be one of 

our greatest weapons against climate change; each 

organism will react and respond differently (Scott et 

al. 2009). Biological communities will not shift or 

remain intact because of the variability in each 

organism’s sensitivity to climate change, size, mobility, lifespan, and the availability of food, shelter, and 

other resources it requires (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). In response, we must assess and provide 

for increased representation and redundancy across 

seasonal, geographic, and ecologic thresholds. Initial prioritization of action should be directed to 

those species for which climate change poses the 

greatest threat, namely those with limited distributions, highly specific ecological niches, and/or limited mobility. For example, plants and animals that 

are highly temperature sensitive or are confined to 

high altitudes or polar areas (Scott et al. 2009). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued Secretarial Order Number 3226 in January 2001 requiring all federal agencies with land management 

responsibilities within the DOI to consider potential 

climate change impacts as part of long range planning efforts. This report was amended in January of 

2009 to further expand and define bureau climate 

change, carbon sequestration, and energy conservation responsibilities. 

In its 2009 strategic plan, ‘Rising to the Urgent 

Challenges of a Changing Climate,’ the Service calls 

for bold, aggressive, and strategic action to address 

climate change on three broad fronts: adaptation, 

mitigation, and education. Despite considerable 

uncertainty regarding the magnitude, extent, and 

timing of changes, the Service vision includes measures to “...sustain diverse, distributed, and abundant populations of fish and wildlife by conserving 

healthy habitats in a network of interconnected, ecologically-functioning landscapes (p. 8).”

The plan also describes six principles deemed 

essential to achieving this vision: priority setting, 

partnership, best science, landscape conservation, 

technical capacity, and global approach. Climate 

change was a key factor in the discussions and decision-making for the future management proposed in 

Crane Meadows NWR’s CCP.

Mitigation and Adaptation

According to the 2009 report, ‘Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States,’ there are two 

broad categories of responses to global climate 

change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers 

to actions taken ‘before’ change occurs – efforts to 

reduce climate change as we move forward from the 

present, and curb its effects before they increase in 

severity or reach critical thresholds. Adaptation 

measures can be applied both ‘before’ (anticipatory) 

and ‘after’ (reactive) climate changes have occurred, 

and are actions aimed at avoiding or coping with 

harmful impacts and taking advantage of new 

opportunities presented by new climatic and environmental conditions (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 

2009; FWS 2009). 

National wildlife refuges help mitigate the onset 

of climate change by increasing our ecological resiliency and reducing environmental stressors. Refuges will also play a critical role in adaptation 

strategies in the future. Table 11 on page 68 lists a 

number of examples in which refuges may contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 

2000 report, ‘Climate Change Impacts on the United 

States: The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change,’ produced by the National 

Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), an advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act to help the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program fulfill its mandate under the 

Global Change Research Act of 1990. These 

excerpts are from the section of the report focused 

upon the eight-state Midwest Region. 

Climate Trends of the Past Century

“Over the 20th century, the northern portion of 

the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

has warmed by almost 4oF (2oC), while the 

southern portion, along the Ohio River Valley, 

has cooled by about 1oF (0.5oC). Annual precipitation has increased, up to 20 percent in some 

areas, with much of this coming from more 

heavy precipitation events (NAST 2000).”

Climate Projections for the Next Century

“During the 21st century, it is highly likely that 

temperatures will increase throughout the 

region, likely at a rate faster than that observed 

in the 20th century, with models projecting a 

warming trend of 5 to 10°F (3 degrees to 6 

Table 11: Refuge Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Problems Associated with Climate 

Change Refuge Mitigation Potential 

Rising ambient air temperatures caused 

by increasing greenhouse gasses. 

Increased water temperatures.

Sequester carbon in vegetative biomass and serve as ‘sinks’ for greenhouse 

gasses. Set an example by moving towards agency-wide carbon neutrality. 

Contribute to efforts for increasing renewable energy development.

Changing precipitation frequency and 

intensity, including overwhelming water 

management systems

Provide floodplains as protection against surges, and reservoirs to buffer 

periods of drought. Enhance wetland and bottomland habitats for 

groundwater recharge and to filter waterborne pollutants (fertilizers, 

pesticides, excessive sediment).

Disrupted ecological processes and basic 

life support functionality

Tailor refuge management to protect or, if necessary, restore essential 

ecological processes and services such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil 

formation and stabilization, primary production, photosynthesis, and air, 

water, and nutrient cycling.

Rising sea levels and increasing tropical 

storm intensities

Where possible, buffer coastal areas with natural cover types thus minimizing 

socioeconomic losses as waters advance inland and storms pass from the 

oceans inland.

Modified fire frequency and intensity Use controlled burn programs to reduce fuel loads on-refuge and serve as a 

source of trained fire professionals for other areas in need.

Loss of species and their required 

habitats

Protect lands with a diversity of habitats for declining species and spearhead 

efforts to protect species of concern. Protect genetic diversity and serve as a 

source for repopulation efforts.

Geographical shifts in biomes and 

species’ ranges

Serve as large ecological hubs in a greater network of conservation lands 

allowing for species migration.

Altered species phenologies and 

interactions (competition, predations, 

parasitism, and disease)

Provide natural, minimally-altered settings for the evolutionary process and 

wildlife interaction.

Advancement of exotic invasives, pest 

species, pathogens, and contaminants

Manage to control and eradicate invasives on refuge lands, providing habitat 

for endemic species. Direct efforts to reduce species susceptibility to disease, 

pathogens, pests, and contaminants.

Limited scientific understanding of longterm climate change implicationsDevelop inventory and monitoring sites for ecological and climatic variables. 

Conduct directed research to address climate change topics. Continue to build 

scientific capacities and expertise in the Agency. Foster collaboration among 

conservation science community. 

General lack of knowledge and 

understanding regarding climate change

Increase climate change education, training, and outreach both within the 

agency, and to external audiences. Tailor environmental education and 

interpretation programs to climate change topics. Provide conservation 

support to partners and other interested parties. Collaborate and share 

information and resources both internally and externally. 

Inadequate legal, regulatory, and policy 

framework to address climate change

Assist in the review and revision of environmental laws, regulations, policies, 

guidance, and protocols to increase incentives and eliminate barriers to 

conservation actions addressing climate change. Revise grant programs to 

direct funding to projects that address climate change.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

degrees Celsius) over 100 years. Precipitation is 

likely to continue its upward trend, with 10 to 30 

percent increases across much of the region. 

Increases in the frequency and intensity of 

heavy precipitation events are likely to continue 

in the 21st century. Despite the increase in precipitation, rising air temperatures and other 

meteorological factors are likely to lead to a 

substantial increase in evaporation, causing a 

soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river 

levels, and more drought-like conditions in 

many areas (NAST 2000).” 

Midwest Key Issues

Water Resources

Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based 

transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive issues affecting the Midwest Region. Despite 

the projected increase in precipitation, increased 

evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures 

is likely to lead to reduced water levels in the Great 

Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess the future of 

Great Lakes hydrology, 11 suggest significant 

decreases in lake levels while one suggests a small 

increase. The total range of the 11 models’ projections ranges from a less than 1-foot increase to a 

more than 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5-meter) 

reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction 

in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake 

levels will cause reduced hydropower generation 

downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 

2050. The projected increase in demand for water 

across the region while there is a simultaneous 

decrease in net flows is of particular concern. As 

demands for water increase there is a possibility for 

increased national and international tension related 

to growing pressure for water diversions from the 

Lakes. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows 

are likely to make water quality issues more acute. 

In addition, the projected increase in very heavy 

precipitation events will likely lead to an increase in 

flash flooding, and thus worsen agricultural and 

other non-point source pollution as more frequent 

heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. 

Lower water levels are likely to make water-based 

transportation more difficult, with increases in navigation costs from 5 to 40 percent. Some of this 

increase may be offset as reduced ice cover extends 

the navigation season and the geography of navigable waters changes. Reduced water levels may also 

decrease shoreline damage resulting from high lake 

levels by 40 to 80 percent. 

Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels 

would require adaptations such as re-engineering of 

ship docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease while demand increases, 

international commissions focusing on Great Lakes 

water issues will become even more important in the 

future. Improved forecasting of extreme precipitation events could help reduce some related impacts.

Agriculture

Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, 

the nation, and the world. Agricultural systems have 

exhibited a capacity to adapt to moderate differences in growing season climate, and it is likely that 

agriculture will be able to continue to adapt. With an 

increase in the length of the growing season, double 

cropping, the practice of planting a second crop in a 

single year after the first is harvested, is likely to 

become more prevalent. The fertilization effects of 

carbon dioxide are likely to enhance plant growth 

and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern 

areas of the region, where crop yields are currently 

temperature limited. However, yields are not likely 

to increase in all parts of the region. Consumers 

may pay lower prices due to increased yields, while 

producers are likely to suffer reduced profits 

because of declining prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are very likely to be required, 

presenting additional challenges. 

Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use 

climate prediction models to direct research to 

breeding new varieties for new growing conditions. 

Farmers can then choose varieties better suited to 

the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders 

will need to use all tools available in adapting to climate change, including genetic engineering. Modifying planting and harvest dates, planting densities, 

and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, and new farm technologies are additional options. There may be opportunities to shift 

or expand the area where certain crops are grown if 

climate conditions become more favorable. Weather 

conditions during the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-year differences in corn and 

soybean yields. Droughts and floods result in large 

yield reductions. Severe droughts like the drought 

of 1988 cause yield reductions of over 30 percent. 

Reliable seasonal forecasts would help farmers 

adjust their practices from year-to-year to respond 

to such events.

Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems

Forests: Different U.S. forest types are expected 

to expand (oak-hickory), contract (maple-beechbirch), or disappear altogether (spruce-fir) (Ryan et 

al. 2008). The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of soil and climate conditions that favor the 

growth of conifer forests. Higher temperatures and 

increased evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage, and make current forestlands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It is likely that the 

southern transition zone of the boreal forest will be 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

susceptible to expansion of temperate forests, not to 

mention increased competition from other land use 

pressures. However, warmer weather (coupled with 

beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide on vegetation), are likely to lead to an increase in tree 

growth rates on marginal forestlands that are currently temperature-limited. Most climate models 

indicate that higher air temperatures will cause 

greater evaporation and hence reduce soil moisture, 

a situation conducive to forest fires. Increased temperatures and longer growing seasons may also 

speed up decomposition rates and nutrient cycling, 

depending on water availability. As the 21st century 

progresses, there will be an increased likelihood and 

intensity of environmental stress on both deciduous 

and coniferous trees, making them susceptible to 

disease, pest infestation, and ultimately, mortality. 

Water Habitats: As lake water temperatures 

increase, major changes in freshwater ecosystems 

will very likely occur. For example, a shift may 

occur from cold water fish species such as trout, to 

warmer water species such as bass and catfish. 

Warmer water is also likely to create an environment more susceptible to invasive, non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as nitrogen 

and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers 

is likely to increase due to an increase in heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with warmer lake 

temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth of 

algae, depleting dissolved oxygen content in the 

water to the detriment of other living organisms. 

Reduced lake levels will likely impact the current 

distribution of wetlands. There is a chance that 

some wetlands could migrate gradually over time, 

but in areas where their migration is limited by the 

topography or anthropogenic land change, they 

would disappear. Changes in bird populations and 

other native wildlife have already been linked to 

increasing temperatures, and more changes are 

likely in the future. 

Outdoor Recreation

The climate change impacts on environmental 

systems will have direct consequences to humans. 

In the context of Service management responsibilities, this may result in effects on appropriate and 

compatible Refuge uses. Popular winter activities 

such as cross-country skiing, snow-shoeing, and ice 

fishing may have shorter seasons, and have the 

potential to be compromised by thinner ice and 

reduced snow cover. Opportunities for warm-season 

activities can be expected to see similar but opposite 

changes. Not only may warm-weather recreation 

seasons lengthen, but changing life cycles and distributions of wildlife may alter opportunities for 

hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography. 

Changes in activities not only affect Refuge management, but the local and regional economy.

Administrative Facilities

Because of Crane Meadows NWR’s small size 

and limited land in fee-title ownership, there is a 

small staff and minimal administration facilities. 

The main office (a converted private residence), four 

maintenance buildings, and their associated gravel 

parking lots comprise the administrative headquarters. The office building was renovated in 1992 when 

the Service began managing the first Refuge tracts, 

and has three offices and a small kitchen /common 

area.

Cultural Resources

The geology and hydrology in the area surrounding the Crane Meadows NWR have combined to 

produce one of the most potentially rich archaeological locations in the region. The pre-settlement habitats of oak savanna, tallgrass prairie, and sedgemeadow wetland, co-mingled with a large number of 

water features (Rice Lake, Skunk Lake, Mud Lake, 

Platte River, Skunk River, Rice Creek, Buckman 

Creek, and Little Rock Creek), would have provided 

an inviting wealth of animal and plant resources 

(particularly wild rice) for the prehistoric inhabitants of the region. 

To date, only three prehistoric archaeological 

sites have been positively identified within the 

boundaries of the Refuge acquisition boundary. All 

three are habitation and mound sites containing 

between 2 and 10 circular burial mounds each. The 

largest of the mounds is reported to be between 15 

and 25 feet high – likely the largest mound in Morrison County. Archaeological research conducted in 

the habitation areas has revealed that these locations were occupied for at least the last 3,000 years. 

Two of the mound sites were determined to be so 

significant and unique, that they were designated 

Green-wing teal. Photo credit: Beau Liddell
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

the Rice Lake Prehistoric District and listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on 

October 2, 1973. 

The Pelkey Lake Site, which is located only 1 

mile north of the Refuge, was also listed on the 

NRHP in 1973. Archaeological evidence there indicates that the site was used for the last 10,000 years 

by people of the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland periods. In addition, dozens of local residents 

have collected artifacts from the area (four archaeological sites are known to exist immediately adjacent to the Refuge) that reflect a long and 

continuous occupation of the region beginning with 

the Paleo-Indian period approximately 10,000 years 

ago. 

The use of the area historically includes ricing, 

gathering, and hunting (bison and large herds of elk 

were observed as late as 1806) by the Dakota and 

Ojibwe. The Platte River also served as a major 

canoe route between Lake Mille Lacs and the Mississippi River by Native Americans and EuroAmerican explorers, trappers, and traders. Dams 

were built on the Platte River during the mid 1800s 

and the first log drive occurred in 1856, the practice 

continued until the turn of the century. Euro-American settlement of the area began about 1850 with 

farmers clearing the land and building homesteads. 

The Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Saulte Ste. Marie 

(Soo Line) railroad laid new track between Mud and 

Skunk Lakes and plated the town of Vawter around 

1908. The town contained several stores, a grain elevator, community church, and school. By 1940, the 

town was abandoned. 

Archaeological and historic sites associated with 

the above events have not been previously identified 

or recorded, but are believed to exist within the Refuge. To date, only one archaeological investigation 

covering 5 acres has been conducted within the Refuge since it was established in 1992.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Section 2 – Current Management

The following section describes current and past 

management of Service-owned lands within the 

Crane Meadows Refuge acquisition boundary. To 

more easily facilitate management descriptions 

throughout this CCP, a temporary naming convention is used to reference the Service-owned properties within the Refuge acquisition boundary. A 

series of unit names was created as a part of the 

planning process to identify 12 distinct management 

areas (see Figure 28).

Habitat Management 

Wetlands

The greatest conservation priority at Crane 

Meadows NWR is protecting one of Minnesota’s 

largest remaining wetland complexes through land 

acquisition. Several wetlands within the proposed 

Refuge boundary are completely or partially 

drained for agricultural purposes and need to be 

restored. Restoration, protection, mechanical treatment of invasive species, and rotational prescribed 

burning are currently the only active management 

on Refuge-owned wetland habitat. Prescribed burning is limited due to difficult mobility in these areas 

and because of fragmented Service land ownership. 

Burns are often coordinated with adjacent private 

landowners. 

Open Water

Open waters, including Mud, Rice, and Skunk 

Lakes, are under state jurisdiction and management. A weir with a water control structure was 

built on the Platte River where it exits Rice Lake to 

maintain minimum water levels in the lakes for recreational use in the fall. 

River/Streams

No direct management is currently associated 

with river and stream areas. A spring clean-up day 

is conducted on many creeks and rivers throughout 

the Refuge acquisition boundary.

Emergent Marsh

No active management is currently associated 

with this habitat type other than the presence of the 

state-managed weir on the Platte River. Ditch plugs 

were used in 1996 to restore emergent marsh on the 

Headquarters Unit. Various methods for controlling 

invasive plant species, particularly purple loosestrife, have been used in these areas.

Sedge Meadow

There is currently little active management 

directly associated with this habitat other than protection and suppression of woody encroachment 

through prescribed burning and mechanical cutting.

Willow-dogwood Shrub Swamp

These areas undergo rotational prescribed burns 

where possible to control the spread of woody vegetation into other adjacent habitats. 

Northern Floodplain Forest

No active management programs are currently 

associated with this habitat type. Natural flood 

events occur regularly and wind throw occurs over 

time. 

Uplands

Grasslands (Southern Dry Prairie, Southern Mesic 

Prairie, and Wet Prairie)

Prescribed fire is used to rejuvenate grassland 

and prevent woody encroachment. The Refuge has a 

greenhouse in which native grasses and forbs are 

propagated for use during restoration activities. As 

new properties are acquired by the Refuge, upland 

areas formerly in agriculture are seeded with prairie grass and forb species: 

 Prior to the creation of the Refuge, several former agricultural fields on the Headquarters 

Unit were seeded to native warm-season 

grasses.

 1994: The Platte River 80 Unit and the northern 

half of the Platte River West Unit were seeded 

with a mix of native prairie grasses from Big 

Beaver leveler used on a Private Lands project. Photo Credit: 

FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Figure 28: Refuge Unit Names, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Stone NWR near Odessa, Minnesota. Plant species included in this mix were primarily big 

bluestem, little bluestem, and Indiangrass, with 

lesser components of switchgrass, side-oats 

gramma, purple prairie clover, and black-eyed 

susan. 

 1997: The front field of the Soo Line East Unit 

and some areas on the Sedge Meadow Unit 

were seeded with the same Big Stone mix. 

 1999: The Highway 27 Unit was seeded to a 

short dry grass mix, predominantly little 

bluestem. This area has become a seed production area for the Refuge.

 2003: The Highway 27 Unit was inter-seeded 

using a local, dry, shortgrass mix purchased 

from Prairie Restorations, Inc. 

 2005: A home site was removed from the north 

half of the Platte River West Unit and the site 

was seeded with prairie grasses of local origin. 

Also, the south half of the Platte River West 

Unit, and a small field on the east edge of the 

Sedge Meadow Unit were seeded to a big 

bluestem/Indiangrass mix. These two sites are 

used as seed production areas for the Refuge. 

The seed is harvested at maturity each year and 

used to seed other areas at Crane Meadows and 

Sherburne NWRs. 

 2006: Forty acres on the Headquarters Unit 

were seeded to big bluestem/Indiangrass and 

now serve as a seed production area.

 2007: The 9-acre interior field on the Soo Line 

East Unit was seeded to Indiangrass of local 

origin, and is now used as a seed production 

area. 

Oak Savanna (Southern Dry Savanna)

Current management consists of rotational prescribed burning to restore a historical disturbance 

and to suppress woody encroachment on sections of 

the Headquarters Unit.

Woodlands (Oak, Oak-Aspen, and Jack Pine)

Management of woodlands includes rotational 

prescribed burning in wooded areas on the Platte 

River West and Sedge Meadow Units to reduce hazardous fuel loads, and the removal of conifer plantations: 

 2005-2006: A windbreak of spruce trees was 

removed along the periphery of the home site 

on the north half of the Platte River West Unit. 

 2007: Conifer plantations were removed from 

the Platte River 80, Highway 27, and an east 

portion of the Sedge Meadow Unit. 

Agriculture (Cropland/Pasture) 

The last 40 acres of agricultural land on the Refuge were removed from production in 2005 on the 

Headquarters tract, just east of the road to the Refuge office. Following the purchase of the South Iris 

Road Unit in 2008, the property’s 4 acres of agriculture were removed from production. Staff will continue to eliminate agriculture from all newly 

acquired properties, restoring these areas to native 

upland habitats.

Fish and Wildlife Management and 

Monitoring

Refuge fish, wildlife, and habitat monitoring 

activities and surveys are conducted to provide 

information for management decisions, to enhance 

biological integrity of the Refuge, and to support 

statewide and national conservation efforts. Many of 

the surveys on the Refuge are done in collaboration 

with other agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the International Crane 

Foundation, the Bluebird Recovery Team, etc. Fish, 

wildlife, and vegetation monitoring activities are 

described in the following paragraphs.

Migratory and Resident Birds

Sandhill Crane Survey: (Unison Call Survey) A 

unison call survey is conducted each spring (late 

April) at the peak of the crane nesting season. The 

purpose of this survey is to estimate the number of 

Greater Sandhill Crane breeding pairs. The survey 

lasts 2 hours, beginning one-half hour before sunrise and ending 1 and a half hours after sunrise. At 

numerous survey locations observers record the 

time, compass direction, and distance of unison calls 

heard. During the field season, general observations 

of known pairs in the area or nest site locations validate and supplement the unison call data. 

Annual Midwest Crane Count: This survey is 

one of the largest citizen-based inventories in the 

world. It is hosted by the International Crane Foundation (ICF), and Morrison County is one of only 12 

counties in Minnesota included in the survey. The 

purpose of this survey is to monitor the abundance, 

distribution, and population trends of cranes in the 

Upper-Midwest. One Saturday in April observers 

record individual birds and breeding pairs (identified by unison calls). 

Waterfowl Survey: Waterfowl surveys are conducted one morning each week during early migration each spring and fall. The data are used to 

provide managers and the public with up-to-date 

information on the presence and abundance of 

waterfowl species using the Refuge. This survey is 

also used to monitor long-term trends of waterfowl 

populations. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Marsh Bird Surveys: A survey of secretive 

marsh birds was conducted between April and June 

from 2002 to 2004. Play-back calls were used to 

detect the presence of Yellow Rails, Virginia Rails, 

Soras, Least Bitterns, American Bitterns, and Piedbilled Grebes. Data is used to inform managers and 

direct habitat management objectives and strategies for wetlands on the Refuge. This data also contributes to the National Marsh Bird Monitoring 

Program which tracks marsh bird population trends 

throughout the nation. 

Bald Eagle Monitoring: All Bald Eagle nests on 

the Refuge are monitored each spring (March to 

May) during the waterfowl survey and periodically 

throughout the year.

Songbird Point Counts: Every 3 to 5 years, point 

counts are performed for 2 consecutive years. This 

survey tracks the population trends and habitat use 

of breeding songbirds. 

Christmas Bird Count: The Christmas Bird 

Count is an annual 1-day event in December hosted 

by the National Audubon Society and conducted by 

volunteers. Each species is recorded as well as the 

number of individuals within a species. This survey 

provides a basic inventory of birds observed at the 

Refuge during the winter. 

Mourning Dove Survey: Call count surveys are 

conducted annually in the 48 contiguous states to 

monitor Mourning Dove populations and to provide 

managers with an annual index of population size. 

The data is used by wildlife administrators to set 

annual hunting regulations. The Refuge has participated in this survey for approximately 15 years. 

Woodcock Survey: Singing ground surveys of 

woodcock are conducted annually to provide indices 

of recruitment, hunting success, changes in abundance, and annual population changes. The Refuge 

has participated in this survey for approximately 15 

years. 

Bluebird and Wood Duck Boxes: Nest boxes for 

Bluebirds and Wood Ducks were built and implemented on the Refuge in 2007 and 2008.

Native Resident Wildlife

Small Mammal Survey: A survey was conducted 

in 2004 using live traps to inventory small mammal 

species on the Refuge. 

Frog and Toad Calling Survey: Frog/toad calling 

surveys were conducted in 2002-2004. The purpose 

of these surveys was to inventory species presence 

or absence, and to determine population status and 

diversity. Survey methods were adopted from the 

North American Amphibian Monitoring Program, 

and the data collected was shared with Minnesota 

Frog Watch.

Fish and Other Aquatic Resources

Fish Surveys: Several fish surveys have been 

completed on the Refuge in collaboration with the 

Minnesota DNR. These surveys use electro-shockers to document the fish species present, number of 

individuals caught, and their lengths. The surveys 

track diversity, population estimates, spawning 

information, and aid in the development of habitat 

management plans and public fishing regulations. 

Habitat Monitoring and Management

Prescribed Fire Monitoring: Fire monitoring is 

accomplished using protocols established by the 

National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Refuge has seven designated burn units that 

are used to monitor the long-term effects of fire on 

vegetation composition and to determine if habitat 

management objectives are being met. Three are 

grassland plots and four are woodland plots. All 

plots are sampled pre-burn, immediately post-burn, 

and at intervals of 1, 2, 5, and 10 years following any 

prescribed burns. 

Invasive Plant Monitoring and Management:

Annual purple loosestrife monitoring occurs on the 

Refuge, and a biological control is used as needed to 

manage infestations. The presence of other invasive 

species such as Siberian elm, black locust, spotted 

knapweed, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and buckthorn are monitored on the Refuge, and are treated 

where possible. 

Wildlife Lake Habitat Survey: The Minnesota 

DNR has conducted lake habitat surveys for Rice 

and Skunk Lakes (1950, 1962, 1966, 2003, and 2006). 

These studies sample along transect lines that traverse each lake, and are used to assess the condition 

of the system and document wildlife diversity and 

plant species composition. 

Wild Rice Surveys: The Minnesota DNR has 

monitored wild rice trends in the complex since the 

mid-1970s, and in more recent years has conducted 

wild rice surveys using aerial imagery to determine 

its abundance and distribution on Rice and Skunk 

Lakes. 

Water Surveys: Water surveys occur on and 

around the Refuge in collaboration with various 

agencies and organizations, including the DNR, 

USGS, and Aquatech. See “Water and Hydrology” 

on page 48 for more information. 

Wetland Health Evaluation: Beginning in 2009, 

Releve plots have been established to survey and 

inventory wetland vegetation and invertebrates. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

The results are then used to develop indices of biological integrity, providing insight to the health of 

the wetland system.

Visitor Services

The National Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997 

established six priority uses of the Refuge System: 

 Hunting

 Fishing

 Wildlife observation

 Wildlife photography

 Environmental interpretation

 Environmental education. 

All but hunting and fishing are a part of current 

management at Crane Meadows NWR. The Headquarters Unit is currently the only Refuge property 

with public access and accommodations for public 

use. The Refuge provides a number of facilities 

including trails, observation platforms, kiosks, and 

benches to facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation, 

and overall visitation for Refuge activities has 

increased in recent years (see Table 12). 

Hunting

The Refuge is not currently open to hunting 

because Service land ownership inside the Refuge 

acquisition boundary is relatively small, scattered, 

and interspersed with privately owned land. Consistent with its establishment goals, Refuge staff are 

seeking ways to overcome these and other obstacles 

to provide safe and manageable hunting opportunities at Crane Meadows NWR. 

Fishing

Fishing is permitted on all state-managed public 

waters, including Rice, Skunk and Mud Lakes, and 

the Platte River. Fishing, however, is not permitted 

on Crane Meadows NWR property along the banks 

of Refuge rivers, streams, or lakes. Public boat 

access to these areas is available at two sites maintained by the state. One is located above the low 

flow dam and affords access to Rice, Skunk, and 

Mud Lakes. Another site just below the dam provides access to the Platte River. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife 

are provided year-round on the scenic 3.7-mile 

Platte River Trail (see Figure 29 on page 77). The 

trail leads visitors along the banks of the Platte 

River to the edge of Rice Lake, then returns to the 

trailhead through oak woodland, oak savanna and 

prairie habitat. The trail has four loops. Two 

shorter, inner loops are available for visitors with 

limited time or mobility. Long and medium length 

loops are also available. The entire trail was 

improved and surfaced with crushed granite in June 

2008. Two observation platforms are provided, one 

adjacent to the Platte River near the trailhead and 

the other overlooking Rice Lake. The Rice Lake 

Overlook was constructed with a permanent spotting scope and a wide middle section to accommodate larger groups and provide a space for 

environmental education programs. Bicycles and 

horses are not permitted on Refuge trails.

During the winter season, the Platte River Hiking Trail is groomed for cross country skiing as 

snow conditions permit. A double wide groomer is 

used to set a side-by-side track. Snowshoers and 

winter hikers are asked to be respectful of tracks 

set for skiers and hike to the side of the trail. 

Interpretation and Programs

Habitat Day

The Refuge, the Friends of Crane Meadows 

NWR, and numerous other co-sponsors annually 

host Habitat Day for Wood Ducks and Bluebirds 

during March. Since 2000, this event has developed 

and enhanced partnerships among more than 40 

natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, area schools, and local businesses. During the 

event, participants learn about Wood Ducks and 

Bluebirds and have the opportunity to assemble a 

free nest box to place on their own property. In 

addition to creating nest boxes for wildlife, this program also introduces people to conservation groups 

in the area and creates opportunities for future 

involvement. 

Additional results of this event include two Bluebird trails established on the Refuge and several 

others created off-Refuge within the county. The 

Table 12: Refuge Visitation – Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Activity 2005 2006 2007 2008

Platte River Trail 1,960 2,098 4,508 5,388

Habitat Day 500 550 450 475

Environmental Education 615 151 396 688

General Refuge Visitation 8,171 3,925 5,380 6,317
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Figure 29: Existing Visitor Services Facilities, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Refuge trails are monitored weekly by Refuge volunteers, and off-refuge trails are monitored by the 

local Boys and Girls Club. Results are tabulated at 

the end of each breeding season and submitted to 

the Bluebird Recovery Program. Birdhouses assembled during Habitat Day have led to the first 

recorded Bluebird nesting results in Morrison 

County. 

Platte River Clean-up

The Refuge, the Friends of Crane Meadows 

NWR, and the Royalton Lions Club host an annual 

river cleanup each June. Participants clean a 26.5-

mile stretch of the Platte River from Highway 27 

south to the Mississippi River. The northern section 

of this route flows through the Refuge, and participants have the opportunity to fish and birdwatch 

while picking up litter. 

Bat Program

The Refuge hosted a bat program in 2007 and 

2008. Participants were able to built bat houses to 

take home, attend presentations on bats species in 

Minnesota, take tours to locate bats, and learn about 

the mechanics of echolocation.

Bird Tour

The Refuge, its Friends Group, and the Morrison 

Birding Club offer a guided bird tour on the Platte 

River Trail each spring. The Morrison County Birding Club has helped the Refuge develop a birding 

brochure, and lists Crane Meadows NWR on their 

website as an excellent birding spot in the county. 

Environmental Education and Outreach

Staff and volunteers lead educational programs 

at the Refuge for organized groups upon request. 

For a number of years, Royalton Elementary 

School has used Crane Meadows NWR in the spring 

as an outdoor classroom. In 2009, the Friends of 

Crane Meadows NWR established an Environmental Education Committee to initiate dialog with area 

school superintendents, principles, and teachers to 

use the Refuge as an outdoor classroom for their 

students. The Royalton School District will be the 

pilot project. 

Refuge staff and Friends members bring a Refuge exhibit to local business expos, the Morrison 

County Fair, home and garden shows, senior expos, 

and other off-site events as opportunities arise. Refuge staff assists with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service exhibit at the annual Game Fair in Anoka 

County in October. They also work with chapters of 

Pheasants Forever during their Youth Day Programs.

The Refuge participates in the Morrison County 

Water Festival held at Camp Ripley each year during the third week in September. Several hundred 

fifth-grade students from Little Falls and other 

area schools attend and participate in a variety of 

30-minute environmental education programs conducted by staff from the Refuge, Camp Ripley, Morrison County Soil and Water Conservation District, 

The Nature Conservancy, and the Minnesota DNR.

Friends Group

The Friends of Crane Meadows NWR, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization formed in September 

2006, assists the Refuge with educational programs 

and provides financial backing for selected programs and projects through fund-raising activities. 

At the end of fiscal year 2008, the Friends Group 

had 61 members. The Friends' projects have 

included funding and assistance with the construction of the Rice Lake observation deck, and the 

development of the greenhouse program which 

grows native wildflowers for planting on the Refuge. 

Volunteer Program

Volunteers actively participate in a wide variety 

of visitor services and biological programs on the 

Refuge. Their activities include wildlife surveys, 

wildflower gardening, assisting with special events, 

and trail maintenance. Table 13 shows an overall 

increase in volunteership on the Refuge over the 

past 5 years.

Partnerships

The staff at Crane Meadows NWR has a strong 

history of working with partners to implement Service policy, programs, and projects. Many initial 

partnerships began during the creation of Crane 

Meadows NWR or have been developed through the 

land acquisition processes. Saint Cloud State University, The Nature Conservancy, and the Minnesota DNR have been involved with the Refuge since 

Table 13: Volunteerism at Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Volunteer Participation 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Number of Volunteers 32 37 41 63 71

Total Volunteer Hours 1,722 2,326 1,865 2,543 2,626
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

its establishment, and have been strong allies in 

protecting this unique and important area.

Additional partnerships have been formed 

through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program. This program has strengthened working 

relationships with the Morrison County Soil and 

Water Conservation District, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Ducks Unlimited, 

the Minnesota Waterfowl Association, and many 

private land owners in Morrison County.

In its ninth year, the Habitat Day Program has 

also led to the development of a number of relationships. In addition to those entities mentioned above, 

collaboration for this event includes many area 

schools, all of the sportsmen clubs in Morrison 

County, the Central Minnesota Audubon Society, 

the St. Cloud Environmental Council, the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Pheasants Forever, 

Morrison County Sentence to Serve, Boy Scout 

troops, 4-H clubs, Camp Ripley Environmental 

Office, and the Morrison County Chapter of the 

National Wild Turkey Federation.

Other important sources of support for the Refuge have come from the Friends of Crane Meadows 

NWR group. Since 2006 this group has promoted 

the Refuge’s identity, advocated on its behalf, and 

increased its environmental education program. As 

a result, the Refuge partners list has grown to 

include the Little Falls Chamber of Commerce, the 

Visitors Bureau, Morrison County Birding Club, the 

Central Minnesota Audubon Society, Royalton 

Lions, Royalton Elementary, the Pine Grove Zoo, 

and the Lindbergh State Park and Historic Site.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic 

structures, and Native American traditional cultural 

properties) are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve evidence of 

these human occupations which can provide valuable information regarding not only human interactions with each other, but also with the natural 

environment. Protection of cultural resources is 

accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), of identifying historic 

properties (cultural resources that are potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by our actions. 

The Service is also required to coordinate these 

actions with the State Historic Preservation Office, 

Native American Tribal Governments, Local Governments, and other interested parties. Cultural 

resource management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated 

for the Section 106 process when historic properties 

could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal 

involvement. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to survey 

lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the 

most scientifically valuable archaeological 

resources.” This Act also affords protection to all 

archeological and historic sites more than 100 years 

old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the 

National Register) on federal land, and requires 

archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons. 

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

(RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and 

other cultural resource laws. The actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made 

by the RHPO for undertakings on Service fee title 

lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in 

part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the 

Service, including those carried out by or on behalf 

of the Service; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval.

Pileated Woodpecker. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

The responsibility of the Refuge Manager is to 

identify undertakings that could affect cultural 

resources and coordinate the subsequent review 

process as early as possible with the RHPO and 

state, Tribal, and local officials. Also, the Refuge 

Manager assists the RHPO by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring 

archaeological investigations by contractors and 

permittees, and by reporting ARPA violations. 

Private Lands Program (Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife)

Outright fee-title acquisition of property by the 

federal government can be a difficult, costly, and 

lengthy process. Furthermore, to ensure the persistence of entire natural communities and ecosystems, 

habitat management has to be done on a much 

broader scale and include the private sector; an estimated 60 percent of our nation’s lands are held in 

private ownership (Lubowski et al. 2006).

The Partners for Wildlife Program is a voluntary 

program that has been offered nationwide by the 

Service since 1987 to provide landowners with technical and financial assistance in restoring habitat 

and managing private property to benefit wildlife. 

The responsibility for the Partners Program among 

Minnesota’s 87 counties is divided between the 15 

Minnesota field stations and a State Private Lands 

Office in Waite Park, Minnesota. The success of this 

program in Minnesota is demonstrated on more 

than 17,000 sites with over 120,000 wetland, upland, 

streambank, and aquatic habitat acres restored 

since the program began, as well as the partnerships developed with federal, state, local, private 

conservation organizations, communities, schools, 

groups, businesses, and other private individuals. 

Private lands activities for six Minnesota counties 

are managed out of the Crane Meadows NWR Field 

Office. At the Refuge level, Morrison County is 

assigned to Crane Meadows NWR, while Sherburne, Anoka, Isanti, Kanabec and Pine Counties 

are covered by Sherburne NWR. However, both 

private lands coordination positions are currently 

stationed at Crane Meadows NWR. It is also common for Service field stations to assist one another 

with activities due to a project’s location, time constraints, required expertise, or equipment needs. As 

such, Crane Meadows NWR staff have also assisted 

restorations in Benton, Todd, and Cass Counties. 

A priority for the Private Lands Program is to 

work on projects that have the potential to affect 

and improve Refuge resources. At Crane Meadows 

NWR, assisting landowners within and immediately 

adjacent to the acquisition boundary has been a primary focus of restoration. The Refuge is able to 

implement many of the same conservation practices 

on private lands as it would on Service-owned and 

managed land. Because water quality is a high priority for the Refuge, priority is also given to projects located in the watershed above the Refuge. In 

addition, the Refuge is involved with a project to 

restore oak savanna habitat within the Anoka Sand 

Plain. Priorities include lands adjacent to public natural areas or parks, those that are adjacent to larger 

contiguous natural areas, and conservation corridor 

areas that facilitate wildlife movement. 

Most projects involve wetland restorations. 

Ditching was a common method for draining wetlands in the area, so wetlands are often restored by 

creating an impoundment with an earthen dam. 

Restoration of native upland prairie has increased in 

the last several years, particularly in Sherburne and 

Isanti Counties. Other projects include oak savanna 

restoration and stream bank stabilization projects. 

The number of wetlands and uplands restored in 

Morrison County since 2001 is summarized in 

Table 14.

In addition to numerous successful habitat restorations, this program has fostered excellent relationships between the Service and many local 

partners, hunt clubs, and private citizens. For 

larger projects, the Refuge typically seeks additional support from federal agencies, state agencies, 

counties, townships, non-governmental organizations such as Pheasants Forever, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, and private 

groups such as the Pinnacle Hunt Club and the 

Audubon Nature Center. 

Landowners or administrators who benefit from 

this program must sign a Habitat Development 

Agreement (HDA) prior to any restoration work 

conducted on the property. The Agreement is a contract between the FWS and the cooperator, and 

states that the restoration must not be destroyed or 

damaged during the 10- or 15-year agreement 

Prescribed burn at Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

period. Otherwise, the cooperator is responsible for 

reimbursement of the federal funds obligated 

toward the project. Maintenance on projects is the 

responsibility of the cooperator. 

Law Enforcement

Certain safeguards must be in place to protect 

visitors, visitor use areas, cultural areas, administrative zones, residential areas, wildlife habitat, and 

wildlife resources from criminal or negligent 

actions, as well as from acts of nature. Without a 

staff law enforcement officer on the Refuge, Crane 

Meadows NWR relies on assistance from the local 

state DNR conservation officer, the Morrison 

County sheriff’s office, and law enforcement officers 

from other refuges brought in as needed. At the 

time of writing, both Tamarac NWR (3 hours northwest of Crane Meadows NWR), and Litchfield Wetland Management District (2 hours south of the 

Refuge) provide law enforcement officers as needed. 

Overall, there are few problems or violations at 

the Refuge. Those that do occur are predominantly 

natural resource related, including illegal hunting 

and poaching, vehicular and ATV trespass, Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) easement violations, and 

dumping. In 2007 the only incidents reported were 

four easement violations. In 2008 there were 24 documented offenses related to trespass (10), easement 

violations (6), fishing (3), hunting (2), and other 

resource violations (3). 

Staff and Budget

Administrative and operational staff for Crane 

Meadows NWR has changed little since the establishment of the Refuge in 1992. Its first manager 

arrived in September of 1992, and remained the only 

staff until a maintenance position was added in June 

of 1993. On January 1, 1994, Crane Meadows NWR 

was “complexed” with Sherburne NWR. As a part of 

this transition, management of both units was combined and oversight of Crane Meadows NWR 

moved to the headquarters at Sherburne NWR. 

With a small, federally-owned land base at Crane 

Meadows NWR and similar habitats and wildlife to 

Sherburne NWR, complexing the Refuges has provided Crane Meadows NWR with additional support 

from the larger staff at Sherburne NWR. For the 

next 10 years a maintenance position was the only 

staff position at Crane Meadows NWR. In October 

of 2004 a second position, a combined Refuge Operations Specialist and Private Lands Biologist, was 

added providing on-refuge management for day-today operations under the supervision of the complex 

manager. The two-person staff has continued to the 

present, with seasonal intern positions to help with 

busy summer schedules. 

Crane Meadows NWR Staff, 2009:

 Private Lands Biologist/Refuge Operations 

Specialist

 Maintenance

The operations and maintenance budget for the 

Refuge over the last 6 years has slightly decreased 

overall. The budget history is displayed in Table 15. 

Table 14: Morrison County Private Lands Program Accomplishments

Year Wetland Acres Wetland Sites Upland Acres Upland Sites

2001 15 2 0 0

2002 128 11 60 4

2003 249 15 43 3

2004 216 10 0 0

2005 148 10 111 7

2006 241 7 102 10

2007 496 9 45 4

2008 307 6 0 0

2009 267 11 0 0

Total 2067 81 361 28

Table 15: Six-year Operations and Maintenance Budget

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

$125,629 $152,647 $120,507 $143,325 $119,437 $119,472
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Chapter 4: Management Direction

The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A 

describes and analyzes three management alternatives for Crane Meadows NWR. The Service identifies one as its preferred alternative and it is 

described in the following chapter as the proposed 

future management direction that would guide 

activities on the Refuge for the next 15 years. 

The Refuge has three management goals:

 Goal 1: Habitat

Conserve a diverse mosaic of habitats both onand off-Refuge, particularly sedge meadow, 

shallow lake, oak savanna, prairie, and other 

declining endemic habitat types, to meet the 

needs of native plants and wildlife with emphasis 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 abundance, with special emphasis on Service 

Regional Conservation Priority Species. 

 Goal 3: People

As an active partner in collaborative conservation, the Refuge will provide quality wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, 

and outreach to a diverse audience. These activities will preserve cultural resources and promote understanding, appreciation, and support 

for Crane Meadows NWR, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and natural resource conservation. 

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the 

proposed future management direction. Goals are 

descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. There are three goals 

for Crane Meadows NWR. Goals are followed by 

objectives, which are specific statements describing 

management intent. Objectives provide detail and 

are supported by rationale statements that describe 

background, history, assumptions, and technical 

details to help clarify how the objective was formulated. 

Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of 

strategies, the specific actions, tools, and techniques 

required to fulfill the objective. The strategies may 

be refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or new research and information come to 

light. Some strategies are linked to the duties of an 

employee position, which indicates that the strategy 

will be accomplished with the help of a new staff 

position. When a time in number of years is noted in 

an objective or strategy, it refers to the number of 

years from approval of this CCP. If no time is 

given, the objective is to be accomplished within the 

15 years of the life of the plan.    

Goal 1: Habitat 

Conserve a diverse mosaic of habitats both on- and offRefuge, particularly sedge meadow, shallow lake, oak 

savanna, prairie, and other declining endemic habitat 

types, to meet the needs of native plants and wildlife with 

emphasis 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. 

Desired benchmark vegetation conditions for all future 

Refuge habitats are described in Table 16. 

Crane Meadows NWR. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Table 16: Benchmark Conditions for Habitat Types, Crane Meadows NWR

Habitat Type Benchmark Conditions (Minnesota DNR 2005)

Emergent Marsh Emergent marsh has 20-60 inches of standing water present most of the year, providing favorable 

conditions for hydrophytic plants. Relative vegetation cover is dominated by native cattails (>50 

percent), bulrushes, submergents such as common coontail, milfoil, and floating aquatic plants such 

as pondweeds, duckweed, broad-leaved arrowhead, and water-lilies. Open water (25-75 percent) is 

interspersed throughout dense stands of emergent vegetation and shrubs are absent or very 

sparse. 

Sedge Meadow Sedge meadow is an open wet meadow subjected to moderate inundation following spring thaw and 

heavy rains, but with little to no standing water during the growing season. There is sufficient 

saturation to inhibit shrub (<25 percent) and tree (<5 percent) establishment. Vegetation is 

dominated by broad-leaved graminoids including sedges and bluejoint (>50 percent), with variable 

forb cover (5-75 percent) including tufted loosestrife, marsh skullcap, and water smartweed.

Willow-dogwood 

Shrub Swamp

Willow-dogwood shrub swamps are open wetlands which contains >25 percent shrub cover, 

primarily willows, red-osier dogwood, speckled alder and bog birch, with abundant broad-leaved 

graminoids such as tussock sedge and bluejoint.

Southern Rich 

Conifer Swamp

Southern rich conifer swamps has a canopy cover ranging from 25-70 percent and are tamarack 

dominated, with < 25 percent elm, red maple, and paper birch. These canopy species are also 

primary components of the understory layer. Also common in the understory are forbs (25-75 

percent) such as mash marigold and tufted loosestrife, some graminoids (<50 percent) including 

sedges and bluejoint, and a variable shrub layer that includes Virginia creeper and poison ivy.

Northern Floodplain 

Forest

Northern floodplain forest is a riparian community occasionally or annually flooded by natural 

events in the spring and is dominated by deciduous trees (50-100 percent cover) tolerant of 

occasional anoxic conditions. The canopy is strongly dominated by silver maple, but also has green 

ash, American elm, box elder, willow, river birch, basswood, and aspen. The most common subcanopy or shrub layer has young canopy tree species in addition to choke cherry and nannyberry. 

Understory vegetation is variable in cover (5-100 percent) and species. 

Upland Prairie Tallgrass prairies are dominated by tall graminoids (75-100 percent) with sparse to patchy (5-50 

percent) forb cover; shrub and tree layers absent. 

Wet: Typic species include prairie cordgrass, big bluestem, Indian grass, woolly sedge, and Canada 

goldenrod.

Southern Mesic: Typic species include big bluestem, Indian grass, little bluestem, porcupine grass, 

stiff goldenrods, purple and white prairie clovers.

Short-grass prairies are dominated mostly by short to mid-height graminoids and some tall-grass 

species (50-100 percent cover) and sparse to patchy forb cover (5-50 percent); shrub and tree layers 

absent.

Southern Dry: Dominated by little bluestem; other common mid-height grasses include, side-oats 

grama, prairie dropseed, porcupine grass, and junegrass. Typical forbs include silky aster, purple 

coneflower, pasqueflower, and harebell.

Southern Dry 

Savanna

A relatively open community with scattered or clustered (10-70 percent canopy cover, but more 

typically 25-50 percent), with a basal area (BA) of 5-50 sq ft/acre, stunted (15-35 feet tall), opengrown bur oak and black oak trees, often interspersed with jack pine, and with grass-dominated 

herbaceous ground layer (Wovcha et al. 1995, Minnesota DNR 2005). The understory vegetation is 

sparse or patchy with both native grasses (25-100 percent) and forbs (5-50 percent) (MNDNR 

2005). Northern pin oak is sometimes present as a secondary tree species in the overstory or in the 

shrub layer. The density of shrubs is less than 30 percent in high quality occurrences (Dunevitz 

1993). As the dominant upland habitat at Crane Meadows NWR, a more detailed description of this 

habitat type has been developed and can be found in Appendix L. 

Oak Woodland Deciduous-dominated with an interrupted to continuous canopy (50-100 percent cover) consisting 

primarily of bur oak and northern pin oak. Northern red oak, white oak, red maple, basswood, 

American elm, and aspen are occasionally present and a minor conifer component with white pine 

or jack pine may be present as well. The understory and shrub layer is patchy to continuous (25-

100 percent), depending on light penetration through canopy. The ground layer is a variable mix of 

forbs and graminoids including pointed-leaved tick trefoil, hog peanut, Pennsylvania sedge and a 

shrub layer of black cherry, red maple, and bur oak. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Objective 1.1 Wetlands

Total Acquisition Boundary Acres: 7,329

Total Service-owned Acres: 1,041

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 wetland habitats in suitable areas to the desired 

benchmark conditions (see Table 16 on page 83) 

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 17. (See 

Figure 30) 

Rationale: Protecting and maintaining the integrity of existing wetland habitat and restoring 

degraded habitats to benchmark conditions is 

important for numerous reasons. The following list 

cites some of the key reasons: 

1. It is NWRS policy as mandated by the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997 to “ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the System are maintained...” which 

provides guidance to restore and maintain 

“biotic composition, structure, and functioning 

at genetic, organism, and community levels 

comparable with historic (benchmark) conditions...” on refuge lands where appropriate.

2. The primary purpose of the Refuge is derived 

from the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 

Table 17: Habitat: 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

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.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Figure 30: Desired Future Land Cover, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

1986, which mandates “... the conservation of 

the wetlands of the Nation...”

3. Approximately 9 million acres (72 percent) of 

Minnesota’s natural wetlands have been lost 

since 1850 (FWS 1992).

4. There is an ongoing threat of development and 

expansion of agriculture in the area; nearly 

1,800 acres of wetlands have already been 

drained or ditched within the acquisition boundary (Cowardin et al. 1979).

5. The wetland complex itself has been classified 

as ‘regionally significant’ by the Service 

because it is considered a “natural” ecosystem 

that remains healthy and relatively intact.

6. A mosaic of these habitat types on the landscape would support an abundant and diverse 

array of wildlife species. 

7. Wetlands provide a multitude of ecosystem services that benefit both humans and wildlife - 

from controlling floods to improving water quality.

The short and long-term objectives described in 

this CCP strive to maximize acres of Refuge wetlands by protecting existing wetland habitat and 

restoring wetland areas that have been altered or 

degraded. Although a number of factors, including 

climate change, have the potential to affect fundamental ecosystem conditions and balances, historic 

records still form a benchmark by which to gauge 

the level of anthropogenic alteration and disturbance, and therefore lend direction and guidance 

regarding restoration potential. 

In addition, it is important to acknowledge the 

natural range of variation within each habitat type, 

both spatially and temporally, depending on disturbance and local environmental factors. Selecting a 

range of targeted conditions and habitat acreages is 

a more accurate and less risky way to identify 

desired conditions than with exact numbers, however numerical ranges can obscure the precision of 

the existing data. Therefore, exact numbers are 

identified for this objective with the understanding 

that these are approximations based on the best 

available information. Furthermore, annual fluctuations in water levels make it nearly impossible to 

pinpoint exact desired acreages between wetland 

habitat types – particularly open water and emergent marsh. Nonetheless, an average of current and 

pre-existing conditions obtained from a variety of 

sources, including an analysis of aerial imagery, the 

National Wetlands Inventory, USDA NRCS soils 

data, and Marschner’s pre-settlement vegetation 

estimates make it possible to establish target acreages – fully acknowledging the limitations of these 

data sources and resulting numbers. 

Chapter 3 of the CCP describes in further detail 

the data used to acquire the numbers in this objective. 

In summary, current imagery portrays over 7,300 

acres of wetland habitat, the NWI shows just under 

7,800 acres of wetlands, SSURGO identifies nearly 

8,300 acres of suitable wetland soils in the acquisition boundary, and Marschner’s generalized map of 

historic cover types contains over 6,600 acres of bottomlands when summarized using GIS software. 

The large and relatively intact sedge meadow 

habitat found at Crane Meadows NWR is recognized for its high quality condition, and warrants 

protection and where appropriate restoration. 

Although sedge meadow habitat is relatively abundant in Northern Minnesota, there is an overall 

decrease in the quantity and quality of this once 

abundant habitat as you move southward in the 

state. There are few examples of large, high quality 

sedge meadows throughout the Anoka Sand Plain, 

and in central or southern Minnesota in general. 

Many sedge meadows in central and southern Minnesota have been degraded by invasive reed canary 

grass, herbicide use, woody encroachment resulting 

from reduced disturbance cycles, alteration of natural landscape hydrology, increased or contaminated 

run-off, and other anthropogenic factors. There are 

over 250 areas of sedge meadow identified in the 

Anoka Sand Plain by the Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS), but many are small and/or low 

quality and most are not actively managed. Unmanaged sedge meadows will eventually succeed to 

shrub or tree-dominated wetlands (like willow-dogwood shrub swamp) and/or will be invaded by 

exotic-invasive species. Therefore protecting, managing, and restoring sedge meadow habitat on the 

Refuge will enhance one of the only large, high quality sedge meadows that is actively managed and 

restored in this part of the state. Management will 

use sedge meadow benchmark conditions as a target 

for wetland habitat restoration where appropriate in 

order to mitigate the loss or degradation of this habitat type throughout the Anoka Sand Plain, and provide habitat for native species dependent on this 

declining habitat.

Southern rich conifer swamp is no longer present 

within the Refuge boundaries, but was extant at the 

time of European settlement according to GLO 

notes and Marschner’s historic vegetation data. This 

habitat is also documented by the Minnesota DNR 

as occurring in surrounding areas in association 

with basins on moraines and outwash plains underlain by sandy substrates (Minnesota DNR 2005). 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

They are often present as small patches mixed with 

shrub or hardwood swamps - a reasonable form to 

consider re-establishing at Crane Meadows NWR. 

Because of its increasing rarity and the unique wildlife associated with this habitat type, including habitat-limited species of lady slipper, sundew, mosses, 

and sedges, there is value in restoring this habitat to 

the Refuge landscape.

The local benefits of various wetland habitats to 

bird species and other wildlife are well documented. 

During spring and fall migration open water, emergent marsh, and sedge meadow habitats on the Refuge are essential stopover habitats for 

approximately 10,000 waterfowl, a mix of both divers and dabblers, and over 100 other migratory bird 

species. There are notable concentrations of American Wigeon, Gadwall, Mallards and Blue-winged 

Teal in the fall and thousands of Canvasbacks and 

Mergansers in early spring. The emergent marsh 

and sedge meadow habitats on the Refuge support 

several breeding waterfowl species including Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Green-winged Teal, Canada Geese, and Ring-necked Ducks. These wetland 

habitats also host one of the largest nesting populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes in central Minnesota (FWS 1992). Willow-dogwood shrub swamp 

provides cover for many resident wildlife species 

and breeding habitat for several Region 3 Resource 

Conservation Priority (RCP) species including 

American Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher, and Blackbilled Cuckoo. Southern rich conifer swamp is a biologically rich and a unique wetland type that is dominated by tamarack and supports a variety of 

wildlife species including several RCP species such 

as Virginia Rail and Golden-winged Warblers. Animal species that occur in tamarack bogs are not 

exclusive to this habitat, but many breeding bird 

species reach their highest densities in conifer bogs 

(Sullivan 1994). Northern floodplain forest is a 

diverse riparian habitat that occurs along rivers and 

streams that provide seasonal variability correlated 

to natural water fluctuations. Ephemeral pools, usually devoid of fish, are temporarily available during 

spring thaw influx providing habitat and safe conditions for breeding and the development of natal 

amphibian and insect species. Other wildlife species 

that commonly use floodplain forest include mink, 

river otter, and RCP species such as American 

Woodcock, Bald Eagle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Loggerhead Shrike, Sedge Wren, and Black-billed 

Cuckoo.

Strategies:

1. Identify and restore drained wetland habitat.

2. Continue wetland health evaluation study to 

assess condition and productivity of emergent 

marshes. Document plant and wildlife species 

and develop an “index of biological integrity” 

(IBI) once every 5 years or as needed after a 

management activity that may affect emergent marsh habitat.

3. Within the life of the plan assess and determine the most suitable location(s) on the Refuge for southern rich conifer swamp 

restoration. Begin planting tamarack trees 

and other bog species on the site(s), and 

restore natural hydrology required for this 

habitat type over the long-term.

4. Use prescribed fire events that mimic historical burn cycles to help minimize woody 

encroachment.

5. Coordinate with Minnesota DNR regarding 

management of wetland habitats, the weir, 

and water levels in the wetland complex.

6. Educate landowners within acquisition 

boundary about their role in the health of the 

wetland complex.

7. Further define Refuge habitat management 

in a step-down plan within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

Objective 1.2 Upland Prairie

 Total Acquisition Boundary Acres: 911

 Total Service-owned Acres: 379

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 

southern dry savanna. 

 Within 3 years of plan approval identify the 

highest quality Service-owned upland prairie 

habitat to retain (see Figure 31 on page 88

for a map of existing upland prairies on the 

Refuge). Work in these areas to improve 

vegetation structure and composition to 

desired benchmark habitat conditions (see 

Table 16 on page 83) and develop quality 

prairie seed source areas. 

 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 

benchmark habitat conditions (see Table 16 

on page 83), transitioning the remaining 3 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Figure 31: Existing Upland Habitat Source Areas, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

percent (approximately 400 acres) to southern dry savanna. (see Figure 31 on page 88) 

Rationale: As mandated by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, it is Service policy to “ensure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained...” Service 

policy provides guidance to restore habitat to historical benchmark conditions on Refuge lands where 

it’s appropriate. Much of the Refuge uplands were 

once prairie or savanna, but were converted to agricultural fields over the last 100 years. Newly 

acquired Refuge lands containing farm fields should 

be converted to prairie with native, local ecotype 

seed as a step toward pre-settlement conditions and 

transitional step to oak savanna restoration. Historical records indicate that only approximately 500 

acres of uplands were considered tallgrass prairie 

and that most of the upland landscape of the Refuge 

was predominately oak and jack pine savanna 

(Marschner 1930). In addition, information from the 

SSURGO database indicating potential vegetation 

based on soils does not account for any coverage of 

an uninterrupted open prairie, but instead accounts 

for wetland, forest, and savanna (USDA 2009). 

Retaining approximately 500 acres as upland prairie 

over the long-term has the benefit of not only providing stepping stone for savanna restoration but 

also providing a more diverse mosaic of habitat 

types extending from prairie to savanna to woodland, thereby allowing for the potential to enhance 

overall flora and fauna diversity. 

Finally, despite a lack of large-scale historical 

coverage in this area, prairie is considered one of 

the most endangered ecosystems in the country. 

Less than 1 percent of the original prairie habitat in 

Minnesota is still in existence (DOI 2004). The 

majority of this loss can be attributed to conversion 

to agriculture. As a result, many of the grassland 

birds and other wildlife associated with this habitat 

are also declining. By restoring prairies, the Refuge 

would provide critical habitat for declining grassland birds and other wildlife and plant species associated with grasslands. 

Strategies:

1. Identify and map the highest quality upland 

prairie habitat in the Refuge acquisition 

boundary to retain.

2. Research historical vegetation records to 

assist in refining benchmark conditions.

3. Prepare native grasses and forbs in the 

greenhouse for transfer to prairie restoration 

sites.

4. Expand vegetation monitoring to include 

periodic field-based species richness surveys 

and GIS-based land cover analysis.

5. Further define Refuge habitat management 

in a step-down plan within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

Objective 1.3 Southern Dry Savanna

Total Acquisition Bouncary Acres: 185

Total Service-owned Acres: 5

Over the life of the plan, begin restoring southern dry savanna habitat to desired benchmark 

conditions (see Table 16 on page 83) on 30 percent (approximately 210 acres) of the total Service-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 (approximately 4,700 acres) southern dry savanna habitat (see Table 16 on page 83 for desired 

benchmark conditions). Existing savanna will 

be retained (~200 acres), and restoration 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). (Figure 31 on page 88)

Rationale: The distribution of oak savanna 

throughout the Midwest was widespread before 

European settlement. This habitat type once occupied as much as 50 percent of Midwestern landscape 

covering 11 to 13 million hectares (Nuzzo 1986). 

Most oak savanna habitat has been lost due to timber harvest, fire suppression, land conversion to 

agriculture, and development, with only about 0.02 

percent of pre-European oak savannas of the Midwest remaining today in small fragments and scattered remnants. The Nature Conservancy has 

identified savanna as a globally imperiled habitat.

The uplands of the Refuge were predominantly oak 

savanna according to all historical accounts, yet only 

a few small remnants remain within the acquisition 

boundary today totaling less than 200 acres. This 

landscape naturally lent itself to the establishment 

of savanna habitat in the past due to the nature of 

the sandy soils and historic disturbance regimes. 

While these conditions prohibited the establishment 

of mature woodlands, the abundance of water features supported limited growth of woody vegetation. 

Marschner’s pre-settlement vegetation data depict 

almost 6,000 acres of savanna habitat within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary, and SSURGO nearly 

2,000, clearly demonstrating the historic abundance 

of this habitat in the upland areas of the Refuge 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

(Marschner 1930, USDA 2009). Protecting any 

existing oak savanna habitat is of critical importance, and restoring 35 percent of the Refuge acreage back to oak savanna would be consistent with 

the Refuge Improvement Act (1997) and Service 

policy for restoring habitat to historical (benchmark) conditions where appropriate. This restoration would also provide critical habitat for many 

declining species associated with grasslands and 

savannas. Restoration efforts will focus on thinning 

existing oak woodlands while restoring the savanna 

understory layer, or oppositely transitioning agricultural lands through upland prairie to savanna. 

Upland habitats may prove to be the most challenging habitats to protect due to the value and use of 

this land for agriculture.

Strategies:

1. Determine and map the most suitable sites 

for restoration to southern dry savanna.

2. Research historic vegetation records to assist 

with refining benchmark conditions.

3. Plant appropriate areas of existing upland 

prairie with oak seedlings at a rate of 335 

seedlings per acre, with an expected longterm (10 years) mortality rate of 70 percent 

(Ly et al. 2009, unpublished). 

4. Support reestablishment of jack pine in 

selected areas.

5. Seed degraded savanna restoration units with 

local ecotype seed as needed.

6. Research additional methods of oak reintroduction to prairie habitat (i.e. tree spading)

7. Harvest timber on appropriate wooded sites 

to achieve the desired tree density of 10-70 

percent (mainly 25-50 percent) canopy cover.

8. Manage regeneration sites to protect seedlings from tree disease, white-tailed deer 

browsing, and gopher damage.

9. Work to improve the prairie/savanna grass 

and forb species composition (description reference).

10. Use prescribed fire to suppress woody 

encroachment and maintain fire-dependent 

savanna species.

11. Work with private landowners within the Refuge acquisition boundary to protect and 

restore southern dry savanna habitat.

12. Further define Refuge habitat management 

in a step-down plan within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

Objective 1.4 Oak Woodland 

Total Acquisition Boundary Acres: 1,854

Total Service-owned Acres: 268

Within 3 years of plan approval identify the 

highest quality Service-owned oak woodland 

habitat to retain (see Table 16 on page 83 for 

desired benchmark conditions and Figure 31 on 

page 88 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 coverage of oak woodland to 2 percent (approximately 300 acres), transitioning approximately 

1,550 acres to southern dry savanna. (see Figure 31 on page 88)

Rationale: At Crane Meadows NWR, the geographic extent of oak woodland habitat during presettlement was minimal or completely absent 

according to both Marschner’s pre-settlement data 

and SSURGO’s potential vegetation data (Marschner 1930, USDA 2009). The increasing proliferation 

of oak and other woodlands on the Refuge over the 

past century is a direct result of fire suppression 

and a lack of other natural disturbance mechanisms 

responsible for maintaining savanna conditions in 

the landscape. 

Because this habitat exists today, but was not 

present to any great extent according to historic 

documentation and research, it can be argued that 

this cover type is most appropriately managed or 

maintained in only limited quantities. Nonetheless, 

oak woodland is important to maintain as a seral 

stage along a common ecological continuum that 

includes both upland prairie and oak savanna. These 

habitat types are dynamic plant communities that 

have always varied through space and time depending on disturbance frequency and magnitude, and 

natural climate variability. 

Maintaining a full spectrum of upland habitat also 

promotes resiliency in the ecosystem as the effects 

of climate change become more pronounced. Drier 

future conditions would favor less woody growth, 

and wetter conditions would favor expansion of 

woodland cover types. Retaining oak woodland communities provide a number of additional benefits 

such as providing source populations and/or refugia 

for oak savanna plant and animal species depending 

on their resource requirements (i.e. cover, shade, 

forage, etc.); providing a niche to species of animals 

and plants that do not occur in open prairies or 

savannas; and even benefits associated with carbon 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

sequestration and nutrient retention. Much of the 

existing forest habitat would serve as a transition 

stage for oak savanna restoration and will ultimately be restored to more open historic conditions.

Strategies:

1. Identify and map the highest quality stands of 

oak woodland to retain.

2. Use prescribed burning as a tool to mimic historical mild surface fires every 20-30 years.

3. Expand vegetation monitoring to include 

periodic field-based species richness surveys 

and GIS-based land cover analysis.

4. Further define Refuge habitat management 

in a step-down plan within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

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.

Rationale: Water is a driving component of any 

ecosystem, and its importance is further accentuated in a wetland system like that found at Crane 

Meadows NWR. The Refuge Improvement Act 

(1997) requires the maintenance of “environmental 

health,” and by definition, environmental health 

includes abiotic factors such as water. Furthermore, 

protecting the health of the wetland system is the 

primary establishing purpose of the Refuge, making 

water an important consideration in Refuge management and the allocation of Service resources. 

Water is not strictly an ‘on-Refuge’ issue. The 

health of the aquatic ecosystem starts at the drainage divides of the watershed and can be affected 

along its course by many variable before entering 

the Refuge. Maintaining water quality and quantity 

on the Refuge can only be effectively addressed by 

working with land owners and partner agencies in 

the larger geographic area affecting the Refuge’s 

water resources. 

Many wetland-dependent species, both plants 

and animals, are sensitive to water quality, sediment, and contaminants. The need to address water 

resources as part of management at Crane Meadows NWR is further exacerbated by issues related 

to ensuring continued water availability for both 

wildlife and humans, maintaining overall water 

quality in the system, and a general lack of data necessary to fully understand the hydrology of the 

upland-wetland sand plain complex. It is important 

to be an active participant in efforts to monitor and 

manage water resources affecting the Refuge. Fostering additional partnerships and collaborative 

management approaches will benefit all stakeholders affected by the watershed. Because the streams 

and lakes on the Refuge are public waters, working 

with state partners will be essential. More specifically, management will work with the Minnesota 

DNR which has managerial jurisdiction to waters 

on the Refuge, and the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA), which is responsible for meeting 

state water quality standards. According to the 

MPCA’s Electronic Data Access database only four 

of the five streams that flow onto the Refuge are 

monitored, and three of those four are on the state’s 

impaired waters lists (MPCA 2009b).

In addition to upstream considerations, the 

Platte-Spunk Watershed (Minnesota HUC 7010201) 

in which Crane Meadows NWR is located (see Figure 21 on page 49) also straddles the Mississippi 

River. Much of the land area north and west of the 

Refuge drains through Crane Meadows NWR’s 

wetland complex before reaching the Mississippi 

River, giving the Refuge an important role in the 

health of the larger Mississippi River ecosystem. 

Strategies:

1. Work with the Minnesota DNR, MPCA, local 

groups and other partners to conduct routine 

monitoring of rivers and streams entering 

and exiting the Refuge.

2. Quantify existing sediment and contaminant 

loads in Refuge streams as they enter the 

Refuge and work to establish acceptable 

threshold values.

3. Over the life of the plan, work to reduce the 

amount of sediment and contaminants from 

the baseline quantities encountered in the initial years of monitoring.

4. Increase the local understanding of water 

quality and watershed issues through public 

outreach and education. 

5. Partner with the Minnesota DNR, MPCA, 

SWCD, NRCS, FSA, Ducks Unlimited, TPL, 

The Nature Conservancy, other partners, and 

private landowners to implement land conservation projects in and adjacent to areas with 

key aquatic resources (i.e. streams, lakes, and 

wetlands) upstream of the Refuge. 

Objective 1.6 Prescribed Fire

Implement and monitor a rotational prescribed 

burn program over the life of the plan that supports the fire dependent vegetation communities on the Refuge and reduces hazardous fuel 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

loads according to historic guidelines (see 

Table 18). 

Rationale: Nearly all of the Refuge habitats are 

fire-dependent communities, and the frequency and 

magnitude of burns have a profound impact on their 

successional state and the transition from one habitat type to another. After Euro-American settlement wildfires were suppressed, disrupting the 

natural disturbance cycle, and resulting in habitat 

succession into seral stages or into different habitat 

types altogether. Prescribed burning is an effective 

tool in restoring these fire-dependent plant communities to historic, benchmark conditions, suppressing woody encroachment, and maintaining desired 

habitat conditions. The Refuge Improvement Act 

(1997) states that the Service must ensure that “biological diversity”, “biological integrity”, and “environmental health” is maintained and, by definition, 

these include, “...the natural biological processes 

that shape genomes, organisms, and communities...” such as fire.

Strategies:

1. Complete an adaptive fire management stepdown plan within 1 year of CCP approval to 

better implement, evaluate, and improve the 

burn program on the Refuge.

2. Continue upland vegetation monitoring activities as part of the Fire Monitoring Program. 

3. Adapt timing, seasonality, and frequency of 

burns in response to monitoring.

4. Partner with state and private landowners to 

burn larger tracts within and immediately 

adjacent to the Refuge acquisition boundary.

Objective 1.7 Land Acquisition

Within 3 years of plan approval, update the land 

acquisition priority map created for the environmental assessment that established the Refuge 

(see Figure 32 on page 93); over the life of the 

plan, increase efforts to make land acquisitions 

from willing landowners in high priority areas. 

Rationale: Land acquisition is a key component 

in permanently protecting wildlife habitat. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System identifies land 

protection priorities, then designates formal boundaries within which acquisitions can be made at fair 

market value from willing landowners. As a part of 

the Refuge System mission statement, extending 

permanent protection to important natural 

resources of the nation such as the Rice-Skunk wetland complex, the Refuge System is sustaining wildlife and habitats, “for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.” Protection 

emphasis at Crane Meadows NWR is focused on the 

large intact sedge meadow wetland complex, but 

extends to protect adjacent upland habitats 

required by wildlife during various life cycle stages. 

Protection also extends to other important aquatic 

resources, wildlife, and habitat such as those associated with the Platte River below the lakes and Little 

Rock Creek in the southern spur of the Refuge.

Land acquisition has become more difficult and 

more costly over time, and while land remains 

unprotected additional damage may be done to the 

area’s natural resources. For example, in recent 

years large scale animal husbandry structures with 

unforeseen effects on adjacent wildlife and habitat 

have been erected directly within the acquisition 

boundary. According to Service land status records, 

there are currently 54 national wildlife refuges in 

the Midwest Region. Of the 48 refuges with boundaries that are proposed for complete acquisition, 

Crane Meadows NWR owns the smallest percent of 

its proposed acquisition boundary at only 13 percent. In order to adequately protect the proposed 

boundary of the Refuge, additional steps and alternative methods will be required to prioritize acquisitions and acquire targeted lands. By first reassessing the highest priority areas, then directing 

limited acquisition resources to those lands, the Refuge can have the greatest conservation impact. 

Strategies:

1. Actively work with partners to secure lands 

via grant opportunities, donations, bequeaths, 

and purchases.

2. Provide accurate and up-to-date land acquisition information to landowners within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary.

3. Where land acquisition is not practical within 

the Refuge acquisition boundary, work to 

obtain conservation easements.

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, 

Table 18: Burn Cycles for Crane Meadows 

NWR Habitat Types

Habitat Type Historic Burn Cycle

Wetlands 2-4 years

Upland Prairie <3 years

Southern Dry Savanna 3-6 years

Oak Woodland 20-30 years
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Figure 32: Original Acquisition Priorities (1992), Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

specifically targeting areas within, and upwatershed of the Refuge acquisition boundary. 

Ensure compliance of all properties with FSA 

easements (annual monitoring) and Partners 

program volunteer agreements (5-year monitoring cycle).

Rationale: Management emphasis is first and 

foremost on the lands owned by the Service. However, targeting land protection within the acquisition boundary of the Refuge is only one step in 

caring for our natural resources. The need is only 

increasing for all entities with conservation interests – federal, state, county, NGO, and private – to 

look outside traditional boundaries at the larger picture and work together to conserve and better manage wildlife habitat. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is 

set up to work with the other agencies, organizations, and the public to restore degraded habitats 

across the landscape. For Crane Meadows NWR, 

focusing on land use and activities in the watershed 

above the Refuge can have the greatest impact on 

the Refuge. 

The health of the watershed above the Refuge 

has direct implications and impacts on the quality of 

Refuge habitats and wildlife. By working to protect 

and enhance lands and waters in the watershed 

upstream of the Refuge, it is possible to improve 

habitat quality and other variables that flow 

through the wetland complex. The complexity of 

environmental concerns and threats has forced land 

managers to address issues at a regional scale, obviating the value-added nature of work done on private lands in the larger landscape.

Strategies:

1. Work with interested landowners to assess 

and improve habitat for fish and wildlife conservation.

2. Distribute information regarding the Private 

Lands program to landowners in the Refuge 

acquisition boundary, watershed, and at all 

Refuge events.

3. Provide assistance to other agencies doing 

habitat improvement and wildlife conservation on private lands in the vicinity of the Refuge.

4. Collaborate with the Service’s Office of Law 

Enforcement to develop an annual, systematic, and safe compliance evaluation and 

enforcement program for the 21 FSA easements. Methods of review include direct contact with landowners, on-site inspections, and 

aerial imagery surveillance. 

Goal 2: Wildlife

Protect, restore, and maintain native wildlife species to 

ensure biological diversity and abundance, with special 

emphasis on Service Regional Conservation Priority 

Species.

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 conservation concern. Within 5 years of plan 

approval, develop and implement monitoring 

programs for the Bald Eagle and Blanding’s 

turtle. 

Rationale: As Trust Resources of the FWS and a 

goal of the NWRS, it is a priority for the Refuge to 

monitor and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species. It is also required by The Endangered Species Act (1973), “that all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve 

endangered and threatened species...”. All living 

things are part of a complex, often delicately balanced network within an ecosystem comprised of 

plants, animals, and their physical environments. 

No one knows how the extinction of organisms will 

affect the other members of its ecosystem, but the 

removal of a single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others (FWS 2005). Therefore, 

it is important as an agency and a Refuge within the 

NWRS to attend to these rare species. Currently 

there are no federally-listed endangered species 

inhabiting Crane Meadows NWR, but the Refuge 

supports several state-listed threatened species and 

many regional Resources of conservation Priority 

(RCP) species as well. Bald Eagles were once listed 

as a federally threatened species. They were delisted on August 9, 2007, and moved to a protected 

status, and remain an RCP species in Region 3. Bald 

Eagles are commonly observed in the area during 

spring and fall migration and the Refuge currently 

supports three nesting pairs. Because of its recent 

delisting and a priority status in Region 3, Bald 

Eagles should be monitored and considered during 

management activities. Blanding’s turtles have been 

observed on the Refuge and are currently threatened in the state of Minnesota. This species is highly 

dependent on the wetland complex during most of 

the year and savannas and prairies during the 

breeding season. Monitoring Blanding’s turtles is 

important because of the species’ rare status 

throughout their original range, and because they 

are valuable biological indicators of environmental 

health due to an inherent sensitivity to changes in 

the quality of their surroundings (Congdon and 

Keinath 2006). Over time, and as additional research 

is done, species may be added or removed from 

state and federal lists. Thus, it is necessary for the 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Refuge to maintain an adaptive management 

approach regarding individual species protection 

and monitoring. 

Strategies:

1. Monitor Bald Eagle nesting activities and 

actively protect species during prescribed 

burns. 

2. Opportunistic mark-recapture study of Blanding’s turtles.

3. Conduct surveys of rare/declining species to 

determine presence/absence within Refuge 

boundaries. 

4. Design and implement a monitoring program 

to track abundance, population trends, and 

habitat associations of selected Trust species. 

5. Increase collaborative research and monitoring with Central Lakes College, St. Cloud 

State University, and other academic institutions.

6. Further define Refuge wildlife inventory and 

monitoring in a step-down plan within 5 years 

of CCP approval.

Objective 2.2 Migratory Birds

Participate in larger state and federal wildlife 

population monitoring efforts (see Table 19).

Over the life of the plan, conduct periodic monitoring of marsh birds, songbirds, and other 

migratory bird species.

Rationale: Migratory birds are Trust Resource 

for the Fish and Wildlife Service and are protected 

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is also a goal of 

the Refuge System to perpetuate migratory bird 

populations. The Refuge attracts over 100 birds during migration with notable concentrations of waterfowl. However, reliable surveys and monitoring of 

migratory birds have been limited since Refuge 

establishment, and thus the Refuge would benefit 

from baseline inventories and trend analyses of 

migratory song birds to help inform management 

and partners. Cooperative efforts are essential 

because migratory species are dependent on multiple locations and large geographic extents, and are 

affected by habitat changes in their breeding range, 

wintering range, and migratory flyways.

Strategies:

1. Maintain existing and establish new partnerships with government agencies, non-government organizations, and private interests for 

bird monitoring and education efforts.

2. Document and share all monitoring results, 

particularly following any management 

changes.

3. Further define Refuge wildlife inventory and 

monitoring in a step-down plan within 5 years 

of CCP approval.

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.

Rationale: The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

states that the Service shall “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the System are maintained...” Biological integrity is 

defined as “biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels 

comparable with historic conditions...” Thus, it is 

important to complete a more thorough inventory of 

the plant species currently inhabiting the Refuge, 

investigate which native species were on the Refuge 

historically, and take the necessary steps to restore 

the biological communities where possible and 

appropriate. Crane Meadows NWR is acknowledged by many sources as a relatively intact wetland system, despite a century and a half of land 

conversion in the surrounding landscape. More 

thorough examination of the vegetation in the area 

may yield additional insights to the local ecology and 

natural history.

Strategies:

1. Work with the DNR to establish new relevé 

plots on the Refuge.

2. Review historic vegetation records to determine if the current plant community is missing species present in the historic landscape. 

Table 19: Wildlife Monitoring at Crane 

Meadows NWR

Monitoring Effort Periodicity

Crane Unison Call Surveys Annually

Midwest Crane Counts Annually

Waterfowl Surveys Weekly/

Biweekly

Bald Eagle Surveys Weekly

Mourning Dove Surveys Annually

Woodcock Surveys Annually

Nest Boxes (Bluebird, Wood Duck, 

and Purple Martin)

Annually
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Determine the need for translocation or seeding actions to replace missing species.

3. Work with partners to generate and harvest a 

supply of local ecotype seed. Increase seed 

production efforts on Refuge seed plots and in 

the greenhouse.

Objective 2.4 Invasive and Exotic Plant Species

Within 5 years of plan approval, conduct a comprehensive survey to assess the extent of invasive 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. 

Rationale: Invasive species can be native or 

exotic, and are typically early successional pioneer 

species that quickly establish themselves in ecologically disturbed communities. 

Potential concerns at the time of writing include 

the following species:

Wetland

 Purple loosestrife

 Cattail

 Phragmites

 Eurasian water milfoil

Upland

 Buckthorn

 Siberian elm

 Box elder

 Black locust

 Spotted knapweed

 Common tansy 

 Leafy spurge

 Japanese knotweed

 Aspen

 Hairy vetch

 Crown vetch

 Canada thistle

Exotic species occur in areas outside their native 

range, are often introduced by human activities, and 

are sometimes invasive in nature. 

Invasives, particularly invasive exotics, are difficult to control because of their (typically) prolific 

reproductive capabilities, faster growth rates, efficient modes of dispersal, heightened environmental 

tolerance, and lack of natural predators and diseases which control populations in their native environments. If uncontrolled, they can displace native 

flora and interfere with a community’s natural ecological processes, thereby reducing its biological 

potential and benefit to native wildlife. 

Fortunately, to date many of the species listed 

above are not established on the Refuge, but are 

regional issues and pose potential future threats to 

native plant communities on the Refuge. It is necessary for Refuge staff to be engaged in proactive 

monitoring and management efforts to help prevent 

these invasive species from establishment. It is also 

important to monitor and control certain native species such as aspen that have an aggressive nature, 

and can become invasive to areas where they were 

historically absent as ecosystem processes and balances are interrupted.

Strategies:

1. Actively communicate with state and federal 

natural resource agencies and other partners 

regarding new and existing exotic/invasive 

threats and effective management techniques.

2. Coordinate Refuge inventories, monitoring, 

management, reduction, and prevention activities of invasive species with the Minnesota 

DNR and other landowners inside the acquisition boundary.

3. Maintain up-to-date records of invasive control efforts and results.

4. Control invasive species through appropriate 

mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments, including herbicides, biological control 

agents, mowing, flooding, prescribed burns, 

cutting, hand pulling, and others. 

5. Educate the public about invasive species and 

how they can help.

6. Further define Refuge habitat management 

in a step-down plan within 5 years of CCP 

approval.

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. 

Rationale: For many wildlife species, wild rice is 

an essential food resource and it is especially important forage for migrating waterfowl. A large wild 

rice crop can attract and sustain waterfowl in the 

area as they rest during migration, which may also 

benefit local hunters during waterfowl hunting season. The abundance of wild rice can also lend insight 

to local hydrology dynamics due to its specific water 

requirements for establishment and growth. Wild 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

rice has been an important part of the Rice-Skunk 

wetland complex for as long as written records have 

been kept in the area, including General Land Office 

descriptions from 1852 (U.S. OSG 1852). 

The Minnesota DNR has monitored wild rice in 

the complex since the 1970s, and increased efforts to 

understand the dynamics of this species in recent 

years to include aerial surveys. The wetland complex is a very dynamic system, and wild rice monitoring will need to be conducted over the long term 

to gain a better understanding of its dynamics and 

the effects of management. 

Strategies:

1. Review monitoring activities conducted by 

the Minnesota DNR and others.

2. Share Refuge vegetation imagery with state 

partners monitoring wild rice trends.

3. Work cooperatively with local universities, 

colleges, and other agencies to promote wild 

rice research within the wetland complex.

Goal 3: People 

As an active partner in collaborative conservation, the 

Refuge will provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, and outreach to a diverse 

audience. These activities will preserve cultural resources 

and promote understanding, appreciation, and support for 

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and natural resource conservation.

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 

at the locations described in Table 20 (illustrated in Figure 33 on page 98). 

Rationale: Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to the criteria that defines a quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation program as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and defined in Service Manual (605 

FW 1). The number of visitors and amount of visitor 

services has increased steadily since the Refuge was 

established in 1992. 

With approximately 87 percent of the land within 

the Refuge boundary not yet acquired, and Refuge 

lands intermingled with other types of ownership, 

clear signage and adequate visitor information is 

essential. The ease with which the public can navigate to visitor use areas on the Refuge, understand 

guidelines for appropriate conduct and safety, have 

basic needs met (i.e. parking, restrooms, maps, etc.), 

and fully engage in wildlife-related activities 

directly translates to a quality recreational experience, a positive impression of the Service, and an 

identification with the mission and goals of the 

Agency. 

Proper signage and other welcoming and orienting materials can also reduce the need for direct 

interaction with Refuge staff, particularly on the 

headquarters unit which has the greatest concentration of visitor use. Direct contact can be difficult to 

offer at all times with current staffing levels, but a 

strategy has been included to increase staffing to 

greatly enhance the Refuge’s ability to better 

accommodate visitor needs. 

The two main transportation corridors in the area 

are Highway 10 west of the Refuge (which currently 

has directional signage) and Highway 27 on the 

northern border. Adding directional signage to 

Highway 27 will increase awareness of the Refuge, 

and has the potential to increase visitation. The 

county maintains the Soo Line Recreational Trail 

that bisects the Refuge. This trail is an additional 

underutilized opportunity to inform the public about 

the Refuge, the values of the Service, and interpretation of local natural history. 

Finally, the Sedge Meadow Unit is one of the 

largest contiguous tracts of land owned by the Refuge within the acquisition boundary, contains adeTable 20: Future Visitor Services Facilities

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 Westa 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 Association, 

Minnesota DNR, and private landowners. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Figure 33: Future Visitor Services Facilities, Crane Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

quate access and existing structures that could be 

modified for visitor use, and provides a wide-sweeping view of a large, natural sedge meadow landscape, making it an ideal location to offer additional 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. 

Strategies:

1. Within 2 years of CCP approval complete a 

visitor services step-down plan to further 

evaluate and define additional Refuge facilities and programs. 

2. Within 10 years, establish way-finding signage on Highway 27 and on intermediate 

roads between Highway 27 and the Headquarters.

3. Provide adequate signage to direct and 

instruct visitor recreation according to established rules and safety standards.

4. Inspect Refuge signs annually, updating and 

rehabilitating where necessary.

5. Develop and install an accurate system for 

tracking visitation to the headquarters site.

6. Within 5 years, design and produce a full color 

general Refuge information brochure according to Service standards.

7. Annually review and update visitor services 

section of Refuge website.

8. Within 2 years, add an annual accomplishments summary to the Refuge website.

9. Renovate the headquarters office building to 

include an area for welcoming guests, additional offices, and a meeting area.

10. Provide visitors access to staff during normal 

hours of operation, by hiring an administrative technician/visitor services specialist.

11. Expand the west side of the maintenance 

shop to include an oil room, restroom, and 

office space.

12. Provide clean, maintained, and accessible visitor facilities. 

13. Routinely inspect and maintain existing maintenance facilities, visitor service structures, 

and transportation infrastructure on the 

Headquarters Unit (office, maintenance shop, 

greenhouse, three storage barns, two observation decks, kiosk, spotting scope, one-halfmile of road, two parking lots, 3.7-miles of 

trail), and the Sedge Meadow Unit (residence, 

garage, and storage building.)

Objective 3.2 Hunting

Within 5 years of plan approval, work with partners to open managed white-tailed deer and turkey hunts on specified Refuge units for hunters 

with disabilities and for youth hunters. 

Rationale: Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Service policy directs us to provide hunting 

opportunities when compatible with Refuge management, and offering this use was a long-term goal 

of the Refuge when it was established in 1992. Managed hunting programs help promote an understanding and appreciation of natural resources and 

their management. Additionally, managed hunts on 

the Refuge provide a traditional recreational activity with no definable adverse impacts to the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of Refuge 

resources. 

The limited size and distribution of current Service land ownership at the Refuge continues to limit 

our ability to offer quality hunting experience 

opportunities, but management has long understood 

the demand for, and importance of providing this 

activity on the Refuge. By beginning with shortduration, assisted, managed hunts, Refuge staff can 

provide hunting opportunities in a controlled fashion, direct these activities to specific audiences, and 

adaptively evaluate the hunting program for expansion or reduction based on demand and program 

success.

Strategies:

1. Prepare and submit all materials required to 

open hunting as a use on the Refuge.

2. Partner with Minnesota DNR, Wheelin' 

Sportsmen, National Wild Turkey Foundation, Capable Partners, Minnesota Deer 

Hunters Association, Pheasants Forever, 

Camp Ripley, Minnesota State Archery Association, local sportsmen’s clubs, and others to 

conduct managed hunts.

3. Prepare the Headquarters, Sedge Meadow, 

and Platte River West Units for managed 

hunts. 

4. Provide adequate boundary signage on all 

hunting areas. 

5. As additional land is acquired, re-evaluate the 

areas that are available and safe for hunting 

with the ultimate goal of opening additional 

areas of the Refuge to hunting.

6. Increase law enforcement as the hunting program expands.
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

7. Manage hunts to minimize conflicts with 

other uses and resources.

8. Assist with hunter education.

9. Survey participants in specialized hunts.

10. Adhere to state regulations for hunting activities.

11. Further define Refuge management of the 

hunting program as a part of the visitor services step-down plan and complete it within 2 

years of CCP approval.

Objective 3.3 Fishing

Within 3 years, evaluate the potential to establish seasonal bank fishing opportunities on the 

Platte River West Unit; over the life of the plan 

evaluate the potential for new bank fishing 

opportunities as additional properties are 

acquired.

Rationale: Fishing is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Fishing would provide a traditional recreational activity on the Refuge, if no definable 

adverse impacts to the biological integrity or habitat 

sustainability of Refuge resources are found and it 

is determined that a quality fishing experience is 

possible and sustainable. Fishing programs help 

promote understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. Fishing is also a way 

to engage visitors in activities related to water 

resources and water-associated habitats, which 

relates to the primary purpose of the Refuge under 

the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, “... 

the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in 

order to maintain the public benefits they provide...”. 

Because of the great abundance of other quality 

fishing opportunities in the area, the additional 

management responsibilities associated with offering this activity, and a limited understanding of the 

fisheries adjacent to Refuge properties, Refuge 

staff feel it is important to further investigate the 

demand for this activity and the ability of the Refuge to meet the demand before opening the Refuge 

to fishing. It is a goal of the Refuge System to provide the most appropriate and compatible, highest 

quality, and most sustainable wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities for the public.

Strategies:

1. Conduct site evaluations for quality fishing 

opportunities.

2. Review potential fishing sites and evaluate 

the potential for disturbance to eagle nests.

3. Evaluate potential for bank erosion and vegetation disturbance when considering new fishing access sites.

4. Provide appropriate directional and informational signage when establishing any fishing 

access sites.

Objective 3.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Over the life of the plan, maintain existing wildlife 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 welcoming and orienting objective 3.1 for additional information).

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography 

are priority wildlife-dependent recreation activities 

listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. They are important and 

valuable activities that promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management. 

If properly managed, these uses provide invaluable opportunities for interaction between people 

and the natural environment with little or no detrimental effects to wildlife or habitat. By developing 

trails, boardwalks, observation decks, and other 

infrastructure it is possible to enhance mobility and 

access to locations that offer premium wildlife viewing opportunities. The various modes of travel permitted on the Refuge also help facilitate year-round 

access to these opportunities. The objectives and 

strategies proposed in this CCP were conceived and 

further developed during a visitor services planning 

Crane Meadows NWR by water. Photo Credit: FWS
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

session held by Refuge staff, members of the Refuge Friends group, and other natural resource professionals in March 2009 in preparation for the 

writing of the CCP.

Strategies:

1. As the Refuge grows in size and visitor use 

increases, develop a public use site on the 

Sedge Meadow Unit (see welcoming and orienting objective 3.1 for additional information).

2. Consider accessible wildlife observation and 

photography facilities at selected sites as new 

lands are acquired for the Refuge, and as visitation and demand increase; facilities may 

include blinds, observation platforms, trails, 

and other provisions.

3. Continue to offer wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities for portable blinds 

by special use permit.

4. Work with partners to establish Crane Meadows NWR as an Audubon Important Bird 

Area (IBA).

Objective 3.5 Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Increase Refuge environmental education and 

interpretation provision from 2009 levels, specifically:

 Increasing participation in programs (see 

rationale) by 20 percent within 15 years. 

 Establishing new interpretive displays that 

convey key habitat, wildlife, and other natural resource messages to visitors on the following Refuge units: Headquarters, 

Highway 27, Sedge Meadow, Platte River 

West, and Soo Line East (see welcoming and 

orienting objective 3.1 for additional information).

Rationale: Environmental education and interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. Well-designed 

environmental education and interpretive programs can be effective management tools and provide the opportunity to influence visitor attitudes 

about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service. They can help develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, 

skills, motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively towards the conservation of our nation’s environmental resources. They can also influence visitor 

behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. 

One aspect of future management efforts will be 

directed toward on-Refuge programs with a goal of 

increasing the knowledge of, and appreciation for 

the Refuge and its resources. Another emphasis will 

be directed towards a growing need to connect the 

nation’s youth with the natural world and engage 

children in the outdoors. Richard Louv’s 2005 book, 

‘Last Child in the Woods,’ motivated a growing 

interest in, and acknowledgement of the disconnect 

between modern youth and nature (Louv 2005). By 

working with local schools and increasing provision 

of environmental education and interpretation, the 

Refuge hopes to begin addressing some of these 

issues at the local level. 

Current programs and activities include:

 Habitat Day

 Platte River Cleanup Day

 Winter Backyard Bird Feeding

 Spring and Fall Birding Tours

 Morrison County Water Festival

 Pheasant Forever Youth Days (Sherburne and 

Anoka Counties)

Strategies:

1. Identify priority natural resource messages 

and relevant Refuge audiences to develop 

interpretive themes that will guide interprative programs and products. 

2. Work with local educators, regional Service 

environmental education staff, and others to 

identify target audiences and topics for environmental education programs.

3. Encourage self-directed learning on the Refuge, in addition to providing programs, activities, talks, publications, audio-visual media, 

signs, and exhibits. 

4. Begin coordinating environmental education 

programs with the five local schools (Royalton, Little Falls, Pierz, Upsala, and Swanville.)

5. Serve as a local resource for environmental 

education and interpretation related to area 

wildlife, habitats, water resources, and cultural history by providing curricula, workshops, outdoor classrooms, and teaching 

materials. 

6. Work with local educators to develop environmental education curricula and teach workshops.

7. Develop operational measures of success for 

the environmental education program.

8. On the Headquarters unit, design and develop 

the plan for an outdoor classroom with electricity, running water, and flush toilets, and 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

an indoor visitor information area (see welcoming and orienting objective 3.1 for additional information).

9. Work with local scout groups on merit badges 

and conservation projects.

10. Update existing kiosk at the Platte River 

Trailhead.

Objective 3.6 Outreach and Partnerships

Maintain relationships with current partners(see rationale) and existing outreach activities (see rationale), 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.

Rationale: It is critical to the mission of the Refuge System, and to Crane Meadows NWR, that the 

neighbors, citizens, organizations, and agencies in 

the surrounding landscape know about the Refuge 

and support it as a valuable and contributing part of 

the community. The Refuge is an asset to the local 

community and has received strong support since 

its establishment in 1992. Continued support is 

essential for the success of the Refuge and its longterm viability. Developing relationships with other 

conservation agencies and organizations is mutually 

beneficial in conducting efficient and effective natural resource work. Also, building support for land 

and water conservation among Refuge neighbors is 

essential in protecting the natural resources in the 

area over the long term. It is important that the 

Refuge continue efforts to build and maintain open 

communication, informing partners and the public 

about the successes, opportunities, and challenges 

involved in conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Current partners include:

 Morrison County Sportsmen Clubs

 Ducks Unlimited

 Minnesota Waterfowl Association

 Central Minnesota Audubon Society

 Delta Waterfowl

 Central Minnesota Environmental Council

 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

 Camp Ripley Environmental Office

 National Wild Turkey Federation

 Minnesota Deer Hunters Association

 Morrison County Pheasants Forever 

 Soil and Water Conservation District

 Natural Resource Conservation Service

 Morrison County Government (Commissioners, Planning and Zoning, Roads and Transportation)

 Local snowmobile and ATV clubs

 Royalton Lions Club

 Morrison County Master Gardeners

Current outreach activities include:

 Habitat Day

 Platte River Cleanup Day

 Winter Backyard Bird Feeding

 Spring and Fall Birding Tours

 Morrison County Water Festival

 Anoka County Game Fair 

 Pheasant Forever Youth Days (Sherburne and 

Anoka Counties)

 Camp Ripley hunts

 Local Expos (business and others)

 Anoka Game Fair

 Morrison County Fair

Strategies:

1. Work with the state to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for managing 

land and water within the acquisition boundary.

2. Increase interaction with public media outlets 

to promote Refuge activities, amenities, 

accomplishments, and management.

3. Maintain regular contact with community 

leaders, schools, agencies, and partner organizations.

4. Continue to develop good relations with landowners in, and immediately adjacent to the 

Refuge acquisition boundary. 

5. Contact at least one new potential partner 

each year.

6. Work cooperatively with local universities, 

colleges, and other agencies to promote 

research within the Refuge.

7. Develop periodic news articles and radio programs on Refuge-related topics.

Objective 3.7: Cultural Resource Management

Over the life of the plan, work to protect all cultural, historic, and archaeological resources on 

the Refuge. 

Rationale: Cultural resources are an important 

part of the nation’s heritage, and historic/pre-his-
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

toric artifacts on the Refuge are limited and irreplaceable national treasures. Crane Meadows NWR 

remains committed to preserving archeological and 

historic sites against degradation, looting, and other 

adverse impacts. The guiding principle for management derives from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C.470 et seq., 

and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1970 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 47011-mm. There are a 

number of documented archaeological sites in the 

area of the Rice-Skunk wetland complex. 

The abundance of wildlife that has been attracted 

to this area for thousands of years has, in turn, 

drawn early native peoples to this wetland system. 

Although none of the known archaeological sites are 

currently owned by the Refuge, there may be undiscovered sites that will need to be properly attended 

as more research is done on Refuge lands. In addition, full acquisition would place a number of historic resources under the care of the Service, and it 

is important for Refuge and Regional Office staff to 

be aware of these resources.

Strategies:

1. Ensure archaeological and cultural resources 

are identified, described, and taken into consideration prior to implementing management actions.

2. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to any 

ground disturbance activities.

3. Conduct consultations with Minnesota State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and 

Service Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act.

4. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of 

ancient human remains, follow instructions 

and procedures indicated by the SHPO and 

RHPO, including tribal notification and consultation where appropriate.

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 contributed by volunteers an average of 1 percent per 

year, and increase volunteer opportunities 

related to resource monitoring, environmental 

education, partnership development, land protection, and visitor services.

Rationale: The human resource hours required 

to effectively manage a national wildlife refuge often 

exceeds that which can be provided by staff alone. 

The accomplishments of any refuge, especially the 

exemplary work above and beyond the day-to-day 

management needs are often the result of joint public and private teamwork and the collective interests 

and enthusiasm of the multitude of individuals that 

benefit from the Refuge. As public servants, Service 

staff manage a public resource owned by the citizens 

of this nation. The greater the involvement of the 

public, the more successfully the mission of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service is met, “...working with others...for the continuing benefit of the American people.” 

Crane Meadows NWR staff sees the opportunity 

to work with private individuals as critical to their 

effective management, and are grateful to those who 

have become engaged with the conservation, 

research, and education activities conducted by the 

Refuge. As an extension of Refuge volunteerism, a 

Refuge Friends Group is a grassroots organization 

formed by citizens who have a shared desire and 

vision to support their local National Wildlife Refuge. They join with Service personnel in a partnership that seeks to accomplish mutually defined 

goals. 

Establishing a Friends group helps build a constituency of support for the Refuge, provides people 

with opportunities to assist in the accomplishment 

of the Service mission, and enhances Refuge performance through the creativity, innovations, labor, 

and expertise contributed by its members. The Refuge will continue to work diligently to increase 

opportunities to support Crane Meadows NWR, and 

to enhance the experience of its volunteers.

Strategies:

1. Actively recruit new volunteers in areas 

within and adjacent to the Refuge acquisition 

boundary, and throughout the watershed.

2. Use off-site outreach and education events as 

opportunities to recruit new volunteers and 

promote the Friends group.

3. Work with volunteer agencies and service 

groups to increase volunteerism at the Refuge. 

4. Support the Refuge Friends Group in Refuge 

advocacy, education, and resource management.

Objective 3.9 Law Enforcement

Work with local police authorities, state conservation 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. 
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Rationale: The Refuge is responsible for protecting the resources within its boundaries and for providing a safe environment for visitors and 

employees. The Refuge law enforcement program is 

a critical tool in protecting trust resources, wildlife 

habitat, public facilities, employees, and the visiting 

public. To provide this essential service, the Refuge 

will share regional resources and cooperate with 

other law enforcement authorities to meet its 

responsibilities.

Strategies:

1. Actively maintain partnerships with local, 

state, and Service law enforcement officers 

that support the Refuge.

2. Promote surveillance of the Refuge by local 

landowners, visitors, and partner agency personnel.

3. Report and document all incidents and violations on the Refuge.

4. Maintain all facilities and infrastructure in 

compliance with OSHA and other regulations.

5. Increase boundary signage where necessary 

to prevent illegal trespass.

Objective 3.10 Staffing

Increase staffing from the existing two positions to the levels projected by the 2008 Region 

3 staffing model 2

 (see Table 21) in order to 

accomplish the work set forth by the CCP.

Rationale: With a strong Private Lands program, increasing visitation trends, endless research 

interests, and incomplete land acquisition, the Refuge will require additional human resources to meet 

future management needs. 

Current staffing at Crane Meadows NWR 

includes two positions:

 Private Lands Biologist/Refuge Operations 

Specialist (provided by Sherburne NWR)

 Maintenance

The commitments described in this CCP will be 

greatly influenced by the availability of human 

resources. In addition to a healthy volunteer program, the Refuge needs professional FWS staff to 

effectively manage the expansion of biological and 

visitor service programs at the Refuge.

Table 21: Additional Staffing Needs at Crane Meadows NWR

Position Title Priority Issues Addressed by New Position

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1 General Refuge management; replace existing position provided 

by Sherburne NWR.

Biologist 2 Land acquisition efforts; habitat restoration; research and 

monitoring (i.e. water resources, invasive species, wildlife 

surveys).

Administrative Assistant 3 Hospitality, communications, information provision, filing, 

outreach, volunteer program administration, and local visitor 

services oversight.

2. The 2008 staffing model does not account for 

personnel associated with fire, the Partners 

Program, or law enforcement.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Introduction

The efficacy of any management plan is dependent on a multitude of factors that change over time. 

This chapter describes a number of these factors in 

further detail, including the funding, projects, 

human resources, coordination, monitoring, and 

additional planning associated with CCP implementation. Adaptive management will also be necessary 

to meet new, unforeseen challenges, and to take 

advantage of new opportunities. 

As noted in the inside cover of this document, this 

plan does not constitute a commitment for additional staffing or increases in operational and maintenance resources. These decisions are at the 

discretion of Congress in overall appropriations, and 

in budget allocation decisions made at the national 

and regional levels of the Service.

Funding

In the preceding chapters, the Crane Meadows 

NWR CCP has outlined a vision for the future management of the Refuge and included the objectives 

and strategies needed to realize that vision. Current 

financial resources available to the Refuge will not 

adequately provide the means to protect habitat and 

wildlife, and improve the condition of visitor services 

through the life of the plan. In fact, the operating 

and maintenance budget for the Refuge over the 

past 6 years has slightly decreased overall (see 

Table 15 on page 81.) Similarly, pre-plan staff levels 

do not allow adequate interactions with the public 

for welcoming, education, interpretation, information, safety, or enforcement purposes; nor are the 

habitat management strategies described in this 

plan achievable at minimum staffing levels. 

The rate at which each refuge achieves its full 

potential of contributing to local, regional, and 

national conservation goals depends on the 

resources provided for those purposes. Increased 

funding and staffing will result in long-lasting protection, maintenance, and enhancements to Refuge 

habitats, visitor facilities, and programs. 

The operations and maintenance budget provide 

funds for routine, day-to-day costs on the Refuge. 

These costs include utilities, upkeep of offices and 

structures, required safety inspections, and the 

maintenance of Refuge facilities including parking 

lots, restrooms, informational kiosks, and trails. 

Currently, the operations and maintenance costs for 

the Refuge are fairly moderate because of the Refuge’s small size, and because habitat in many acquisition areas is still relatively intact. However, land 

acquisition funds and other options to protect identified lands occur outside the normal operations and 

maintenance funding process for refuges. On a 

national level, Crane Meadows NWR ranks low in 

the Service’s objective based Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), which requires considerable 

collaborative efforts with local landowners, conservation organizations, and political interests to coordinate land protection on the Refuge. 

In fact, of the 48 refuges in the Midwest Region 

with boundaries that are proposed for complete 

acquisition, Crane Meadows NWR owns the smallCrane Meadows NWR. Photo credit: Arthur Groinus
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

est percent of its proposed acquisition boundary at 

only 13 percent. Refuge staff remain committed to 

seeking new opportunities for acquisition support 

and options for land protection – both from within 

the Service and from external sources. 

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Crane Meadows 

NWR. The Refuge will need appropriate and consistent operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives and strategies outlined in this 

plan. A full listing of unfunded Refuge projects and 

operational needs predating this plan can be found 

in Table 22. Included are land protection efforts, 

habitat restoration projects, research and planning 

initiatives, youth education programs, general maintenance and rehabilitation of existing buildings, and 

the resurfacing of roads, parking lots, and trails. 

Staffing

Current staffing at Crane Meadows NWR 

includes two positions: 

 Private Land Biologist/Refuge Operations specialist (provided by Sherburne NWR)

 Maintenance

Full implementation of the vision set forth in this 

CCP will require changes in the work force of the 

Refuge. Existing staff will direct their time and 

energy in new directions, and new staff members 

will be needed to assist in management and operations. 

In March of 2008 a national team of Refuge System professionals developed a staffing model to estimate the personnel required to effectively operate 

and manage the 589 existing field stations of the 

Refuge System. Fifteen factors were used in the 

evaluation, covering the following topics:

 total acres, acres actively managed, and number 

of easement contracts

 endangered and invasive species populations

 biological management and monitoring, threats 

and conflicts 

 wilderness management

 visitor services: visitation, education programs, 

volunteers, Friends

 maintenance needs and existing assets

The model attempts to project staffing levels in a 

systematic, qualitative manner. Although a model 

provides only an estimate or theoretical measure 

and may not depict staffing needs with 100 percent 

accuracy, this modeling application is useful for supporting personnel actions and making consistent 

staffing decisions. The 2008 model projects the total 

maximum number of full-time equivalent (FTE) 

positions needed at each station, but does not determine the individual disciplines or specialties. Law 

enforcement, fire, and private lands positions were 

not included in the assessment. To implement the 

staffing model, the final report recommends that 

each Region adjust the final personnel numbers as 

necessary and identify the most appropriate position descriptions for each station. 

The 2008 staffing model results for Crane Meadows NWR included a total of five FTE positions, 

with a subsequent adjustment at the regional level 

to four. Using a 2008 baseline staffing of one FTE 

position, the Refuge was asked to identify three 

additional positions and rank them from greatest to 

least priority (see Table 23 on page 107). These are 

the same three positions covered in objective 3.10 of 

Table 22: New Project List, Crane Meadows NWR

Project Number Rank Project Description Estimated Cost 

(First Year)

FY08-4200 1 Protect one of the largest unaltered 

wetlands in Minnesota

$141,984

FY08-4201 2 Conduct Strategic Habitat Planning $97,911

FY08-4202 3 Provide administrataive support for critical 

Refuge programs

$80,046

FY08-6880 4 Connecting Kids With Nature $75,901

FY08-6886 5 Protect and enhance Crane Meadows 

wetland complex

$110,901

FY08-6888 6 Collect biological information $85,901

FY08-6890 7 Restore upland and wetland habitats $4,000
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Chapter 4. The three additional positions would 

replace the existing wildlife refuge specialist that is 

currently provided by Sherburne NWR for general 

management of the Refuge; to augment the biological program; to increase research and monitoring 

activities, habitat restoration, and land protection 

efforts; and to address Refuge needs related to hospitality, outreach, volunteerism, and visitor services 

oversight. 

The results of the staffing model illustrate full 

staffing at Crane Meadows NWR under optimum 

conditions. Due to the reality of financial constraints 

and operating budgets within the Service, it may not 

be possible to reach full staffing levels immediately. 

However, the amount and quality of management on 

a Refuge is highly dependent on the personnel 

resources available to implement the CCP.

Partnerships

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, and 

strategies at Crane Meadows NWR. The objectives 

outlined in this CCP need the support and the partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and individual citizens. 

Refuge staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve the vision of the Refuge. 

The importance of cooperation, collaboration, and 

partnerships in the successful implementation of 

this CCP is heavily emphasized throughout this document, including the current management section 

(Chapter 3, see “Partnerships” on page 107) and in 

Chapter 4 (see “Objective 3.6 Outreach and Partnerships” on page 102). With only 13 percent of the 

acquirable Refuge lands in Service ownership, Refuge staff spend a great deal of time and effort communicating with and supporting adjacent 

landowners in their stewardship of the land. State 

partners own just under 7 percent of the land within 

Refuge acquisition boundary and manage all of its 

open waters, making them a valuable ally for local 

conservation. Furthermore, local hunters and 

anglers – both private individuals and organized 

groups, control a substantial amount of land within 

the boundary. With a shared vision for conservation 

these individuals and groups can play an important 

role in keeping natural habitat on the landscape. 

Only through the combined efforts of a multitude of 

agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals 

with complementary conservation values can a 

healthy local ecosystem be retained over the longterm. Crane Meadows NWR will continue to be an 

engaged and committed partner in the community 

of support for this important vision.

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is a plan that provides general direction 

for Refuge management over short- and long-term 

timeframes. It also begins to describe specific wildlife, habitat, and people related objectives and strategies. Step-down management plans build on the 

over-arching framework provided by the CCP and 

develop management concepts in greater detail. 

This process provides managers and employees the 

opportunity to identify the specific implementation 

actions that will be carried to meet the requirement 

of the CCP. The Refuge staff will revise or develop 

the following step-down plans within the established 

timeframes:

 Fire Management Plan (1 year)

 Visitor Services Plan (2 years)

 Habitat Management Plan (5 years)

 Inventory and Monitoring Plan (5 years)

Monitoring and Evaluation

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

basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team whose purpose will be to visit Crane 

Meadows NWR and evaluate current activities in 

light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of 

Refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives 

presented in this CCP will provide the baseline for 

evaluation of this field station.

Table 23: Current and Proposed Staffing as Indicated by the 2008 NWRS Staffing Model

Position Title Status Priority

Maintenance Existing n/a

Wildlife Refuge Specialist Currently provided by Sherburne 

NWR, but proposed for Crane 

Meadows NWR

1

Biologist Proposed 2

Administrative Assistant Proposed 3
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Plan Review and Revision

While comprehensive conservation plans are 

designed to provide guidance for Refuge management over a 15-year period, they are also dynamic 

and flexible documents that are reviewed regularly 

and modified when plan review or other Refuge 

monitoring and evaluation determines that it is necessary.

Service policy calls for an annual review of these 

plans and revision when significant events or new 

information necessitate change in order to achieve 

the refuge purposes, vision, and goals. The policy 

calls for revision, “...when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, 

major refuge expansion occurs, or when we identify 

the need to do so during plan review” [602 FW 3]. 

Plan revisions follow the same procedures and processes used to develop the original CCP. As with a 

standard CCP planning effort, revisions must follow 

NEPA requirements and include opportunities for 

public review and comment. Minor plan revisions 

that meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion in 

an EAS may be made in accordance with 550 FW 

3.3C.
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

for Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota

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

the conservation goals of Crane Meadows National V/ildlife Refuge (NWR). The EA examined

the environmental consequences that each management alternative could have on Jhe quality of

the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 OfEPA). The EA evaluated three altematives for the future management of

Crane Meadows NWR.

The altemative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative B. This preferred

alternative portrays a long-term vision for habitat restoration to near-historic benchmark

conditions and increases recreation opportunities for visitors over the 15-year planning horizon.

A diversity of wetland and savanna habitats are favored reinforcing historic conditions, while

prairie and woodland are reduced over the long-term. This alternative includes active

participation in monitoring and improving upstream water resources, calls for adherence to a

well-developed prescribed fire plan, increases land acquisition and work on private lands in high

priority areas, augments the existing biological inventory and monitoring program, and offers

visitor services in a greater number of locations. Specific, managed hunts are offered, and

opporlunities for quality fishing experiences will be evaluated as new lands are acquired.

For reasons presented above and below, and based on an evaluation of the information contained

in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Altemative B

as the management altemative for Crane Meadows NWR is not a major Federal action which

would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Section

102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Additional Reasons:

Future management actions will have a neutral or positive impact on the local economy.

This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species.

Supportin g References :

o EnvironmentalAssessment

a

a

Appendix B: Glossary

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to 

achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any 

other use on a refuge that will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Service or the purposes of the 

refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Cultural Resources

“Those parts of the physical environment -- natural and built -- that have cultural value to some 

kind of sociocultural group ... [and] those nonmaterial human social institutions....” Cultural 

resources include historic sites, archeological 

sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and 

structures.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and species composition 

of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components 

are interrelated.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem that includes all 

ecological, social and economic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through 

the Endangered Species Act as being in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The local extinction of a species that is no longer 

found in a locality or country, but exists elsewhere in the world.

Goals

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.
Appendix B: Glossary

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Interjurisdictional Fish

Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of 

one or more states, for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates 

between the waters under the jurisdiction of two 

or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and 

other areas for the protection and conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Objectives

A concise statement of what we want to achieve, 

how much we want to achieve, when and where 

we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for 

the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Scoping

A process for determining the scope of issues to 

be addressed by a comprehensive conservation 

plan and for identifying the significant issues. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state 

and local agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals.

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A category of 

biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Threatened Species

Those plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register.

Undertaking:

“A project, activity, or program funded in whole 

or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a federal agency, including those carried out by 

or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out 

with federal financial assistance; those requiring 

a federal permit, license or approval...,” i.e., all 

federal actions.

Vegetation

Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life 

in an area.

Vegetation Type

A category of land based on potential or existing 

dominant plan species of a particular area.

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains 

water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that 

are inundated by surface or ground water for a 

long enough period of time each year to support, 

and that do support under natural conditions, 

plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as identified 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Wildlife Diversity

A measure of the number of wildlife species in an 

area and their relative abundance.

Water Birds

This general category includes all birds that 

inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and other wetlands at some point during the year. The group 

includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and 

swans, and other birds such as loons, rails, 

cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, 

shorebirds and passerines that nest and rely on 

wetland vegetation. 
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on 

Crane Meadows NWR

List of Bird Species ..................................................................... 116

List of Fish Species...................................................................... 126

List of Herpetofauna Species...................................................... 128

List of Mammal Species.............................................................. 129

List of Mussel Species................................................................ 131

List of Plant Species ................................................................... 132

 
116

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 

Common Loon Gaviidae Gavia immer breeding ORed-necked Grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps grisegena migrant O

Horned Grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus migrant O

Eared Grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps nigricollis migrant O

Pied-billed Grebe Podicipedidae Podilymbus podiceps breeding O

American White Pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus erythrorhynchos summer visitor O

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus summer visitor O

American Bittern Ardeidae Botarus lentiginosus breeding O

Least Bittern Ardeidae Ixobrychus flavicollis breeding O

Black-crowned Night Heron Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax summer visitor O

Green Heron Ardeidae Butorides virescens breeding O

Great Blue Heron Ardeidae Ardea herodias summer visitor O

Great Egret Ardeidae Ardea alba summer visitor O

Tundra Swan Anatidae Cygnus columbianus migrant O

Trumpeter Swan Anatidae Cygnus buccinator summer visitor O

Canada Goose Anatidae Branta canadensis breeding O

Snow Goose Anatidae Chen caerulescens migrant O

Wood Duck Anatidae Aix sponsa breeding O

Mallard Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos breeding O

American Black Duck Anatidae Anas rubreedingipes migrant O

Gadwall Anatidae Anas strepera migrant O

Northern Pintail Anatidae Anas acuta migrant O

Green-winged Teal Anatidae Anas crecca breeding O

Blue-winged Teal Anatidae Anas discors breeding O

American Wigeon Anatidae Anas americana migrant O
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Northern Shoveler Anatidae Anas clypeata migrant Redhead Anatidae Aythya americana migrant Ring-necked Duck Anatidae Aythya collaris breeding Canvasback Anatidae Aythya valisineria migrant Lesser Scaup Anatidae Aythya affinis migrant Common Goldeneye Anatidae Bucephala clangula migrant Bufflehead Anatidae Bucephala albeola migrant Hooded Merganser Anatidae Lophodytes cucullatus breeding Common Merganser Anatidae Mergus merganser migrant Red-breasted Merganser Anatidae Mergus serrator migrant Ruddy Duck Anatidae Oxyura jamaicensis migrant Turkey Vulture Cathartidae Cathartes aura summer visitor Osprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus migrant Northern Harrier Accipitridae Circus cyaneus breeding Golden Eagle Accipitridae Aquila chrysaetos migrant Bald Eagle Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucocephalus breeding, winter 

migrant

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipitridae Accipiter striatus breeding Cooper's Hawk Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii breeding Northern Goshawk Accipitridae Accipiter gentilis migrant, winter Red-tailed Hawk Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis breeding Red-shouldered Hawk Accipitridae Buteo lineatus breeding Broad-winged Hawk Accipitridae Buteo platypterus breeding Rough-legged Hawk Accipitridae Buteo lagopus winter visitor 

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
118

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Peregrine Falcon Falconidae Falco peregrinus summer visitor, migrant O

Merlin Falconidae Falco columbarius migrant O

American Kestrel Falconidae Falco sparverius breeding O

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus breeding O

Wild Turkey Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo breeding O

Ruffed Grouse Phasianidae Bonasa umbellus breeding O

Greater Prairie-chicken Phasianidae Tympanuchus cupido - H

Sharp-tailed Grouse Phasianidae Tympanuchus phasianellus - H

Virginia Rail Rallidae Rallus limigrantcola breeding O

Sora Rallidae Parzana carolina breeding O

Yellow Rail Rallidae Coturnicops noveboracensis migrant, breeding? I

American Coot Rallidae Fulica americana breeding O

Sandhill Crane Gruidae Grus canadensis breeding O

Whooping Crane Gruidae Grus americana rare migrant, 

summer visitor

O

American Golden Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis apricaria migrant C

R

Black-bellied Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarola migrant C

R

Semipalmated Plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus migrant O

Killdeer Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus breeding O

American Avocet Recurvirostridae Recurvirostra americana migrant C

R

Willet Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatus migrant C

R

Greater Yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa melanoleuca migrant O

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Lesser Yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa flavipes migrant Solitary Sandpiper Scolopacidae Tringa solitaria migrant Spotted Sandpiper Scolopacidae Actitis macularia breeding Baird's Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris bairdii migrant Pectoral Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris melanotos migrant White-rumped Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris fuscicollis migrant Least Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris minutilla migrant Dunlin Scolopacidae Calidris alpina migrant Semipalmated Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla migrant Upland Sandpiper Scolopacidae Bartramia longicauda breeding Long-billed Dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus scolopaceus migrant Short-billed Dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus griseus migrant American Woodcock Scolopacidae Scolopax minor breeding Wilson's Snipe Scolopacidae Gallinago delicata breeding Wilson's Phalarope Scolopacidae Phalaropus tricolor migrant Ring-billed Gull Laridae Larus delawarensis migrant Bonaparte's Gull Laridae Larus philadelphia migrant Herring Gull Laridae Larus argentatus migrant Foster's Tern Laridae Sterna forsteri migrant Caspian Tern Laridae Sterna caspia migrant 

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
120

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Black Tern Laridae Chlidonias niger breeding O

Rock Dove Columbidae Columba livia breeding O

Mourning Dove Columbidae Zenaida macroura breeding O

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus breeding O

Black-billed Cuckoo Cuculidae Coccyzus erythropthalmus breeding O

Long-eared Owl Strigidae Asio otus breeding O

Short-eared Owl Strigidae Asio flammeus migrant O

Great horned Owl Strigidae Bubo virginianus breeding O

Barred Owl Strigidae Strix varia breeding O

Snowy Owl Strigidae Nyctea scandica winter visitor O

Eastern screech Owl Strigidae Otus asio breeding O

Common Nighthawk Caprimulgidae Chordeiles minor breeding O

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus vociferus breeding C

R

Chimney Swift Apodidae Chaetura pelagica migrant O

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Trochilidae Archilochus colubreedingis breeding O

Belted Kingfisher Alcedinidae Ceryle alcyon breeding O

Red-bellied Woodpecker Picidae Melanerpus carolinus breeding O

Red-headed Woodpecker Picidae Melanerpus erythocephalus breeding O

Northern Flicker Picidae Colaptes auratus breeding O

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Picidae Sphyrapicus varius breeding O

Downy Woodpecker Picidae Picoides pubescens breeding O

Hairy Woodpecker Picidae Picoides villosus breeding O

Pileated Woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus pileatus breeding O

Eastern Wood-pewee Tyrannidae Contopus virens breeding O

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Alder Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax alnorum breeding Least Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax minimus breeding Willow Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax traillii breeding Eastern Phoebe Tyrannidae Sayornis phoebe breeding Great Crested Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiarchus crinitus breeding Eastern Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus breeding Western Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus verticalis migrant, breeding Loggerhead Shrike Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus breeding Northern Shrike Laniidae Lanius excubitor winter visitor Philadelphia Vireo Vireonidae Vireo philadelphicus migrant Red-eyed Vireo Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus breeding Solitary Vireo Vireonidae Vireo solitarius migrant Warbling Vireo Vireonidae Vireo gilvus breeding Yellow-throated Vireo Vireonidae Vireo flavifrons breeding Blue Jay Corvidae Cyanocitta cristata breeding American Crow Corvidae Corvus brachyrynchos breeding Common Raven Corvidae Corvus corax winter visitor Horned Lark Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris breeding Tree Swallow Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor breeding Purple Martin Hirundinidae Progne subis breeding Barn Swallow Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica breeding Cliff Swallow Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota breeding Bank Swallow Hirundinidae Riparia riparia breeding N. Rough-winged Swallow Hirundinidae Stelgidopteryx serripennis breeding Black-capped Chickadee Paridae Poecile atricapillus breeding 

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
122

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Brown Creeper Certhiidae Certhia americana migrant O

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta canadensis winter visitor, migrant P

R

White-breasted Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta carolinensis breeding O

House Wren Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon breeding O

Marsh Wren Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris breeding O

Sedge Wren Troglodytidae Cistothorus platensis breeding O

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulidae Regulus satrapa migrant O

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulidae Regulus calendula migrant O

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Sylviidae Polioptila caerulea breeding O

Eastern Bluebird Turdidae Sialia sialis breeding O

Wood Thrush Turdidae Hylocichla mustelina migrant O

Gray-cheeked Thrush Turdidae Catharus migrantnimus migrant O

Hermit Thrush Turdidae Catharus guttatus migrant O

Swainson's Thrush Turdidae Catharus ustulatus migrant O

Veery Turdidae Catharus fuscescens breeding O

American Robin Turdidae Turdus migratorius breeding O

Gray Catbird Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis breeding O

Brown Thrasher Mimidae Toxostoma rufum breeding O

European Starling Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris breeding O

Cedar Waxwing Bombycillidae Bombycilla garrulus breeding O

Golden-winged Warbler Parulidae Vervora chrysoptera breeding O

Nashville Warbler Parulidae Vermivora ruficapilla migrant O

Orange-crowned Warbler Parulidae Vermivora celata migrant O

Tennessee Warbler Parulidae Vermivora peregrina migrant O

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Bay-breasted Warbler Parulidae Dendroica castanea migrant Black-throated Green Warbler Parulidae Dendroica virens migrant Blackburnian Warbler Parulidae Dendroica fusca migrant Blackpoll Warbler Parulidae Dendroica striata migrant Chestnut-sided Warbler Parulidae Dendroica pensylvanica breeding Magnolia Warbler Parulidae Dendroica magnolia migrant Palm Warbler Parulidae Dendroica palmarum migrant Prairie Warbler Parulidae Dendroica discolor accidental Pine Warbler Parulidae Dendroica pinus migrant Yellow Warbler Parulidae Dendroica petechia breeding Yellow-rumped Warbler Parulidae Dendroica coronata migrant Black-and-white Warbler Parulidae Mniotilta varia breeding Canada Warbler Parulidae Wilsonia canadensis migrant Hooded Warbler Parulidae Wilsonia citrina accidental Wilson's Warbler Parulidae Wilsonia pusilla migrant Northern Waterthrush Parulidae Seiurus noveboracensis migrant Ovenbird Parulidae Seiurus aurocapillus breeding Common Yellowthroat Parulidae Geothlypis trichas breeding American Redstart Parulidae Setophaga ruticilla breeding Scarlet Tanager Thraupidae Piranga olivacea breeding Eastern Towhee Emberizidae Pipilo erythrophthalmus breeding Clay-colored Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella pallida breeding Chipping Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella passerina breeding Field Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella pusilla breeding 

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
124

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan American Tree Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella arborea winter visitor O

Lark Sparrow Emberizidae Chondestes grammacus breeding O

Grasshopper Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus savannarum breeding O

Nelsons Sharp-tailed Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus nelsoni migrant, breeding? I

LeConte's Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus leconteii breeding O

Savannah Sparrow Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis breeding O

Fox Sparrow Emberizidae Passerella iliaca migrant O

Lincoln's Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza lincolnii migrant O

Song Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza melodia breeding O

Swamp Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza georgiana breeding O

Vesper Sparrow Emberizidae Pooecetes gramineus breeding O

Harris' Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia querula migrant O

White-crowned Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia leucophrys migrant C

R

White-thoated Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia albicollis breeding, migrant O

Dark-eyed Junco Emberizidae Junco hyemalis winter visitor O

Lapland Longspur Emberizidae Calcarius lapponicus migrant O

Snow Bunting Emberizidae Plectrophenax nivalis winter visitor O

Dickcissel Cardinalidae Spiza americana breeding O

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Cardinalidae Pheucticus ludovicianus breeding O

Northern Cardinal Cardinalidae Cardinalis cardinalis breeding O

Indigo Bunting Cardinalidae Passerina cyanea breeding O

Bobolink Icteridae Dolichonynx oryzivorus breeding O

Eastern Meadowlark Icteridae Sturnella magna breeding O

Western Meadowlark Icteridae Sturnella neglecta breeding O

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Red-winged Blackbird Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus breeding Brewer's Blackbird Icteridae Euphagus cyanocephalus breeding Rusty Blackbird Icteridae Euphagus carolinus migrant Yellow-headed Blackbird Icteridae Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus breeding Brown-headed Cowbird Icteridae Molothrus ater breeding Common Grackle Icteridae Quiscalus quiscula breeding Baltimore Oriole Icteridae Icterus galbula breeding House Finch Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus breeding Purple Finch Fringillidae Carpodacus purpureus migrant, breeding Red Crossbill Fringillidae Loxia curvirostra winter visitor, 

migrant

White-winged Crossbill Fringillidae Loxia leucoptera winter visitor, 

migrant

American Goldfinch Fringillidae Carduelis tristis breeding, winter Common Redpoll Fringillidae Carduelis flammea - Pine Siskin Fringillidae Carduelis pinus migrant, breeding, 

winter

House Sparrow Passeridae Passer domesticus breeding 

Bird List, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Lifestage 
126

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Fish Species, Crane Meadows NWR Common Name Family Genus Species Native? Confirmed? Bigmouth shiner Cyprinidae Notropis dorsalis ✔ On-site Golden shiner Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas ✔ Platte River; Off-site Bowfin Amiidae Amia calva ✔ On-site Shorthead redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma macrolepidotum ✔ On-site Silver redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma anisurum ✔ Platte River; Off-site White sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersoni ✔ On-site Black crappie Centrarchidae Poxomis nigromaculatus ✔ On-site Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus ✔ On-site

Largemouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides ✔ On-site

Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus ✔ On-site

Rock bass Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris ✔ On-site

Smallmouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu ✔ On-site

Mottled sculpin Cottidae Cottus bairdi ✔ Historical

Blacknose dace Cyprinidae Rhinicthys atratulus ✔ On-site

Blacknose shiner Cyprinidae Notropis heterolepis ✔ On-site

Bluntnose minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus ✔ On-site

Brassy minnow Cyprinidae Hybognathus hankinsoni ✔ L.Rock; Benton Co

Central stoneroller Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum ✔ On-site

Common carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio On-site

Common shiner Cyprinidae Notropis cornutus ✔ On-site

Creek chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus ✔ On-site

Fathead minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas ✔ On-site

Goldfish Cyprinidae Carassius auratus On-site
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Hornyhead chub Cyprinidae Nocomis biguttatus ✔ On-site

Longnose dace Cyprinidae Rhinicthys cataractae ✔ On-site

Mimic shiner Cyprinidae Notropis volucellus ✔ On-site

Redfin shiner Cyprinidae Notropis umbratilis ✔ Platte River; Off-site

Sand shiner Cyprinidae Notropis stramineus ✔ On-site

Spotfin shiner Cyprinidae Notropis spiloptera ✔ On-site

Spottail shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius ✔ On-site

Northern pike Esocidae Esox lucius ✔ On-site

Burbot Gadidae Lota lota ✔ On-site

Brook stickleback Gasterosteidae Culaea inconstans ✔ On-site

Black bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus melas ✔ On-site

Brown bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus nebulosus ✔ On-site

Channel catfish Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus ✔ On-site

Tadpole madtom Ictaluridae Noturus gyrinus ✔ On-site

Yellow bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus natalis ✔ On-site

Iowa darter Percidae Etheostoma exile ✔ On-site

Johnny darter Percidae Etheostoma nigrum ✔ On-site

Logperch Percidae Percina caprodes ✔ On-site

Walleye Percidae Stizostedion vitreum ✔ On-site

Yellow perch Percidae Perca flavescens ✔ On-site

Brown trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta On-site

Central mudminnow Umbridae Umbra limi ✔ On-site

Fish Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Native? Confirmed?
128

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Herpetofauna, Crane Meadows NWR Common Name Family Genus Species Class 

Blue-spotted salamander Ambystomatidae Ambystoma laterlae Amphibian In Tiger salamander Ambystomatidae Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibian On

American toad Bufonidae Bufo americanus Amphibian On

Cope's gray tree frog Hylidae Hyla chrysoscelis Amphibian On

Gray tree frog Hylidae Hyla versicolor Amphibian On

Spring peeper Hylidae Pseudacris crucifer Amphibian On

Western chorus frog Hylidae Pseudacris triseriata Amphibian On

Green frog Ranidae Rana clamitans Amphibian On

Mink frog Ranidae Rana septentrionalis Amphibian On

Northern leopard frog Ranidae Rana pipiens Amphibian On

Wood frog Ranidae Rana sylvatica Amphibian On

Eastern newt Salamandridae Notophthalmus viridescens Amphibian In 

Snapping turtle Chelydridae Chelydra serpentina Reptile On

Brown snake Colubridae Storeria dekayii Reptile On

Eastern garter snake Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis Reptile On

Eastern hognose snake Colubridae Heterodon platyrhinos Reptile On

Gopher snake Colubridae Pituophis catenifer Reptile On

Plains garter snake Colubridae Thamnophis radix Reptile In 

Red-bellied snake Colubridae Storeria occipitomaculata Reptile On

Smooth green snake Colubridae Opheodrys vernalis Reptile On

Western hognose snake Colubridae Heterodon nasicus Reptile On

Blanding's turtle Emydidae Emydoidea blandingii Reptile On

Common map turtle Emydidae Graptemys geopgraphica Reptile In 

Painted turtle Emydidae Cheysemys picta Reptile On

Northern prairie skink Scincidae Eumeces septentrionalis Reptile On

Spiny softshell turtle Trionychidae Apalone spinifera Reptile In 
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Mammals, Crane Meadows NWR 

Common Name Family Genus Species Confirmed?

Bison Bovidae Bison bison Extirpated

Coyote Canidae Canis latrans On-site

Gray fox Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus On-site

Gray wolf Canidae Canis lupus On-site (transient)

Red fox Canidae Vulpes vulpes On-site

Beaver Castoridae Castor canadensis On-site

Elk Cervidae Cervus elaphus extirpated

Moose Cervidae Alces alces On-site (accidental)

Mule deer Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus In County (accidental)

White-tailed deer Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus On-site

Meadow vole Cricetidae Microtus pennsylvanicus On-site

Muskrat Cricetidae Ondatra zibethicus On-site

Prairie deer mouse Cricetidae Peromyscus maniculatus On-site

Prairie vole Cricetidae Microtus ochrogaster In County

Southern bog lemming Cricetidae Synaptomys cooperi In County

Southern red-backed vole Cricetidae Clethrionomys gapperi On-site

Western harvest mouse Cricetidae Reithrodontomys megalotis In County

White-footed (wood) mouse Cricetidae Peromyscus leucopus In County

Woodland deer mouse Cricetidae Peromyscus maniculatus In County

Virginia opossum Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana On-site

Porcupine Erethizontidae Erethizon dorsatum In County

Bobcat Felidae Lynx rufus In County

Plains pocket gopher Geomyidae Geomys bursarius On-site

Plains pocket mouse Heteromyidae Perognathus flavenscens In County

Eastern cottontail Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus On-site

Snowshoe hare Leporidae Lepus americanus On-site

White-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae Lepus townsendii In County

House mouse Muridae Mus musculus On-site

Norway rat Muridae Rattus norvegicus On-site

Badger Mustelidae Taxidea taxus On-site

Least weasel Mustelidae Mustela nivalis In nearby counties
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Longtail weasel Mustelidae Mustela frenata In County

Fisher Mustelidae Martes pennani On-site

Mink Mustelidae Mustela vison On-site

River otter Mustelidae Lutra canadensis On-site

Shorttail weasel (ermine) Mustelidae Mustela erminea On-site

Striped skunk Mustelidae Mephitis mephitis On-site

Eastern spotted skunk Mustelidea Spilogale putorius In County

Raccoon Procyonidae Procyon lotor On-site

13-lined ground squirrel Sciuridae Citellus tridecemlineatus On-site

Eastern chipmunk Sciuridae Tamias striatus On-site

Eastern fox squirrel Sciuridae Sciurus niger On-site

Eastern gray squirrel Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis On-site

Franklin's ground squirrel Sciuridae Citellus franklinii In County

Red squirrel Sciuridae Tamiasciurus hudsonicus On-site

Northern flying squirrel Sciuridae Glaucomys sabrinus In nearby counties

Woodchuck Sciuridae Marmota monax On-site

Arctic shrew Soricidae Sorex arcticus In County

Masked shrew Soricidae Sorex cinereus In County

Pygmy shrew Soricidae Microsorex hoyi On-site

Short-tailed shrew Soricidae Blarina brevicauda On-site

Water shrew Soricidae Sorex palustris In County

Eastern mole Talpidae Scalopus aquaticus In nearby counties

Star-nosed mole Talpidae Condylura christata On-site

Black bear Ursidae Ursus americanus On-site

Big brown bat Vespertilionidae Eptesicus fuscus In nearby counties

Hoary bat Vespertilionidae Lasiurus cinereus In nearby counties

Keen's myotis Vespertilionidae Myotis keenii In nearby counties

Little brown myotis Vespertilionidae Myotis lucifugus On-site

Red bat Vespertilionidae Lasiurus borealis On-site

Silver-haired bat Vespertilionidae Lasionycteris noctivagans In nearby counties

Meadow jumping mouse Zapodidae Zapus hudsonius On-site

Mammals, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Family Genus Species Confirmed?
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Mussel Species, Crane Meadow NWR

Common Name Genus Species Reference

Floater Pyganodon grandis unknown

Fat mucket Lampsilis siliquoidea unknown

Fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis unknown

Cyliner Anodontoides ferruscianous unknown

Fingernail clams Sphaeridae sp. unknown

Black sandshell mussel Ligumia recta MCBS

Creek heelsplitter mussel Lasmigona compressa MCBS
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR 

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve

Common yarrow Forb Asteraceae Achillea millefolium ✔ ✔ ✔

Blue giant hyssop Forb Lamiaceae Agastache foeniculum ✔ ✔ ✔

Leadplant Shrub Fabaceae Amorpha canescens ✔ ✔ ✔

Hog-peanut Vine Fabaceae Amphicarpaea bracteata ✔ ✔ ✔

Big bluestem Grass Poaceae Andropogon gerardii ✔ ✔ ✔

Canada anemone Forb Ranunculaceae Anemone canadensis ✔ ✔ ✔

Field pussytoes Forb Asteraceae Antennaria neglecta ✔ ✔ ✔

White sage (western 

mugwort)

Forb Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana ✔ ✔ ✔

Swamp milkweed Forb Asclepiadaceae Asclepias incarnata ✔ ✔ ✔

Oval-leaved milkweed Forb Asclepiadaceae Asclepias ovalifolia ✔ ✔ ✔

Common milkweed Forb Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca ✔ ✔ ✔

Panicled aster Forb Asteraceae Aster lanceolatus ✔ ✔ ✔

Sky-blue aster Forb Asteraceae Aster oolentangiensis ✔ ✔ ✔

Bluejoint Grass Poaceae Calamagrostis canadensis ✔ ✔ ✔

Harebell Forb Campanulaceae Campanula rotundifolia ✔ ✔ ✔

Field chickweed Forb Caryophyllaceae Cerastium arvense ✔ ✔ ✔

Horseweed Forb Asteraceae Conyza canadensis ✔ ✔ ✔

American hazelnut Shrub Betulaceae Corylus americana ✔ ✔ ✔

Great plains flatsedge Sedge Cyperaceae Cyperus lupulinus ✔ ✔ ✔

Smooth scouring-rush Grasslike Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum ✔ ✔ ✔

Purple love grass Grass Poaceae Eragrostis spectabilis ✔ ✔ ✔

Lesser daisy fleabane Forb Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus ✔ ✔ ✔

Common strawberry Forb Rosaceae Fragaria virginiana ✔ ✔ ✔

Northern bedstraw Forb Rubiaceae Galium boreale ssp. 

septentrionale

✔ ✔ ✔

Fowl manna grass Grass Poaceae Glyceria striata ✔ ✔ ✔

Alumroot Forb Saxifragaceae Heuchera richardsonii ✔ ✔ ✔

Spotted touch-me-not, 

jewel-weed

Forb Balsaminaceae Impatiens capensis ✔ ✔ ✔
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Wild veiny pea Vine Fabaceae Lathyrus venosus var. 

intonsus

✔ ✔ ✔

Michigan lily Forb Liliaceae Lilium michiganense ✔ ✔ ✔

Cut-leaved water 

hoarhound (bugleweed)

Forb Lamiaceae Lycopus americanus ✔ ✔ ✔

Wild bergamot Forb Lamiaceae Monarda fistulosa ✔ ✔ ✔

Sensitive fern (bead fern) Fern Dryopteridaceae Onoclea sensibilis ✔ ✔ ✔

Virginia creeper Vine Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia ✔ ✔ ✔

Downy phlox (praire phlox) Forb Polemoniaceae Phlox pilosa ssp. fulgida ✔ ✔ ✔

Virginia ground cherry Forb Solanaceae Physalis virginiana ✔ ✔ ✔

Kentucky blue-grass Grass Poaceae Poa pratensis var. pratensis ✔ ✔

Quaking aspen Tree Salicaceae Populus tremuloides ✔ ✔ ✔

Rough cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae Potentilla norvegica ✔ ✔ ✔

Smooth rattlesnake-root Forb Asteraceae Prenanthes racemosa ✔ ✔ ✔

Bur oak Tree Fagaceae Quercus macrocarpa ✔ ✔ ✔

Northern red oak Tree Fagaceae Quercus rubra ✔ ✔ ✔

Little bluestem Grass Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium 

var. frequens

✔ ✔ ✔

Marsh skullcap Forb Lamiaceae Scutellaria galericulata ✔ ✔ ✔

Canada goldenrod Forb Asteraceae Solidago canadensis var. 

canadensis

✔ ✔ ✔

Giant goldenrod Forb Asteraceae Solidago gigantea var. 

gigantea

✔ ✔ ✔

Hard-leaved goldenrod 

(stiff goldenrod)

Forb Asteraceae Solidago ridiga var. rigida ✔ ✔ ✔

Field sow thistle Forb Asteraceae Sonchus arvensis ✔ ✔

Indian grass Grass Poaceae Sorghastrum nutans ✔ ✔ ✔

Woundwort (hedge-nettle) Forb Lamiaceae Stachys palustris ssp. 

palustris

✔ ✔ ✔

Alsike clover Forb Fabaceae Trifolium hybridum ✔ ✔

Red clover Forb Fabaceae Trifolium pratense ✔ ✔

Late low blueberry Shrub Ericaceae Vaccinium angustifolium ✔ ✔ ✔

Blue vervain Forb Verbenaceae Verbena hastata ✔ ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Culver's-root Forb Scrophulariaceae Veronicastrum virginicum ✔ ✔ ✔

Purple vetch (American 

vetch)

Forb Fabaceae Vicia americana ✔ ✔ ✔

Prairie bird-floot violet Forb Violaceae Viola pedatifida ✔ ✔ ✔

Quack grass Grass Poaceae Agropyron repens var. 

repens

✔

Wheatgrass Grass Poaceae Agropyron trachycaulum ✔ ✔

Rough bent-grass Grass Poaceae Agrostis scabra ✔ ✔

Redtop Grass Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera ✔

Speckled alder Shrub/Tree Betulaceae Alnus incana ssp. rugosa ✔ ✔

Western ragweed Forb Asteraceae Ambrosia coronopifolia ✔ ✔

Juneberry; serviceberry; 

saska

Shrub/Tree Rosaceae Amelanchier sp. ✔ ✔

Thimbleweed Forb Ranunculaceae Anemone cylindrica ✔ ✔

Two-leaf anemone Forb Ranunculaceae Anemone quinquefolia var. 

bifolia

✔ ✔

Plantain-leaved pussytoes Forb Asteraceae Antennaria plantaginifolia ✔ ✔

Spreading dogbane Forb Apocynaceae Apocynum 

androsaemifolium

✔ ✔

Hairy rock-cress Forb Brassicaceae Arabis hirsuta var. 

adpressipilis

✔ ✔

Wild sarsaparilla Forb Araliaceae Aralia nudicaulis ✔ ✔

Bog aster Forb Asteraceae Aster borealis ✔ ✔

Heath aster Forb Asteraceae Aster ericoides ssp. ericoides ✔ ✔

Red-stemmed aster Forb Asteraceae Aster puniceus ✔ ✔

Flat-topped aster Forb Asteraceae Aster umbellatus ✔ ✔

Nodding bur-marigold Forb Asteraceae Bidens cernua ✔ ✔

Common beggar-ticks Forb Asteraceae Bidens vulgata ✔ ✔

Blue grama Grass Poaceae Bouteloua gracilis ✔ ✔

Fringed brome Grass Poaceae Bromus ciliatus ✔ ✔

Kalm's brome Grass Poaceae Bromus kalmii ✔ ✔

Slim-stem reed grass Grass Poaceae Calamagrostis neglecta ✔ ✔

Sand reedgrass Grass Poaceae Calamovil falongifolia ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Wild calla Forb Araceae Calla palustris ✔ ✔

Marsh marigold Forb Ranunculaceae Caltha palustris ✔ ✔

Marsh bellflower Forb Campanulaceae Campanula aparinoides 

var. aparinoides

✔ ✔

Bebb's sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex bebbii ✔ ✔

Buxbaum's sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex buxbaumii ✔ ✔

Creeping sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex chordorrhiza ✔ ✔

Openfield sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex conoidea ✔ ✔

Lesser panicled sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex diandra ✔ ✔

Dryspike sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex foenea ✔ ✔

Hayden's sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex haydenii ✔ ✔

Inland sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex interior ✔ ✔

Hairy sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex lacustris ✔ ✔

Woolly sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex lanuginosa ✔ ✔

Woolyfruit sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex lasiocarpa var. 

americana

✔ ✔

Obtuse sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex obtusata ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex pensylvanica ✔ ✔

Prairie sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex prairea ✔ ✔

Sartwell's sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex sartwellii ✔ ✔

Broom sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex scoparia ✔ ✔

Upright sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex stricta ✔ ✔

Rigid sedge Grass Cyperaceae Carex tetanica ✔ ✔

Indian paint-brush Forb Scrophulariaceae Castilleja coccinea ✔ ✔

Turtlehead Forb Scrophulariaceae Chelone glabra ✔ ✔

Narrow-leaved lamb's 

quarters

Forb Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium desiccatum ✔ ✔

Bulb-bearing waterhemlock

Forb Apiaceae Cicuta bulbifera ✔ ✔

Water-hemlock Forb Apiaceae Cicuta maculata ✔ ✔

Hill's thistle Forb Asteraceae Cirsium hillii ✔ ✔

Swamp thistle Forb Asteraceae Cirsium muticum ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Bastard toad-flax Forb Santalaceae Comandra umbellata ✔ ✔

Stiff tickseed Forb Asteraceae Coreopsis palmata ✔ ✔

Red-osier dogwood Shrub/Tree Cornaceae Cornus stolonifera ✔ ✔

Tick-trefoil Forb Fabaceae Desmodium canadense ✔ ✔

Crested fern Forb Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris cristata ✔ ✔

Marginal shield fern Forb Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris marginalis ✔ ✔

Fringed willowherb Forb Onagraceae Epilobium glandulosum ✔ ✔

Linear-leaved willow-herb Forb Onagraceae Epilobium leptophyllum ✔ ✔

Field horsetail Forb Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense ✔ ✔

Cotton-grass Grass Cyperaceae Eriophorum angustifolium ✔ ✔

Spotted joe-pye weed Forb Asteraceae Eupatorium maculatum ✔ ✔

Common boneset Forb Asteraceae Eupatorium perfoliatum ✔ ✔

Grass-leaved goldenrod Forb Asteraceae Euthamia graminifolia ✔ ✔

Marsh bedstraw Forb Rubiaceae Galium labradoricum ✔ ✔

Stiff marsh bedstraw Forb Rubiaceae Galium tinctorium ✔ ✔

Small bedstraw Forb Rubiaceae Galium trifidum ✔ ✔

Closed gentian Forb Gentianaceae Gentiana andrewsii var. 

andrewsii

✔ ✔

Smaller fringed gentian Forb Gentianaceae Gentianopsis procera ✔ ✔

Wild geranium Forb Geraniaceae Geranium maculatum ✔ ✔

Yellow avens Forb Rosaceae Geum aleppicum var. 

strictum

✔ ✔

Prairie smoke Forb Rosaceae Geum triflorum var. 

triflorum 

✔ ✔

Creeping charlie Forb Lamiaceae Glechoma hederacea ✔

Sneezeweed Forb Asteraceae Helenium autumnale ✔ ✔

Hoary frostweed Forb Cistaceae Helianthemum bicknellii ✔ ✔

Giant sunflower Forb Asteraceae Helianthus giganteus ✔ ✔

Stiff sunflower Forb Asteraceae Helianthus rigidus ssp. 

rigidus

✔ ✔

Ox-eye Forb Asteraceae Heliopsis helianthoides ssp. 

occidentalis

✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Hawkweed Forb Asteraceae Hieracium kalmii ✔ ✔

Sweet grass, vanilla grass Grass Poaceae Hierochloe odorata ssp. 

hirta

✔ ✔

Blue flag Forb Iridaceae Iris versicolor ✔ ✔

Path rush Grass Juncaceae Juncus tenuis ✔ ✔

Vasey's rush Grass Juncaceae Juncus vaseyi ✔ ✔

June grass Grass Poaceae Koeleria macrantha ✔ ✔

Two-flowered cynthia Forb Asteraceae Krigia biflora ✔ ✔

Pale vetchling Forb Fabaceae Lathyrus ochroleucus ✔ ✔

Marsh vetchling Forb Fabaceae Lathyrus palustris var. 

palustris

✔ ✔

Prairie pinweed Forb Cistaceae Lechea stricta ✔ ✔

Rice cut grass Grass Poaceae Leersia oryzoides ✔ ✔

Lesser duckweed Forb Lemnaceae Lemna minor ✔ ✔

Round-headed bush-clover Forb Fabaceae Lespedeza capitata ✔ ✔

Rough blazing star Forb Asteraceae Liatris aspera ✔ ✔

Gay-feather Forb Asteraceae Liatris pycnostachya ✔ ✔

Loesel's twayblade Forb Orchidaceae Liparis loeselii ✔ ✔

Hoary puccoon Forb Boraginaceae Lithospermum canescens ✔ ✔

Rough-spiked lobelia Forb Campanulaceae Lobelia spicata ✔ ✔

Woodrush Grass Cyperaceae Luzula multiflora ✔ ✔

Northern bugleweed Forb Lamiaceae Lycopus uniflorus ✔ ✔

Fringed loosestrife Forb Primulaceae Lysimachia ciliata ✔ ✔

Yellow loosestrife Forb Primulaceae Lysimachia terrestris ✔ ✔

Tufted loosestrife Forb Primulaceae Lysimachia thyrsiflora ✔ ✔

Canada mayflower Forb Liliaceae Maianthemum canadense ✔ ✔

Spiked muhly Grass Poaceae Muhlenbergia glomerata ✔ ✔

Common evening-primrose Forb Onagraceae Oenothera biennis ✔ ✔

Adder's-tongue Forb Ophioglossaceae Ophioglossum pusillum ✔ ✔

Northern panic grass Grass Poaceae Panicum boreale ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Early panic grass Grass Poaceae Panicum lanuginosum var. 

praecocius

✔ ✔

Leiberg's panic grass Grass Poaceae Panicum leibergii ✔ ✔

Long-leaved panic grass Grass Poaceae Panicum perlongum ✔ ✔

Wood-betony Forb Scrophulariaceae Pedicularis canadensis ✔ ✔

Swamp lousewort Forb Scrophulariaceae Pedicularis lanceolata ✔ ✔

Slender beard-tongue Forb Scrophulariaceae Penstemon gracilis ✔ ✔

White prairie-clover Forb Fabaceae Petalostemon candidum ✔ ✔

Purple prairie-clover Forb Fabaceae Petalostemon purpureum ✔ ✔

Timothy Grass Poaceae Phleum pratense ✔

Jack pine Tree Pinaceae Pinus banksiana ✔ ✔

Tubercled rein-orchid Forb Orchidaceae Platanthera flava var. 

herbiola

✔ ✔

Tall northern orchid Forb Orchidaceae Platanthera hyperborea ✔ ✔

Ragged fringed orchid Forb Orchidaceae Platanthera lacera ✔ ✔

Purple fringed orchid Forb Orchidaceae Platanthera psycodes ✔ ✔

Fowl meadow grass Grass Poaceae Poa palustris ✔ ✔

Purple milkwort Forb Polygalaceae Polygala sanguinea ✔ ✔

Water smartweed Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum amphibium var. 

stipulaceum

✔ ✔

Nodding smartweed Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium ✔ ✔

Dotted smartweed Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum punctatum ✔ ✔

Arrow-leaved tearthumb Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum sagittatum ✔ ✔

Tall cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae Potentilla arguta ✔ ✔

Marsh cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae Potentilla palustris var. 

villosa

✔ ✔

Choke cherry Shrub/Tree Rosaceae Prunus virginiana ✔ ✔

Virginia mountain-mint Forb Lamiaceae Pycnanthemum 

virginianum

✔ ✔

Northern pin oak Tree Fagaceae Quercus ellipsoidalis ✔ ✔

Smooth sumac Shrub/Tree Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra ✔ ✔

Poison ivy Shrub/Forb/

Vine

Anacardiaceae Rhus radicans ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

Prairie rose Shrub Rosaceae Rosa arkansana var. 

arkansana

✔ ✔

Northern dewberry Shrub Rosaceae Rubus flagellaris ✔ ✔

Dwarf blackberry Forb/Shrub Rosaceae Rubus pubescens ✔ ✔

Red raspberry Shrub Rosaceae Rubus strigosus ✔ ✔

Red sorrel Forb Polygonaceae Rumex acetosella ✔

Great waterdock Forb Polygonaceae Rumex orbiculatus ✔ ✔

Bebb's willow Shrub/Tree Salicaceae Salix bebbiana ✔ ✔

Sage-leaved willow Shrub Salicaceae Salix candida ✔ ✔

Pussy willow Shrub/Tree Salicaceae Salix discolor ✔ ✔

Heart-leaved willow Shrub/Tree Salicaceae Salix eriocephala ✔ ✔

Slender willow Shrub/Tree Salicaceae Salix gracilis ✔ ✔

Bog willow Shrub Salicaceae Salix pedicellaris var. 

hypoglauca

✔ ✔

Meadow willow Shrub/Tree Salicaceae Salix petiolaris ✔ ✔

Swamp saxifrage Forb Saxifragaceae Saxifraga pensylvanica ✔ ✔

Wool-grass Grass Cyperaceae Scirpus cyperinus ✔ ✔

Mad-dog skullcap Forb Lamiaceae Scutellaria lateriflora ✔ ✔

Golden ragwort Forb Asteraceae Senecio aureus ✔ ✔

Blue-eyed grass Forb Iridaceae Sisyrinchium campestre ✔ ✔

Water-parsnip Forb Apiaceae Sium suave ✔ ✔

Starry false Solomon's-seal Forb Liliaceae Smilacina stellata ✔ ✔

Gray goldenrod Forb Asteraceae Solidago nemoralis var. 

nemoralis

✔ ✔

Showy goldenrod Forb Asteraceae Solidago speciosa ✔ ✔

Prairie cordgrass Grass Poaceae Spartina pectinata ✔ ✔

Prairie wedge grass Grass Poaceae Sphenopholis obtusata ✔ ✔

Meadowsweet Shrub Rosaceae Spiraea alba ✔ ✔

Porcupine grass Grass Poaceae Stipa spartea ✔ ✔

Common dandelion Forb Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale ✔ ✔

Tall meadow rue Forb Ranunculaceae Thalictrum dasycarpum ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Early meadow rue Forb Ranunculaceae Thalictrum dioicum ✔ ✔

Northern marsh fern Forb Thelypteridaceae Thelypteris palustris ✔ ✔

Yellow goat's-beard Forb Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius ✔

Marsh St. John's-wort Forb Clusiaceae Triadenum fraseri ✔ ✔

White clover Forb Fabaceae Trifolium repens ✔

Broad-leaved cattail Forb Typhaceae Typha latifolia ✔ ✔

Skullcap speedwell Forb Scrophulariaceae Veronica scutellata var. 

scutellata

✔ ✔

Northern bog violet Forb Violaceae Viola nephrophylla ✔ ✔

Kidney-leaf violet Forb Violaceae Viola renifolia ✔ ✔

Common blue violet Forb Violaceae Viola sororia ✔ ✔

Golden alexanders Forb Apiaceae Zizia aurea ✔ ✔

Box elder Tree Aceraceae Acer negundo ✔ ✔

Sweet flag (calamus) Forb Acorraceae Acorus americanus ✔ ✔

Tall hairy agrimony Forb Rosaceae Agrimonia striata ✔ ✔

Redtop grass Grass Poaceae Agrostis gigantea ✔

Tickle (hair) grass Grass Poaceae Agrostis hyemalis ✔ ✔

Wild garlic Forb Liliaceae Allium canadense ✔ ✔

Green amaranth Forb Amaranthaceae Amaranthus retroflexus ✔

Common ragweed Forb Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia ✔ ✔

Intermediate indian hemp Forb Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum ✔ ✔

Columbine Forb Ranunculaceae Aquilegia canadensis ✔ ✔

Common burdock Forb Asteraceae Arctium minus ✔

Absinthe wormwood Forb Asteraceae Artemisia absinthium ✔

Lady fern Fern Dryopteridaceae Athyrium filix-femina ✔ ✔

Oats Grass Poaceae Avena sativa ✔

Winter cress Forb Brassicaceae Barbarea vulgaris ✔

Sticktight beggar-ticks Forb Asteraceae Bidens frondosa ✔ ✔

Black mustard Forb Brassicaceae Brassica nigra ✔

Mouse-ear chickweed Forb Caryophyllaceae Cerastium vulgatum ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Lamb's-quarters (pigweed) Forb Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album ✔

Narrow-leaved goosefoot Forb Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium leptophyllum ✔ ✔

Goosefoot Forb Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium polyspermum ✔

Enchanter's nightshade Forb Onagraceae Circaea lutentiana ✔ ✔

Canada thistle Forb Asteraceae Cirsium arvense ✔

Field thistle Forb Asteraceae Cirsium discolor ✔ ✔

Bull thistle Forb Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare ✔

Red-osier dogwood Shrub Cornaceae Cornus sericea ✔ ✔

Pear hawthorn Shrub/Tree Rosaceae Crataegus calpodendron ✔ ✔

Narrow-leaved hawksbeard Forb Asteraceae Crepis tectorum ✔

Winged pigweed Forb Chenopodiaceae Cycloloma atriplicifolium ✔ ✔

Hound's-tongue Forb Boraginaceae Cynoglossum officinale ✔

Schweinitz's cyperus Sedge Cyperaceae Cyperus schweinitzii ✔ ✔

Purple prairie clover Forb Fabaceae Dalea purpurea ✔ ✔

Panic grass Grass Poaceae Dichanthelium 

depauperatum

✔ ✔

Common water weed submergent Hydrocharitaceae Elodea canadensis ✔ ✔

Quackgrass Grass Poaceae Elytrigia repens ✔

Wood strawberry Forb Rosaceae Fragaria vesca ✔ ✔

Brittle-stem hemp-nettle Forb Lamiaceae Galeopsis tetrahit ✔

White avens Forb Rosaceae Geum canadense ✔ ✔

Rough pennyroyal Forb Lamiaceae Hedeoma hispida ✔ ✔

Canada hawkweed Forb Asteraceae Hieracium canadense ✔ ✔

Foxtail (barley) Grass Poaceae Hordeum jubatum ✔ ✔

Dwarf juniper Shrub Cupressaceae Juniperus communis ✔ ✔

Tall blue lettuce Forb Asteraceae Lactuca biennis ✔ ✔

Wild lettuce Forb Asteraceae Lactuca canadensis ✔ ✔

Prairie lettuce Forb Asteraceae Lactuca ludoviciana ✔ ✔

Bristly sheepburr Forb Boraginaceae Lappula squarrosa ✔

Pinweed Forb Cistaceae Lechea tenuifolia ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Prairie pepperweed Forb Brassicaceae Lepidium densiflorum ✔ ✔

Butter-and-eggs (toadflax) Forb Scrophulariaceae Linaria vulgaris ✔

Wild blue flax Forb Linaceae Linum perenne ✔

Canada honeysuckle Shrub Caprifoliaceae Lonicera canadensis ✔ ✔

Starry-false Solomon's seal Forb Liliaceae Maianthemum stellatum ✔ ✔

Dwarf mallow Forb Malvaceae Malva rotundifolia ✔

Ostrich fern Fern Dryopteraceae Matteuccia struthiopteris ✔ ✔

Alfalfa (lucerne) Forb Fabaceae Medicago sativa ✔

Hairy umbrellawort Forb Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis hirsuta ✔ ✔

Grove sandwort Forb Caryophyllaceae Moehringia lateriflora ✔ ✔

Carpetweed Forb Molluginaceae Mollugo verticillata ✔

Catnip Forb Lamiaceae Nepeta cataria ✔

Yellow wood-sorrel Forb Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricta ✔ ✔

Switch grass Grass Poaceae Panicum virgatum ✔ ✔

Pensylvanica pellitory Forb Urticaceae Parietaria pensylvanica ✔ ✔

Reed canary grass Grass Poaceae Phalaris arundinacea ✔ ✔

Lopseed Forb Verbenaceae Phryma leptostachya ✔ ✔

Norway or red pine Tree Pinaceae Pinus resinosa ✔

Common plantain Forb Plantaginaceae Plantago major ✔

Woolly plantain Forb Plantaginaceae Plantago patagonica ✔

Black bindweed Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum convolvulus ✔

Lady's thumb (redleg) Forb Polygonaceae Polygonum persicaria ✔

Purslane Forb Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea ✔

Rough fruited cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae Potentilla recta ✔

Common cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae Potentilla simplex ✔ ✔

Pin cherry Tree Rosaceae Prunus pensylvanica ✔ ✔

Bristly buttercup Forb Ranunculaceae Ranunculus pensylvanicus ✔ ✔

Alderleaf buckthorn Shrub Rhamnaceae Rhamnus alnifolia ✔ ✔

Common buckthorn Shrub Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica ✔

Missouri gooseberry Shrub Grossulariaceae Ribes missouriense ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve
Appendix C: Lists of Species Occurring on Crane Meadows NWR

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Wild red raspberry Shrub Rosaceae Rubus idaeus ✔ ✔

Black-eyed susan Forb Asteraceae Rudbeckia hirta var. 

pulcherrima

✔ ✔

Saltwort Forb Chenopodiaceae Salsola kali ✔ ✔

Figwort Forb Scrophulariaceae Scrophularia lanceolata ✔ ✔

Smaller skullcap Forb Lamiaceae Scutellaria parvula ✔ ✔

Green bristle-grass Grass Poaceae Setaria viridis ✔

Starry campion Forb Caryophyllaceae Silene latifolia ✔

Wild mustard (charlock) Forb Brassicaceae Sinapis arvensis ✔

Carrion-flower Forb Liliaceae Smilax lasioneura ✔ ✔

Drop sand-seed Grass Poaceae Sporobolus cryptandrus ✔ ✔

Common chickweed Forb Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media ✔

Poison ivy Shrub Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron rydbergii ✔ ✔

Rabbit-foot clover Forb Fabaceae Trifolium arvense ✔

American elm Tree Ulmaceae Ulmus americana ✔ ✔

Stinging nettle Forb Urticaceae Urtica dioica ✔

Common mullein Forb Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus ✔

Hoary vervain Forb Verbenaceae Verbena stricta ✔ ✔

Hairy vetch Forb Fabaceae Vicia villosa ✔

Sweet white violet Forb Violaceae Viola blanda ✔ ✔

Prickly-ash Shrub Rutaceae Zanthoxylum americanum ✔ ✔

List of Plant Species Found on Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Common Name Type Family Scientific Name

Reference

Native Refuge 

List

DNR 

Releve

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority 

Species
146

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR Species or Group Scientific Name Habitat Lifestage/ Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge Meadow Open Water Marsh River/ Stream Swamp Oak Savanna MAMMALS Gray wolf Canis lupus ✔ ✔ Visitor Fed

(recthreconc

BIRDS

Common Loon Gavia immer ✔ ✔ Breeding RarDouble-crested Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritus

✔ ✔ Summer 

Visitor

Nui

American Bittern Botaurus 

lentiginosus

✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis ✔ Breeding Rar

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Summer 

Visitor

Rar

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus 

podiceps

✔ ✔ Breeding Low 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

thre

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec

Canada Gooseresident (giants) Branta canadensis ✔ ✔ Breeding Rec

Canada Goosemigrant (giants) Branta canadensis maxima ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator ✔ ✔ ✔ Summer 

Visitor

Rarthre

Wood Duck Aix sponsa ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rec

American Black Duck

Anas rubripes ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rec

Northern Pintail Anas acuta ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors ✔ ✔ Breeding Rec

Canvasback Aythya valisineria ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rec

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding, 

Winter 

Migrant

Enddeliprocon

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

anatum

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Summer 

Visitor, Migrant

RarSpeliste

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis ✔ Migrant, 

Winter

Rar

Red-shouldered Hawk 

Buteo lineatus ✔ Breeding Rar

con

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus ✔ ✔ Breeding Dec

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus ✔ Migrant Rar

con

Long-eared Owl Asio otus ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
148

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis ✔ ✔ Breeding?, Migrant Rar

conc

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia 

longicauda

✔ Breeding Rar

Whooping Crane Grus americana ✔ ✔ ✔ Summer 

visitor, rare migrant

Threxpefede

American Woodcock 

Scolopax minor ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rec

Black Tern Chlidonias niger ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Forister's Tern Sterna forsteri ✔ ✔ Mirgrant Rar

conc

Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

✔ ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor ✔ ✔ Migrant Rar

thre

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Olive-sided Flycatcher 

Contopus cooperi ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius 

ludovicianus

✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

thre

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Marsh Wren Cistothorus 

palustris

✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Sedge Wren Cistothorus 

platensis

✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum ✔ ✔ Breeding Dec

Veery Catharus fuscescens ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Dec

Wood Thrush Hylocichla 

mustelina

✔ Migrant Rar

Golden-winged Warbler 

Vermivora chrysoptera

✔ Breeding Rar

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Migrant Rar

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

✔ Breeding Rar

Western Meadowlark

Sturnella neglecta ✔ Breeding Rar

Eastern Meadowlark 

Sturnella magna ✔ Breeding Rar

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus ✔ Migrant Rar

Black-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Red-headed Woodpecker 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

✔ Breeding Rar

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus ✔ Breeding Dec

Dickcissel Spiza americana ✔ Breeding Rar

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
150

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum ✔ ✔ Breeding RarLe Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Rar

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii ✔ Potential, not confirmed Rar

end

Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding?, Migrant Rar

conc

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius ✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Louisiana Waterthrush

Seiurus motacilla ✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

FISH

Brook trout (inland pop.) 

Salvelinus fontinalis

✔ Potential Rar

Walleye (1836 Ceded Territory) 

Stizostedion vitreum ✔ ✔ Confirmed 

presence

Rec

Muskellunge (1836) Esox masquinongy ✔ ✔ Potential, 

spawn

Rec

Log perch Percina evermanni ✔ ✔ Potential Rar

Yellow perch Perca flavescens ✔ Confirmed 

presence

Rar

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

MUSSELS

Black sandshell Ligumia recta ✔ Confirmed 

presence

Rarovearea

Elktoe Alasmidonta 

marginata

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarovearea

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula ✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rec

Monkeyface Quadrula 

metanevra

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarovearea

Round pigtoe Pleurobema 

coccineum

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarovearea

Threeridge Amblema plicata ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rec

Winged mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fedstat

Snuffbox Epioblasma 

triquetra

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarovearea

Salamander mussel Simpsonaias 

ambigua

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarovearea

Pistolgrip Tritogonia 

verrucosa

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rarove

area

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
152

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Higgins' eye pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi ✔ Potential, not confirmed Fed

stat

Scaleshell mussel Leptodea leptodon ✔ Potential, not confirmed Fed

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa ✔ Potential, not confirmed stat

Rec

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus ✔ Potential, not confirmed Rar

overarea

Fat pocketbook Potamilus capax ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fed

Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Nui

 Zebra mussel Dreissena 

polymorpha

✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Nui

SNAILS

Crested vertigo Vertigo cristata X Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Six-whorl vertigo Vertigo morsei ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Mystery vertigo Vertigo paradoxa ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

CRUSTACEANS

Rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus ✔ ✔ Resident Nui

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

INSECTS

Karner blue butterfly 

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fed

Hungerford's crawling water beetle

Brychius hungerfordi

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fed

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Powesheik skipper Oarisma powesheik ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

PLANTS

Prairie bush-clover Lespedeza 

leptostachya

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fed

Western prairie fringed orchid 

Platanthera praeclara

✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Fed

Earleaf foxglove Agalinis auriculata ✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Roundstem foxglove

Agalinis gattingeri ✔ ✔ Potential, not 

confirmed

Rar

Regional Conservation Priority Species, Crane Meadows NWR (Continued)

Species or Group Scientific Name

Habitat Lifestage/ 

Use 

Woodlands Prairie Sedge 

Meadow

Open 

Water

Marsh River/

Stream

Swamp Oak 

Savanna

Appendix E: Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix E: Deferred Maintenance and 

Improvement Projects

Deferred Maintenance and Improvement Projects

Project Number Project Description Estimated Cost

2008858032 Crane Meadows NWR Interpretive Trail $130,000

2008858036 Repair Deteriorated Items on Maintenance Shop $150,000

2008858140 Crane Meadows NWR Service Entrance Road (Platte River West Unit) $41,000

2008858147 Crane Meadows NWR Service Entrance Road (Headquarters Unit) $41,000

2008858150 Crane Meadows NWR Entrance Road $81,000

2008858152 Crane Meadows NWR Trailhead Parking Lot $11,000

2008858153 Rehabilitate Deficiencies on the Headquarters Building $27,000

2008858155 Crane Meadows NWR Rehab Residence (Sedge Meadow Unit) $10,000

2008858165 Rehab Deficiencies on Barn Storage $34,000

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to 

any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water 

of the United States.

Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a 

federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including 

the closing of areas, federal or non federal, to the 

hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715 et 

seq. 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et 

seq. (1934)

Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a federal permit or license. The 

Service and state agency recommend measures 

to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to 

mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable protection 

measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources 

to the Nation and to require equal consideration 

and coordination of wildlife conservation with 

other water resources development programs. It 

also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of 

lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Also known as 

the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) 

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age 

or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds 

of the Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl 

habitat. A 1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas,’ 

which may be acquired without the limitations 

and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Also 

known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 

461 et seq.

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic 

sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. Provides procedures 

for designation, acquisition, administration, and 

protection of such sites.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935)

Requires revenue sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or 

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d 

(1948)

Provides that upon a determination by the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or 

to a state agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic 

historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. 

Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (1962)

Allows the use of refuges for recreation when 

such uses are compatible with the refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are 

available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the 

President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was 

directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 

U.S.C. 460 et seq.

Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and 

other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the 

major purposes for which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary 

of Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act 

amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq. (1966)

Establishes as policy that the federal government 

is to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

nation's prehistoric and historic resources. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires federal agencies to consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation 

programs, and requires each federal agency to 

establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et 

seq.

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded 

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Requires the disclosure of the environmental 

impacts of any major federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq. 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of 

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq. 

Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition 

to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the federal government to 

ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 

U.S.C.469-469c

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as 

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977)

Each federal agency shall provide leadership and 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to 

(1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review 

of Federal Programs)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to state planning agencies for 

review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 

1996, 1996a (1976)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve American Indian religious cultural rights and practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 

U.S.C. 742a 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 

16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.

Protects materials of archaeological interest from 

unauthorized removal or destruction and 

requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources.
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, 

7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981)

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs 

contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 

U.S.C. 3901 et seq.

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of 

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other 

essential habitats. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other federal and state agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990)

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a federal 

government priority and directs all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General 

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also presents four principles to guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd 

Considered the “Organic Act of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of 

the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. Section 6 requires the Service to 

make a determination of compatibility of existing, 

new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The Act also directs the administration of the 

Refuge System to ensure the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the System. According to the U.S. FWS Service Manual 

(601 FW3) this refers to the maintenance of existing elements, and where appropriate the restoration of lost or severely degraded elements. 

Integrity pertains to biotic composition, structure, and function at genetic, organismal, and 

community levels. Diversity includes protection 

of the broad variety of living organisms, genetic 

distinctions, and community compositions. Environmental health recognizes the importance of 

both biotic and abiotic features and processes in 

the System. The standard of measure for each of 

these terms is defined using historic conditions, 

or conditions and processes present prior to substantial anthropogenic changes, as indicated by 

the best available science and sound professional 

judgment.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998, 

16 U.S.C. 742a 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife 

refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. 

(1968)

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic 

and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Treasury and General Government Appropriations 

Act, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 

2763, 2763A–125

In December 2002, Congress required federal 

agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The 

amended language is included in Section 515(a). 

The Office of Budget and Management (OMB) 

directed agencies to develop their own guidelines 

to address the requirements of the law. The 

Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to 

prepare separate guidelines on how they would 

apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” 

to address the law.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service 

to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and 

Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies 

to manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation 

programs, and requires each federal agency to 

establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance 

of archeological resources on federal and Indian 

land; and other matters. Section 10 requires 

establishing “a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 

requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for 

surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act requires 

protection of all archeological sites more than 100 

years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for 

the National Register) on federal land, and 

requires archeological investigations on federal 

land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes 

serious delays on a project when human remains 

or other cultural items are encountered in the 

absence of a plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans 

to free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid 

blocking access, and to enter into early consultation.

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................................................... 164

Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest .............................................................................. 167

Fishing ............................................................................................................................. 170

Hunting ............................................................................................................................ 172

Research Programs by Third Parties.......................................................................... 176

Wildlife Observation and Photography ....................................................................... 179
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows NWR

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s):

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 

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

1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? The Refuge conducts wildlife 

interpretation and environmental education programs. Refuge staff prepare, schedule, and organize 

formal programs for school-aged children and other 

organized groups upon request. In most cases, curriculums and program schedules are prepared in 

advance. These curriculums address a number of 

wildlife conservation topics such as oak savanna restoration, wetland conservation, prescribed fire management, protection of water resources, migratory 

bird management, and the conservation of endangered species. Informal programs are also common, 

and include casual visitors, self-guided tours along 

public roads and nature trails, impromptu presentations and discussions of wildlife conservation issues 

with interested citizens, and visitation by unscheduled groups. Visitation and use of the Refuge by 

local educators and their classes would also be classified as an informal program. 

Where is the use conducted? Refuge trails and 

the shop can be utilized as environmental education 

and interpretation sites for schools, natural 

resource organizations, and other visitors to the 

Refuge. Staff will assist teachers with group visits 

and presentations on the Refuge, and also present 

numerous programs and demonstrations off-refuge. 

When is the use conducted? Visitation to the Refuge, specifically the Headquarters Unit, is available 

daily during daylight hours. Programs are conducted year round with weekday programs for 

school groups and some weekend activities for special public programs. Currently, the Refuge provides environmental education to 750 to 1,250 

students per year, and to an additional 2,000 to 3,000 

people per year for interpretation events/opportunities on the Refuge. 

How is the use conducted? In most cases, programs are scheduled in advance. There are also 

impromptu presentations and discussions of wildlife 

conservation issues by Refuge staff with interested 

citizens, casual visitors, and unscheduled groups. 

Group size varies from just a few people to larger 

groups during educational field days. Interpretive 

and environmental education programs are provided on the Refuge by Refuge staff and volunteers. 

Teachers may also give programs if a Refuge curriculum is developed. 

Interpretive or environmental education programs focus on wildlife and habitats. These programs address a number of wildlife conservation 

issues including wetland and savanna conservation, 

water resources protection, migratory bird management, and endangered species conservation. Programs also involve development of outdoor skills, 

which enhance appreciation of wildlife and their 

associated habitats. The Refuge provides public 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

facilities which support environmental education 

and interpretation, including the shop area available 

for use by groups of up to 100 people, along with, 60 

pairs of snowshoes, 30 pairs of field binoculars, the 

Platte River Trail for hiking and cross-country skiing, a restroom at the Platte River Trailhead, and 

the green house. The Refuge also offers four annual 

programs co-sponsored by the Friends of Crane 

Meadows NWR and are free to the public. The Refuge partners with the Friends of Crane Meadows 

NWR to provide environmental education opportunities to teachers and students.

Why is the use being proposed? Interpretation 

and environmental education are priority general 

public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The programs promote understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and their 

management on all lands and waters of the Refuge 

System. The Refuge is proposing this use to interpret Refuge resources to local school children, 

adults, and the visiting public, and educate them 

about broader conservation issues that would promote support for the Refuge System, migratory 

birds, habitat conservation, conservation issues, and 

a greater appreciation of our natural resources. 

Availability of Resources:

Approximately 0.5 FTE will be required to 

administer and manage these activities adequately. 

In addition, maintenance and improvement of Refuge interpretive signs, trails, and visitor center displays will periodically be required. The total 

estimated cost per year would range from $50,000 to 

$75,000. Based on a review of the Refuge budget 

allocated for these activities, there is currently sufficient funding to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage the existing use. Strategies to 

improve the environmental education and program 

have been identified and would require hiring 

another FTE to capture the potential for this area.

The CCP recommends additional staffing and 

facilities to support interpretation and an expanded 

environmental education program. Greater numbers of people would learn about, and benefit from, 

the Refuge with additional staff and interpretative 

materials. Additional staff would be able to provide 

teacher workshops, Refuge orientations, and would 

help develop site-specific curricula, materials, and 

activities linked to state standards. Students and 

teachers would also be able to participate in coordinated restoration and monitoring programs through 

long-term monitoring studies.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: The overall impacts to the 

Refuge and its associated wildlife populations from 

environmental education and interpretation would 

be minimal. There would be some disturbance to 

wildlife and vegetation at the locations where interpretive programs occur, but at levels that would not 

interfere with the purposes of the Refuge. School 

buses and personal vehicles would utilize developed 

roads and parking areas to access trails which are 

already in place. Self-guided interpretation would 

be sporadic, by small groups of people, and at established trails and kiosks. This may cause short term 

disturbance as well, but would have minimal impact.

Long-term impacts: Anticipated long-term

impacts are beneficial to the Refuge, as these activities promote a conservation ethic in the local community. This use would increase in the future if a 

new visitor reception area is added, and an additional staff position with visitor services responsibilities is added as proposed in the CCP. As 

improvements are made there may be some additional short-term, localized disturbance, but use 

would continue to be in existing developed areas. 

Cumulative impacts: There are no anticipated 

cumulative impacts. Other public uses such as wildlife observation and photography at the same sites 

used for environmental education and interpretation 

may increase over time, but it is not anticipated to 

be significant enough to cause cumulative impacts. 

The cumulative impacts of educating the public 

about conservation issues would be beneficial to 

meeting the Service mission and Refuge purposes.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. The Refuge is open to public access year-round 

during daylight hours.

2. Environmental education and interpretation 

activities that are not led by Refuge staff would 

require verbal approval or a Special Use Permit 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

by the Refuge Manager to minimize conflicts 

with other groups, safeguard students and 

resources, and to allow tracking of use levels.

3. Educational groups are required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise their 

groups.

4. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to 

vegetation is prohibited.

5. Use of motorized vehicles is limited to maintained roads and parking areas.

6. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

Justification:

Provided compliance with the above stipulations, 

interpretation and environmental education have 

been determined compatible because the use would 

benefit the conservation role of the Refuge, would 

cause minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitats, 

and would not increase costs to the Refuge with the 

exception of adding a staff position with visitor services responsibilities when funds allow. The level of 

use would be light to moderate, and generally consolidated to developed public-use areas (roads, 

parking lots, and trails). The associated disturbance 

to wildlife is temporary and minor. Interpretation 

and environmental education are priority public 

uses that help fulfill the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. This use would not materially interfere with or detract from Refuge purposes.

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s):

 Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...“... for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife resources ...” 16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any 

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission:

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? The removal of standing or 

fallen trees by contractors or private individuals on 

Crane Meadows NWR. This covers all wood 

removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of 

the wood (i.e., firewood, timber, pulp, wood chips, 

etc.). This use is not wildlife-dependent but may 

affect local wildlife populations.

Where is the use conducted? Throughout all

property held in fee-title at Crane Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge. Harvestable cover types 

on the Refuge include bottomland and upland forest, oak savanna, and any remaining areas of tree 

plantations. The Refuge acquisition boundary currently contains approximately 435 acres of northern 

floodplain forest which hosts ash, American elm, box 

elder, basswood; 1,180 acres of oak woodland containing bur oak, pin oak, northern red oak, white 

oak, basswood, and American elm; 670 acres of oakaspen woodland containing northern pin oak, with 

quaking aspen, paper birch, big-toothed aspen, bur 

oak, northern red oak or red pine; 200 acres of conifer plantation with jack, red, and white pine; 85 

acres of jack pine woodland; and 185 acres of oak 

savanna - primarily bur oak. During timber harvest 

and wood cutting activities, buffers will be implemented according to best management practices 

around wetlands, rivers, and creeks to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and pollution thereby limiting 

degradation of water quality.

When is the use conducted? Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most 

often, removal of dead, dry, or cured firewood will 

occur from September through December. Some of 

this wood may then be used for the upcoming prescribed burn season. Commercial harvest activities 

will most likely occur during the winter months. 

During winter, frozen ground will facilitate access 

while providing protection to underlying soils and 

vegetation, and to adjacent wetlands by reducing 

sedimentation and erosion. Due to the extensive 

wetland system on the Refuge, access and working 

conditions are generally limited by hydric soils and 

open water. Cutting or harvesting activities will be 

prohibited from April 15th to July 1st to prevent the 

spread of oak wilt, a fungal disease affecting oak 

trees. 

How is the use conducted? Harvest may include 

standing and fallen trees for personal use and commercial timber harvest. Equipment used for harvest 

may range from chainsaws and axes, to traditional 

logging equipment such as feller-bunchers and log 

skidders. Access may be by car and trailer, pick-up 

truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging 

equipment, and must be approved by the Refuge 

Manager. Differences in scope and necessary equipment will occur depending on the amount and type 

of wood available for removal. Fire wood cutters 

must be issued a special use permit. Commercial 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

harvesting will be awarded through a bidding process. The number of people participating in this 

activity will vary from year to year depending on 

need and weather cycles.

Why is the use being proposed? This activity will 

only occur where the Service has determined that a 

management need exists to remove wood. Wood 

removal may be desirable where trees are encroaching on hiking trails, fire breaks and/or roads, open 

marshes, grassland areas, or degrading earthen 

water impoundment structures. Most timber 

removal will occur in heavily wooded areas. These 

thinnings are intended to restore oak savanna habitat. Also, tree harvest serves the purpose of improving forest diversity and health through thinning, 

creating openings, removal of invasive tree species, 

and suppressing the transmission of oak wilt and 

other diseases. Wood cutting is not a priority public 

use, as defined by the Refuge Improvement Act of 

1997, of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: Periodic and smallscale harvest operations can be adequately administered with existing staff resources. Planning, issuing permits, and monitoring a wood product harvest 

program would require a minimal commitment of 

staff hours. In the past, the Refuge has issued 

approximately six permits annually for this activity. 

All harvest sites are marked with flagging tape or 

paint by Refuge staff. Based on past activity, we 

estimate that administering a small timber harvest 

program will require from $1,000 to $2000 in staff 

salary costs. If larger timber harvests are needed 

salary cost could be as much as $5,000. Large-scale 

operations affecting many acres would have to be 

deferred until staff and funding are available. By 

permitting a wood products harvest, the manager 

has identified a management need and will have 

secured and prioritized the necessary station 

resources.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Many wildlife species may 

be affected by tree harvest activities. Key waterfowl 

species using tree cavities for nesting include wood 

duck, common goldeneye and hooded merganser. 

Many other bird species use forested habitat for 

nesting, roosting, protective cover, or feeding. 

Examples of important species include: bald eagle, 

red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, several woodpecker species, and many passerine bird species. 

The forests are also important to a variety of mammals, reptiles and amphibians, insects, and flowering plants. 

During harvest activities, wildlife would be displaced to adjacent areas, though this disturbance is 

not likely to have a measurable impact and would be 

mitigated by timing and duration of harvest, i.e., 

larger harvests conducted during winter months 

when most avian species have migrated. Potential 

adverse impacts include: short-term loss of site-specific habitats; short-term fragmentation of the landscape with resulting impact to bird use and 

productivity; loss of dead whole trees on the ground; 

soil disturbance that may increase exotic plant invasion and erosion; damage to roads and wetlands 

from equipment; damage to cultural resources; 

reduced visual esthetics; and disturbance to wildlife 

and visitors from cutting operations. These impacts 

are generally short-term in nature and on relatively 

small areas, and can be controlled to a large extent 

by permit conditions and management oversight. In 

addition, many of these impacts can be avoided by 

the timing of the activity in accordance with site 

specific characteristics and requiring equipment be 

cleaned prior to entering the Refuge to minimize the 

potential spread of invasive or invasive-exotic species. Required cultural resource surveys and actions 

would be conducted as determined in consultation 

with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer prior to the initiation of any mechanized logging operation. 

Long-term impacts: Carefully managed harvest 

would provide long-term benefits to wildlife and 

plants by improving overall forest and savanna 

structure, composition, and health. Potential positive impacts include: restoration, maintenance and 

enhancement of forest and savanna habitats; maintained or increased forest diversity (age, species, 

and structure), and provision of essential habitat 

requirements for declining savanna-dependent 

plant and animal species.

The removal of woody vegetation facilitates 

native habitat restoration efforts on the Refuge. 

While habitat transition from forest to savanna will 

displace species which depend on dense forest 

cover, forested areas thinned to oak savanna densities would restore a threatened and declining habitat, and support associated savanna wildlife species.

Cumulative impacts: Much of the land adjacent 

to the Refuge was cleared for agriculture over the 

past century and a half. Tree harvest may continue 

to occur on lands adjacent to the Refuge, which 

would cause cumulative disturbance or changes in 

broader regional forest habitat. However, historical 

records indicate that forest cover in the area of the 

Refuge was minimal in the past, and has only 

increased over the past century due to the elimination of major disturbance mechanisms - primarily 

fire. 

Implementing tree harvest in addition to prescribed fire as forest management tools will benefit 

the ecosystem by promptly setting back succession 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

and maintaining native oak savannas and prairie 

openings - habitats that have been significantly 

reduced throughout the Nation by fragmentation 

and degradation. These restoration efforts will also 

benefit many declining migratory birds and other 

wildlife species dependent on “open” habitats. 

Potentially negative cumulative impacts within 

the Refuge and in the watershed downstream of the 

Refuge may include water quality issues associated 

with deforestation – particularly sedimentation, erosion, and pollution resulting from tree removal near 

wetlands, rivers, or creeks; and the spread of invasive/exotic species and tree diseases resulting from 

equipment use and transport of wood. However, 

these impacts could be mitigated through controlling the timing, frequency, and duration of the harvest activities in accordance with forest 

management planning, and by applying best management practices. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. Any tree cutting must meet specific habitat and 

related wildlife objectives and contribute to the 

purposes of the Refuge.

2. A special use permit will be issued so that Service management goals are met, and to reduce 

or eliminate site specific impacts to habitat, fish 

and wildlife resources, cultural resources, and 

the visiting public.

3. When possible, vehicle access for wood removal 

will be limited to existing roads, trails, or fire 

breaks. In addition, timing of removal activities 

will be restricted to prevent excessive damage 

to actively growing vegetation, disturbance to 

wildlife, and the spread of tree disease. Appropriate timing (i.e., late summer which is typically dry following the growing season or during 

winter when the ground is frozen) is also necessary to prevent unnecessary site damage such 

as soil rutting.

4. Commercial equipment must be cleaned prior to 

entering the Refuge.

5. Standing cavity trees which are actively being 

used by wildlife will be marked and protected.

Justification:

Tree harvest has been determined to be compatible because beneficial impacts would far out-weigh 

any foreseeable negative impacts, the activity can be 

controlled by permits, and tree harvest will ultimately benefit habitats and wildlife species on the 

Refuge. Indirect impacts of tree harvest are generally considered positive and thus do not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purpose of the 

Refuge or the Refuge System mission. Individuals 

participating in the wood harvest program will be 

guided by a special use permit, and thus, site specific stipulations will ensure resource protection and 

achievement of management goals.

Historical accounts of tree density in the upland 

areas of the Refuge depict primarily oak and jack 

pine savanna conditions - not the dense forest cover 

which is present in many areas today. The removal 

of trees at strategic locations will benefit habitat 

restoration objectives and increase the extent of 

these rare savanna habitats. Furthermore, control 

of woody species encroachment on wetland and 

grassland habitats is a necessary management 

activity and directly supports the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The removal of some dead trees reduces fuel 

buildup and the severity of potential wildfires. 

Openings created by woodcutting allows light to 

penetrate and stimulate the understory growth 

which increases woodland diversity. Impacts to the 

habitat as a result of access for wood removal purposes are potentially significant, but are also easily 

avoided via permit stipulations. Any direct impacts 

on wildlife production and survival (take, disturbance, etc.) can be largely avoided by timing the 

activity so that it does not coincide with the breeding/production season. Adverse impacts from harvest would be short-term and more than offset by 

the long-term benefits for wildlife and plants.

Refuge Manager: Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Fishing

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows NWR

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 

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

1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? Public fishing from the river 

banks and lake shores of Service property at Crane 

Meadows NWR, in accordance with state regulations and seasons.

Where is the use conducted? Currently, all navigable waters of lakes, rivers, and streams associated 

with the Refuge are managed by the state of Minnesota, and are open to fishing. These areas include 

Rice, Skunk, and Mud Lakes, the Platte and Skunk 

Rivers, and Buckman, Rice, and Little Rock Creeks. 

On Service-owned lands, the shoreline areas of 

these lakes, rivers, and streams, as well as wetland 

areas, have not been open to fishing in the past, but 

are potential fishing sites. In accordance with objectives outlined in the CCP, specific, designated 

shoreline areas of Crane Meadows NWR may be 

opened to public bank fishing pending the acceptable results of individual site reviews. These reviews 

are designed to evaluate management’s ability to 

offer a quality fishing experience opportunity at 

specified locations with no long-term detrimental 

effects to land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. Furthermore, acquisition of new Refuge lands 

is an ongoing process, and upon acquisition, newly 

acquired lands will also be evaluated for the potential to offer quality fishing opportunities.

When is the use conducted? Seasonality and timing of fishing opportunities will be determined as a 

part of the review for all new fishing sites established at Crane Meadows NWR, and will be consistent with state regulations. Some additional 

restrictions may be added to meet specific management objectives. The game fish season ordinarily 

runs from the second Sunday in May through the 

last Sunday in February, while other seasons for 

taking of aquatic species including reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, and bivalves, run from April or 

May through November to February. All forms of 

fishing, or entry on any part of the Refuge, may be 

temporarily suspended by posting during occasions 

of unusual or critical conditions of, or affecting land, 

water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. 

How is the use conducted? All fishing activities 

would be conducted with the Refuge’s primary goals 

and objectives as guiding principles. All fishing 

activities will follow applicable state laws, except 

where the Refuge administers further restrictions 

to ensure compatibility with the Refuge’s primary 

purposes and management objectives. Minnesota’s 

recreational fishing regulations allow the traditional 

take of game fish species with rod and reel from 

shore, a boat, or through the ice; removal of rough 

fish by spear, harpoon, archery and dip net; as well 

as the taking of limited quantities of mussels, crayfish, frogs, minnows and turtles for personal use. 

Any new sites opened to fishing will have access 

trails to and from public roads, and for safety reasons, small pull-offs or parking lots may be provided 

in areas of higher use.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Why is the use being proposed? Fishing is a priority public use on National Wildlife Refuge System 

lands, as designated in the 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act.

Availability of Resources: 

Staff time would be required to administer and 

manage this activity. First, an initial review period 

would be required to determine if the activity is 

appropriate for a site, and if a quality experience 

opportunity can be provided. Once deemed acceptable, site plans would need to be generated followed 

by development of the area, such as a parking area, 

trail, fishing platform, signage, etc. Additional 

expenses associated with management of fishing 

activities would include fuel use, maintenance costs 

to Refuge vehicles, inspection and maintenance of 

any associated trails and parking lots, and sign posting. If Refuge staff choose to open new areas of the 

Refuge to fishing, an evaluation of the associated 

costs and management needs will be a part of the 

planning process. A review of the Refuge budget 

must corroborate that there is enough funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer and manage 

the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Fishing poses no foreseeable detrimental environmental impacts to the Refuge, its habitats, or 

wildlife species. Fishing activities and harvest of 

other aquatic species may cause temporary, localized disturbance to habitat (i.e., erosion of river 

banks, pollution, etc.) and may temporarily impact 

nearby waterfowl and other wildlife. This disturbance may displace individual animals to other parts 

of the Refuge. There should be only negligible 

effects to local fisheries. Anglers are required to 

harvest only surplus quantities of fish without 

affecting breeding populations, thereby assuring 

viable, healthy populations within management and 

habitat guidelines. Restrictions to the fishing program assure that these activities have no adverse 

impacts on other wildlife species and little adverse 

impact on other public use programs. These activities are compliant with the purposes of the Refuge 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Offering this activity would not alter the Refuge's ability to meet habitat goals, and it can help 

support several of the primary objectives of the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. Specific areas adjacent to lakes, rivers, streams, 

and wetlands on the Refuge may be opened to 

fishing only after site evaluations have demonstrated the presence of a quality fishing experience opportunities and that no long-term, 

detrimental effects to land, water, vegetation, 

and wildlife are expected.

2. All applicable state and federal Regulations will 

apply, except where the Refuge administers further restrictions to ensure compatibility with 

the Refuge’s primary management.

3. Littering or disposal of entrails is prohibited, 

and all anglers are required to adhere to ‘Leave 

No Trace’ practices and ethics.

4. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

Justification:

Allowing limited fishing on Crane Meadows 

NWR, within the stipulations above, would have 

minimal impact on the wildlife resources of the Refuge. Fishing is a priority public use listed in the 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. 

Facilitating this use on the Refuge would increase 

visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and 

wildlife, which leads to increased public stewardship 

of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the Refuge, 

and in general. Increased public stewardship supports and complements the Service’s actions in 

achieving the Refuge’s purposes and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. This determination was made as part of the environmental 

assessment associated with the comprehensive conservation planning process.

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows NWR

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 

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

1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? Hunting of game is an activity 

conducted by the public under regulation authority 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement 

Act of 1997 hunting is a priority public use. The Refuge plans to open hunting as a public use within the 

15-year life of the CCP, however at this stage in the 

Refuge’s development, the hunting opportunity will 

take the form of special, managed hunting events 

for white-tailed deer and turkey.

Where is the use conducted? Refuge hunting 

areas must meet minimum size criteria in order to 

offer quality hunting experience opportunities, and 

must have enforceable boundaries. Within the existing Refuge landholdings, special, managed hunting 

events will occur primarily on the Headquarters 

Unit of the Refuge until additional lands are 

acquired in fee-title by the Refuge to create hunting 

areas of sufficient size. The west, north, and most of 

the east sides of the Headquarters Unit are bound 

by water features, and the south side is bound by 

Iris Road, simplifying containment of the activity. 

The Platte River West and Sedge Meadow Units 

may also be opened in the future as resources allow. 

Similar to the Headquarters Unit, the Platte River 

West Unit is bound by natural water features or 

roads on nearly all sides. In the future it is expected 

that hunting will be opened on these additional portions of the Refuge, and ultimately Refuge-wide 

upon full acquisition.

When is the use conducted? Special, managed 

hunting events for persons with disabilities and for 

youth will be scheduled at a time coordinated with, 

and agreed upon by the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR). There are eight spring 

turkey hunting periods in the state of Minnesota, 

each lasting 5 days in length generally starting on 

the second Wednesday of April. Where possible, 

managed turkey hunts on the Refuge will coincide 

with these state seasons and managed deer hunting 

events will coincide with the state gun deer season 

in November and December. Typically, deer hunts 

for persons with disabilities are conducted earlier 

than the normal Minnesota deer hunting season to 

coincide with warmer temperatures. The Refuge 

staff will work with other FWS stations, Camp 

Ripley, the Minnesota DNR, the Minnesota Deer 

Hunters Association, organizations devoted to persons with disabilities, as well as other groups to 

determine the type of hunt, timing, location, and 

resources needed to conduct a quality hunt. 

How is the use conducted? Special, managed 

white-tailed deer and turkey hunting events will 

occur in collaboration with partners such as Minnesota DNR, Wheelin' Sportsmen, National Wild Turkey Foundation, Capable Partners, Minnesota Deer 

Hunters Association, Pheasants Forever, Camp 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Ripley, Minnesota State Archery Association, local 

sportsmen’s clubs, and others. These events will 

require a substantial amount of coordination and 

support from volunteers, but these efforts will allow 

the Refuge to open hunting as a use on the Refuge 

in a controlled and manageable way despite minimal 

landholdings. They will also allow the Refuge to tailor these events to reach target audiences, including 

hunters with disabilities and youth hunters. Hunting at Crane Meadows NWR will adhere to the 

hunting step-down management plan, which will be 

completed within 2 years of CCP approval and will 

provide further details for hunting on the Refuge. 

All hunting activities follow applicable state regulations, except where the Refuge administers further 

restrictions to ensure a quality hunt and visitor and 

staff safety.

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is a priority general public use of the Refuge System that is 

also an important wildlife management tool. The 

Service recognizes hunting as a healthy, traditional 

outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American heritage. Hunting can instill a unique understanding 

and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and 

their habitat needs. Hunting programs can promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management on lands and 

waters in the Refuge System. A substantial portion 

of land within the Refuge acquisition boundary is 

already currently utilized for hunting, including 

land owned and managed by the Minnesota DNR in 

wildlife management areas, by private hunting 

clubs, and by private landowners. Hunting was discussed during initial planning events for the establishment of Crane Meadows NWR, and has been a 

desired activity on the Refuge ever since.

Availability of Resources:

These events will require a great deal of coordination and collaboration with partners and local 

hunters. No current staff time is allocated for coordinating hunting activities, but it is anticipated that 

a considerable amount of time and financial 

resources will be required to host these managed 

hunts. A great deal of time would be required to 

make initial contacts, write grants, and coordinate 

activities with partners and other contributing 

groups. Scouting and setup activities would follow, 

as well as coordinating logistics such as transportation of hunters to and from blinds. It is estimated 

that at least 160 hours of preparation time would be 

required to conduct the first special hunt, and that 

planning would begin a minimum of one year in 

advance of the event. Once established, it is 

assumed that planning and setup for successive 

hunts would be less labor intensive. 

A small amount of road maintenance, mowing, 

and other upkeep will need to be performed, but are 

funded as part of regular Refuge management activities. Based on a review of the Refuge budget there 

is currently enough funding to ensure compatibility 

and to administer and manage the use. Law enforcement is a primary tool necessary to ensure proper 

and safe administration of this use, and although 

there is no Law Enforcement Officer stationed at 

the Refuge, law enforcement services are available 

through the Service’s Regional Law Enforcement 

Program. The Refuge will work with the Minnesota 

DNR to ensure that conservation officers are aware 

of this use on the Refuge, and are available to assist 

with law enforcement as a part of their routine 

duties.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: Providing carefully planned 

and managed hunting events with restrictions that 

limit access to specific Refuge locations will generally minimize disturbance to wildlife populations, 

the environment, and non-consumptive users. 

Although hunting causes mortality of target species, 

harvesting populations to the carrying capacity of 

existing habitat and only taking the harvestable surplus ensures long-term health and survival of game 

species, populations, and their associated ecosystem. The presence and activity of hunters may cause 

temporary disturbance to other wildlife in the area, 

but there are no foreseeable detrimental impacts to 

these species. Concerns are primarily centered on 

the possibility of impacting non-target species that 

are sensitive to disturbance; especially during 

spring turkey hunting when most animals are 

breeding or nesting. Non-hunting public uses may 

be temporarily disrupted or postponed during specialized hunts. Visitor safety and law enforcement 

issues are the priority when designing and planning 

all hunting activities on refuges. Vehicle traffic will 

increase slightly during the hunting events, and the 

sound of gun shots will temporarily reduce the 

serenity for the non-hunting public. Loss of plants 

from foot traffic is minor, or temporary. Soil and 

plant disturbance may occur in ingress and egress 

routes, but will be minor and temporary because of 

the limited and controlled use associated with the 

managed hunts. 

Long-term impacts: No detrimental long-term 

impacts from hunting are anticipated as long as 

wildlife populations are monitored through the Refuge biological program or by state officials. Longterm beneficial impacts of this use would be the ability to manage targeted wildlife populations to levels 

that reflect the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. 

When deer populations become over-abundant they 

can have profound negative impacts on their envi-
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

ronment through herbivory thereby directly and 

indirectly affecting other native plants and wildlife 

species.

Cumulative impacts: There are no anticipated 

cumulative impacts. Harvest on the Refuge would 

be very limited and would fall within the state's population management goals which are based on the 

best available information.

All hunts would follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies; including title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Manual, the mission and goals of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes, 

goals, and objectives of Crane Meadows NWR. 

Operating this activity does not hinder the Refuge's 

ability to meet habitat goals, provides for the safety 

of the area’s citizens, and supports several of the 

primary objectives of the Refuge. The Environmental Assessment for the Draft CCP for Crane Meadows NWR contains a more detailed discussion of the 

anticipated impacts of hunting on the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. Hunting will only occur on the Refuge during 

special, managed hunting events, and will 

adhere to the Refuge’s hunting step-down management plan.

2. Appropriate state hunting licenses and antlerless harvest permits (for deer) are required. 

Deer and turkeys harvested must be registered 

at MNDNR check stations in accordance with 

state regulations. All state hunting regulations 

apply unless otherwise stated in the Refuge 

hunt plan and state regulations.

 Hunting will only occur within designated 

areas on the Refuge that meet minimum size 

requirements and have enforceable boundaries. These areas may include, but are not limited to the following Refuge Units: 

Headquarters, Platte River West, and Sedge 

Meadows.

 Use of motorized vehicles is limited to maintained roads and parking areas. Exceptions 

would be allowed as a means to provide access 

to hunters with disabilities, but only under the 

review of the Refuge Manager.

 This use is subject to modification if on-site 

monitoring by Refuge personnel or other 

authorized personnel results in unanticipated 

negative impacts to public safety, wildlife species, or their habitats.

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This 

use is being permitted because it is a priority public 

use and will not diminish the primary purposes of 

the Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the 

NWRS by providing renewable resources for the 

benefit of the American public while conserving fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources on Refuge lands.

Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Service policy directs us to provide hunting opportunities when compatible with Refuge management, 

and offering this use was a long-term goal of the 

Refuge when it was established in 1992. Managed 

hunting programs help promote an understanding 

and appreciation of natural resources and their 

management. Additionally, managed hunts on the 

Refuge provide a traditional recreational activity 

with no definable adverse impacts to the biological 

integrity or habitat sustainability of Refuge 

resources. The limited size and distribution of current Service land ownership at the Refuge continues 

to limit our ability to offer quality hunting experience opportunities, but management has long 

understood the demand for, and importance of providing this activity on the Refuge. By beginning 

with short-duration, assisted, managed hunts, Refuge staff can provide hunting opportunities in a controlled fashion, direct these activities to specific 

audiences, and adaptively evaluate the hunting program for expansion or reduction based on demand 

and program success.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Without a deer hunting program as a management tool, this species could adversely affect plant 

communities and hence alter ecological diversity 

and succession. Excessive herbivory by deer populations could result in significant negative impacts to 

plant and animal communities, including those of 

special concern, or of Service trust responsibility. 

This impact has been well documented and accepted 

through research. Hunting is also an effective management tool to keep turkey populations within ecosystem limits.

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010 

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research Projects by Third Parties

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows NWR

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s):

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 

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

1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission:

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? The Refuge allows research 

investigations on a variety of biological, physical, 

archeological, and social components to address 

Refuge management information needs or other 

issues not related to Refuge management. Studies 

are or may be conducted by federal, state, and private entities, including the U.S. Geological Survey, 

state departments of natural resources, state and 

private universities, and independent researchers 

and contractors. This is not a wildlife-dependent 

use. Examples of past biological research subjects 

include: 

Territory, Nesting, and Habitat Utilization of 

Greater Sandhill Cranes – St. Cloud State University

Department of Natural Resources, Anoka Sandplain Study – Upland Relevé Plots 

Department of Natural Resources, Lake Habitat Surveys

Where is the use conducted? Sites for this use 

would depend on the particular study being conducted and could occur in a variety of habitat types. 

Access would be restricted by special use permit to 

the study sites needed to meet the objectives of the 

research.

When is the use conducted? The timing of 

research activities would depend on the individual 

project, but currently most research occurs during 

the growing season. The entire Refuge is open for 

allowed research activities throughout the year in 

conjunction with the issuance of a special use permit. The timing and number of visits by researchers 

may be restricted by special use permit.

How is the use conducted? Any research study 

sites, sampling locations, and transects can be temporarily marked by highly visible wooden or metal 

posts and must be removed when research ceases. 

Access to study sites must be approved by the Refuge Manager and may be by foot, truck, all-terrain 

vehicle, boat, airboat, canoe, and other watercraft. 

Vehicle use is allowed on Refuge roads, trails, and 

parking lots normally open to the public.

Why is the use being proposed? Most research 

by third parties is a collaborative effort between the 

researcher and Refuge staff. Research activities are 

generally done to address needs identified by Refuge management, or to contribute to a larger knowledge base about resources of concern on the Refuge.

Availability of Resources:

Facilities and staff are currently available for 

approval of the research, to provide access, maintain 

roads, parking lots, secondary access roads, as well 

as to issue special use permits. Staff resources are 

deemed adequate to manage this use at anticipated 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

use levels. Access points, boats, vehicles, miscellaneous equipment, and limited logistical support are 

available on the Refuge. Housing is not available.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: Research activities may disturb fish, wildlife, and their associated habitats. For 

example, the presence of researchers can cause bird 

species to flush from their nests, resting, and/or 

feeding areas, cause disruption of other wildlife species from normal activities in their territories, or 

may increase predation on bird nests as predators 

and scavengers may follow human scents or trails. 

Efforts to capture animals can cause disturbance, 

injury, or death to groups or individual animals. In 

addition, some projects require the collection of animals and plants for study, thereby removing these 

animals from the breeding population. To animals 

that are sensitive to disturbance, the energy cost to 

evade disturbance may be appreciable and may 

have temporary or permanent consequences due to 

extra energy expended, disruption of feeding and/or 

nesting, or displacement from preferred habitat. 

Sampling activities can cause disturbance to soils 

and vegetation when temporary foot trails and/or 

boat trails through vegetation are established. All 

equipment or supplies must be adequately marked 

in the field and removed at appropriate times or 

upon completion of the project to minimize environmental impact.

Long-term impacts: Long-term effects should 

generally be beneficial by gaining information valuable to Refuge management. No long-term negative 

impacts are expected and the Refuge Manager can 

control the potential for long-term impacts through 

special use permits.

Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts would 

occur if multiple research projects were occurring 

on the same resources at the same time, if the duration of the research is excessive, or if the nature of 

the research is intense, extensive, or invasive. No 

cumulative impacts are expected and the Refuge 

Manager can control the potential for cumulative 

impacts through special use permits. Managers 

retain the option to prohibit research on the Refuge 

that does not contribute to the purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the Refuge System, or causes 

undue resource disturbance or harm.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. Prior to conducting investigations, researchers 

will obtain special use permits from the Refuge 

that make specific stipulations related to when, 

where, and how the research will be conducted. 

Managers retain the option to prohibit research 

on the Refuge which does not contribute to the 

purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the 

Refuge System, or causes undo resource disturbance or harm.

2. Researchers must possess all applicable state 

and federal permits for the capture and possession of protected species, for conducting regulated activities in wetlands, and for other 

regulated activities.

3. Archeological researchers must obtain an 

Archeological Resource Protection Act permit 

from the Regional Director prior to obtaining a 

special use permit from the Refuge Manager.

4. Researchers will submit annual status reports 

and a final report related to the research conducted on Refuge resources to appropriate Refuge staff.

Justification:

Research by third parties may play an integral 

role in Refuge management by providing information needed to manage the Refuge on a sound scientific basis and practice adaptive management. 

Investigations into the biological, physical, archeological, and social components of the Refuge provide 

a means to analyze management actions, impacts 

from internal and external forces, and ongoing natural processes on the Refuge environment. Adverse 

impacts of research that cause localized vegetation 

trampling or disruption of wetland bottom sediments are often short-term and would be minimized 

through stipulations above. Any research equipment that remains in the field for the duration of the 

project would be clearly marked to avoid potential 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

hazards presented to other Refuge users and Refuge staff, and removed upon completion of the project.

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

(Including the Means of Access)

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows NWR

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)) & (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583)

Refuge Purpose(s):

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was 

established in 1992...

 “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be 

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 

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

1956)

 “... 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 (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife System Mission:

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).

Description of Use:

What is the use? The use is general public access 

to observe and/or photograph wildlife and Refuge 

habitats on Crane Meadows NWR including the 

means of access such as automobile, hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. Under the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

wildlife observation and photography are priority 

public uses. The use is concentrated in areas with 

developed public access, such as trails and roads, 

because of the fragmented nature of Service land 

ownership in the Refuge acquisition boundary and 

the limited access to many Refuge Units. 

Where is the use conducted? Wildlife observation occurs along state, county, township, and Refuge roads, and designated trails throughout the land 

that is held in fee title; however most of the public 

use currently occurs on the Headquarters Unit and 

along the County Soo Line multiple use trail. It is 

expected that concentrated access and use may 

occur in the future on the Sedge Meadow Unit as 

visitor facilities are developed in accordance with 

the CCP and associated step-down plans. 

Most of the Refuge’s wildlife observation and 

photography currently occurs along the Platte 

River Trail on the Headquarters Unit. The Trail 

traverses the west and north portions of the Headquarters Parcel. It is circular with four separate, 

but connecting components. The first loop was initially set up to accommodate persons with disabilities, and is one-tenth of a mile in length. The second 

loop is 1 mile in length, the third loop is 0.6 mile, and 

the last loop is 2 miles in length. In 2008 the entire 

trail system was surfaced with crushed granite to 

improve accessibility.

Although not managed or maintained by the Service, Morrison County’s Soo Line trail is another 

corridor of concentrated visitor access and use 

through Refuge lands and provides opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography. Currently 

two Service units (Grewe and Soo Line East) intersect the trail, and this frontage is expected to 

increase as additional acquisitions are made. Visitors are required to stay on the trail and obey all 

posted regulations. 

When is the use conducted? Priority use activities will be allowed during daylight hours throughout the entire year. Most wildlife observation and 

photography occurs during the spring, summer, and 

fall seasons. Less use of the Refuge occurs in the 

winter due to the cold weather and lack of wildlife 

activity. Most winter visitation is for cross-country 

skiing. Snow conditions permitting, the Platte River 

Trail is groomed regularly throughout the winter 

season by Refuge staff volunteers.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

How is the use conducted? All priority public 

uses will be conducted with the Service’s mission 

and the Refuge’s purposes, goals, and objectives as 

the guiding principles. Activities done with these 

considerations in mind allow the Refuge to accomplish its management goals, while providing safe, 

high quality visitor experience opportunities. The 

trail system is used by several thousand people each 

year. That number is expected to increase with 

increased awareness and recognition of the Refuge. 

Use is year-round, and is restricted to the trails and 

roads to minimize disturbance to habitat and the 

wildlife.

Why is the use being proposed? Priority public 

uses on National Wildlife Refuge System lands are 

identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Trails provide opportunities for the general public, 

as well as organized groups such as schools, clubs, 

scout troops, etc., to use Refuge lands for priority 

use activities, and at the same time minimize 

impacts to wildlife habitat by restricting their travels. Access to the Refuge for these priority public 

uses will help in meeting the goals of the Refuge, as 

well as the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: 

Approximately $5,000 is spent each year to maintain the trails, observation decks, and the restroom 

at Crane Meadows NWR. The Platte River Trail is 

surfaced with crushed granite and the edges mowed 

as needed. In general, the sides of the trail are 

mowed after the growing season yet prior to winter 

to facilitate grooming activities. Costs come out of 

the annual Refuge budget. Monitoring of the trail is 

conducted weekly and maintenance occurs as 

needed. Existing staff and funding are available to 

administer these activities at their current level. 

Upgrades to the trail are implemented as necessary.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Priority uses such as wildlife observation and 

photography have shown no measurable environmental impacts to the Refuge, its habitat, or wildlife 

species. There is some temporary disturbance to 

wildlife due to human activity on the land. The most 

likely impacts will be during spring and early summer when many animals are nesting and brood rearing, and during spring and fall migration. Visitor 

access is typically by individuals or small groups for 

short durations. Destruction or negative impacts to 

habitat and associated vegetation are minimal 

because public use is confined to trails, and to state, 

county, township, and Refuge roads. Reducing the 

size of the impacted area, combined with sporadic, 

limited use by the public should prevent unacceptable impacts. Winter activities pose little to no 

impact on vegetation, and winter disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor. 

The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies, including: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, 

National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and 

Refuge goals and objectives.

These activities are compliant with the purpose of 

the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operating this activity does not alter 

the Refuge’s ability to meet habitat goals and it 

helps support several of the primary objectives of 

the Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is part of the 

Draft CCP and EA for Crane Meadows NWR. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day 

comment period, local media announcements, and a 

public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received 

and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP. 

Determination:

_____ Use is not compatible.

 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Crane Meadows NWR goals 

and objectives the activity can only occur under the 

following stipulations:

1. Use is confined to daylight hours.

2. Camping and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left over 

night.

4. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to 

vegetation is prohibited.

5. Use is restricted to designated trails and along 

established state, county, township, and Refuge 

roads.

Justification: 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act (1997). By facilitating 

these uses on the Refuge, we will increase visitors' 

knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

which will potentially lead to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the 

Refuge and elsewhere. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service's 

actions in achieving the Refuge's purposes, and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The trail network and associated activities of wildlife observation, photography, education, interpretation, and recreation are compatible uses at Crane 

Meadows NWR. 

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer, Aug. 25, 2010

Concurrence:

Regional Chief: s/Rick Schultz, Sept. 14, 2010 

Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2025

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Appendix H: Appropriate Use
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

Refuge Appropriate Refuge Uses 

The Service’s Appropriate Use policy describes 

the initial decision process a refuge manager follows 

when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must 

first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking 

a compatibility review of the use and outlining the 

stipulations of the use. 

This policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which describes 

when refuge managers should deny a proposed use 

without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the 

use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. By screening out proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids 

unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the 

process for finding the appropriateness of a use, we 

strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and 

compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use.

Background for this policy as it applies to Muscatatuck NWR is found in the following statutory 

authorities:

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit 

certain harmful activities. The Administration Act 

does not authorize any particular use, but rather 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

uses only when they are compatible. The Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and 

includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of 

public uses on the Refuge System.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k). 

This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an “appropriate incidental or 

secondary use.” 

This policy does NOT apply to:

Situations Where Reserved Rights or Legal 

Mandates Provide We Must Allow Certain Uses.

Refuge Management Activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or 

a Refuge System-authorized agent are designed to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

These activities are used to fulfill a refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission, and are 

based on sound professional judgment. 

Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As 

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) are 

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge 

manager must still determine if these uses are compatible.

Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

States have regulations concerning take of wildlife 

that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We 

consider take of wildlife under such regulations 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager must 

determine if the activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate:

 It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a 

refuge as identified in the Improvement Act.

 It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), 

the Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after the Improvement Act was 

signed into law. 

 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife 

under state regulations.

The refuge manager has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found that it is 

appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to 

evaluate appropriateness can be found on each of 

the appropriate use forms included in this appendix. 

Also included under this condition are ‘specialized 

uses,’ or uses that require specific authorization 

from the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or other permit document. These uses do not include uses 

already granted by a prior existing right. We make 

appropriateness findings for specialized uses on a 

case-by-case basis. 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: Anne Sittauer

Date: Aug. XX, 2010

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: Sept. 13, 2010

A compatibility determination is required before 

the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Refuge Name: Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research Projects by Third Parties

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by 

the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP 

or step-down management plan approved after 

October 9, 1997. 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use 

(“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further 

as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, 

inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to 

(b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, 

we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted 

with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Yes X 

No 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an 

attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s 

concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, 

my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate 

Appropriate X 

Refuge Manager: s/Anne Sittauer

Date: Aug. XX, 2010

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is 

a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must 

sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor 

must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach 

Date: Sept. 13, 2010

A compatibility determination is required before 

the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: Yes No

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

✔
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Appendix I: References Cited

Ahern, J. (1995). Greenways as a Planning Strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning 33, 131-

155. 

Albert, Dennis A. (1995). Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/

resource/1998/rlandscp/rlandscp.htm (Version 03JUN98).

Almendinger, J.C. (1997). Minnesota's Bearing 

Tree Database. Biological Report No. 56. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

St. Paul, MN. 23 p. 

Andreas, A.T. (1874). An Illustrated Historical 

Atlas of the State of Minnesota. Online access 

via Minnesota Digital Library. http://reflections.mndigital.org/u?/mhs,1029 Accessed 30 

January 2009.

Anoka Conservation District. (2009). Geologic History of the Anoka Sandplain, on Anoka Natural Resources Website. Ham Lake, MN. 

Website accessed on 7 August 2009 at: http://

www.anokanaturalresources.com/soil/

geo_his_sandplain.htm

Bailey, R.G. (1980). Description of the Ecoregions of 

the United States. Miscellaneous Publication 

1391. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region: Ogden, Utah.

Bailey, R.G. (1995). Descriptions of the Ecoregions 

of the United States (2nd Edition). Miscellaneous Publication No.1391. U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service. Online Access via: http://

www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html

Bowman, J.T. (2008). Connecting National Wildlife 

Refuges with Green Infrastructure: The Sherburne-Crane Meadows Complex. (Graduate 

Student Thesis) University of Minnesota: St. 

Paul, MN. Available on-line at: http://

www.greeninfrastructure.net/sites/greeninfrastructure.net/files/

JTB_ThesisDocument_Final_20080926.pdf

Brown, S., Hickey, C., Harrington, B., and Gill, R. 

editors. (2001). United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd edition. Manomet Center 

for Conservation Sciences: Manomet, MA. pp. 

61

Buchanan, H. (1996). Oak savanna restoration at 

Myre-Big Island State Park. Website 

accessed 4 March 2010 at: http://horticulture.cfans.umn.edu/vd/h5015/96papers/buchanan.htm 

Caudill, J. and Henderson, E. (2005). Banking on 

Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Division of Economics. Washington D.C.

Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, 

M.E.; Bailey, R.G., King, T.; Russell, W.E. 

(1997). National Hierarchical Framework of 

Ecological Units. Published in, Boyce, M. S.; 

Haney, A., ed. 1997. Ecosystem Management 

Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New 

Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

Congdon, J. and Keinath, D. (2006). Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: http://

www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/

blandingsturtle.pdf

Cowardin L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., LaRoe, E.T. 

(1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Unities States. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.

Cox, C. (1991). Pesticides and Birds: From DDT to 

Today’s Poisons. Journal of Pesticide Reform 

11(4): 2-6.

Dirks, B.J., Diets, N.J., DeJong, J.R. (2008). Camp 

Ripley and Arden Hills Minnesota Army 

national Guard Training Sites Conservation 

Program Report – 2007 Annual Review, January 1-December 31, 2007. Camp Ripley 

Series Report No. 17. Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological 

Services: St. Paul, MN. 

Dunevitz, H. (1993). Characterization of Midwestern oak savannas. 1993 Proceedings of the 

Midwest Oak Savanna conferences. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 4 

March 2010 at: http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/

upland/oak/oak93/dunevitz.htm

Goldman, C.R. and A.J. Horne. (1983). Limnology. 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 464p.

Green, R., Harley, M., Spalding, and M., Zockler, C. 

(2000). Impacts of Climate Change on Wildlife. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 

Available online at: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/

UserFiles/Files/cc1.pdf

Law, J.R., Johnson, P.S., and Houf, G. (1994). A 

Crown Cover Chart for Oak Savannas. Silviculture and Ecology Upland Central Hardwood Forests Research Unit. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Accessed 4 March 2010 at: http://

ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/tb/tb2/techbrf2.html

Johnson, D.L. and Lewis, L.A. (2007). Land Degradation: Creation and Destruction (second edition). Rowman and Little.

Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C. (2009). 

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: A State of Knowledge Report from the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. 

Available at: http://www.globalchange.gov/

publications/reports/scientific-assessments/

us-impacts/download-the-report

Kushlan, J.A.; Steinkamp, M.J.; Parsons, K.C.; 

Capp, J.; Cruz, M.A.; Erwin, M.; Hatch, S.; 

Kress, S.; Milko, R.; Miller, S.; Mills, K.; Paul, 

R.; Phillips, R.; Saliva, J.E.; Sydeman, B.; 

Trapp, J.; Wheeler, J.; and Wohl, K. (2002). 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: 

North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan – Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for 

the Americas: Washington, D.C. pp. 78

Kratz, T.K., Jensen, G.L. (1983). Minnesota's Landscape Regions. Natural Areas Journal. 3(2): 

33-44. 

Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving 

Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, 

Updated and Expanded Edition. Algonquin 

Books: Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Lubowski R., Vesterby M., Bucholtz S., Baez A., and 

Roberts M. (2006). Major Uses of Land in the 

United States, 2002. U.S.D.A. Economic 

Information Bulletin No. 14. Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/

eib14.pdf

Marschner, F.J. (1930). The Original Vegetation of 

Minnesota, General Land Office Survey 

Notes (1:500,000), unpublished until M.L. 

Heinselman - U.S. Forest Service, 1974. 

McMurry, M. (2007). Minnesota Population Projections 2005-2035. Minnesota State Demographic Center: St. Paul, MN. Available at: 

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/documents/

MinnesotaPopulationProjections20052035.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(1993). Minnesota’s Native Vegetation, A Key 

to Natural Communities: Version 1.5. Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2005). Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest 

Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, 

and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research 

Program. MNDNR: St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2006a). Operating Plan: Rice Lake “George 

Selke Memorial” Dam, 2006 update. Minnesota DNR, Little Falls Area Wildlife Office: 

Little Falls, MN.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2006b). Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and 

Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife 

– Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Strategy. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

Available at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/

strategy.html

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2007). Long Range Plan for the Wild Turkey 

in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. Available at: 

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/turkey/long_range_turkey_plan_2007.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2008a). Adapting to Change: Minnesota’s 

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plan. Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources: St. Paul, MN. Available at: http://

files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/

scorp_final_3308.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2008b). Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota

(submitted to the Minnesota Legislature). 

Saint Paul, MN.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2009a). Ecological Classification System: 

Anoka Sand Plain Subsection. Accessed 15 

July 2009 at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/

222Mc/index.html

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2009b). Ecological Classification System: 

Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Accessed 

15 July 2009 at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/

ecs/222/index.html

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

(2009c). Ecological Classification System: 

Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal 

Section. Accessed 15 July 2009 at: http://

www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222M/index.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2009a). Air 

Quality in Minnesota: Emerging Trends - 

2009 Report to the Legislature. Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency: St. Paul, MN. 

Available at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/lr-airqualityreport-2009.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2009b). Environmental Data Access: Surface Water Monitoring Station Viewer. Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency: St. Paul, MN. Accessed 20 

November 2009 at: http://pcagis04.pca.state.mn.us/website/eda/edawqstation/viewer.htm?ActiveLayer=0&Query=ORG_ID='MNPCA1' 

percent20and percent20ID_CODE='S000-

422'&QueryZoom=Yes

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2009c). Minnesota’s Impaired Waters and TMDLs: 

Impaired Waters Viewer. Accessed 10 

December 2009 at: http://

www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/tmdlmaps.html

Morey, G.B. (1976). Geologic Map of Minnesota - 

Bedrock Geology. Minnesota Geological Survey, State Map Series M-24, scale 1:3168000

National Assessment Synthesis Team. (2001). Climate Change Impacts on the United States: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Cambridge University 

Press: Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://

www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/

Nuzzo, V.A. (1986). Extent and Status of Midwest 

Oak Savanna: Presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6: 6-36.

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; 

Blancher, P.J.; Bradstreet, M.S.W.; Butcher, 

G.S.; Demarest, D.W.; Dunn, E.H.; Hunter, 

W.C.; Inigo-Elias, E.E.; Kennedy, J.A.; Martell, A.M.; Panjabi, A.O;. Pashley, D.N.; 

Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; Wendt, J.S.; 

and Will, T.C. (2004). Partners in Flight, 

North American Landbird Conservation 

Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. 

pp. 84

Ringelman, J.K., Ed. (2005). Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture: 2005 Implementation Plan. 

Ryan, M.G.; Archer, S.R.; Birdsey, R.; Dahm, C.; 

Heath, L.; Hicke, J.; Hollinger, D.; Huxman, 

T.; Okin, G.; Oren, R.; Randerson, J.; and 

Schlesinger W. (2008). Land Resources. In: 

The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, 

Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States [Backlund, P., 

A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, 

P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, 

T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. 

Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, 

R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. 

Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. 

Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, 

D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. 

Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, 

and R. Shaw (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, pp. 75-120.

Schneider, S.H. and Root, T.L. (2002). Wildlife 

Responses to Climate Change: North American Case Studies. Island Press. Washington, 

D.C.
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Scott, M., Griffith, B., Adamcik, B., Ashe, D., Czech, 

B., Fischman, R., Gonzales, P., Pidgorna, A. 

(2009). Managing to Accommodate Change: 

Climate Change and the National Widlife 

Refuge System. A PowerPoint presentation 

given at the 2009 FWS National Planners 

Conference. 

Sullivan, Janet. (1994). Conifer bog. In: Fire Effects 

Information System. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

Accessed 24 February 2010 at: http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Swanson, G.H. (2008). Prescribed Fire Use for Oak 

Savanna Restoration at Crane Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge. (Unpublished)

United Health Foundation. (2006). America’s 

Health Rankings: A Call to Action for People 

and Their Communities (2006 Edition). 

United Health Foundation: Minnetonka, MN. 

Available at: http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2006/2006ahr.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American Fact Finder. 

Data derived from Population Estimates, 

Census of Population and Housing, Small 

Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State 

and County Housing Unit Estimates, County 

Business Patterns, Non-employer Statistics, 

Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal 

Funds Report. Accessed 20 July 2009 at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/

27097.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). 

National Emission Inventory Database. 

Accessed 27 July 2009 at: http://www.epa.gov/

air/data/repsst.html?st~MN~Minnesota.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. (1999). Unified 

National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2004). News: 

Bush Administration Creates New Wildlife 

Refuge in Minnesota 35,000 Acre Glacial 

Ridge National Wildlife Refuge to Preserve 

Tallgrass Prairie and Wetlands in Northwest 

Minnesota. Accessed 24 February 2010 at: 

http://www.interior.gov/news/

04_News_Releases/041012d.htm

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2005). Administrative and Enforcement Procedures for FWS 

Easements: Wetland, Grassland, Habitat, 

Tallgrass, and FmHA. Regions 3 and 6: Twin 

Cities, MN and Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. (2009). Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Morrison County, MN - Online Series Descriptions. 

Accessed 7 August 2009 at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. (2008). Rapid Watershed Assessment: Platte-Spunk (MN) HUC 

7010201. Available at: http://

www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/rwa/Assessments/reports/platte_spunk.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1990). Regional 

Wetlands Concept Plan (Region 3). Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. pp. 55

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. (1992). 

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: 

Final Environmental Assessment. Region 3 

Division of Realty and Ascertainment: Fort 

Snelling, MN. pp. 63

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. (2002). 

Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priorities, Version 2.0. Fort Snelling, MN. pp. 

34

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of 

the United States: National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Why Save 

Endangered Species. Endangered Species 

Program, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://

www.fws.gov/Endangered/pdfs/

Why_Save_End_Species_July_2005.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). Strategic 

Habitat Conservation: Final Report of the 

National Ecological Assessment Team. July. 

pp. 45 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2008a). Strategic 

Habitat Conservation: An Operational 

Response to the Changing Conservation 

Landscape / A Summary Briefing Prepared 

for Ecological Services Assistant Regional 

Directors. PowerPoint presentation given 

October 21, 2008. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008b). Strategic 

Habitat Conservation Handbook: A Guide to 

Implementing the Technical Elements of 

Strategic Habitat Conservation, Version 1.0. 

National Technical Assistance Team. February. pp. 22

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009- IN PROGRESS). Rising to the Urgent Challenges of a 

Changing Climate: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change 

in the 21st Century.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009a). Putting Science in the Right Places: National Geographic Framework for Landscape 

Conservation. Available online at: http://

www.fws.gov/midwest/climate/documents/

SHCNationalGeographicFrameworkEmploye

e090809nomaps.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. (1986). North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan: A 

Strategy for Cooperation.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009). Ecological Subregions 

of the United States. Accessed 15 July 2009 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/

toc.html

U.S. Geological Survey. (2003). National Land 

Cover Database (NLCD). Earth Science 

Information Center: Sioux Falls, SD.

U.S. Office of the Surveyor General. (1852). Land

Survey Field Notes: T40,R31 and T39,R31. 

Property of the Minnesota Historical Society: 

St. Paul, MN. 

University of Minnesota. (2007). 2000 Morrison 

county Land Cover and Impervious Surface 

Area. University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN. 

Accessed 17 July 2009: http://land.umn.edu/

maps/tmp/Land_2000_Morrison_County.pdf

Ustipak, R. (1983). Wild rice initiative. Minnesota 

Waterfowl Association News, Jan/Feb, Page 

7.

Valppu, S.H. (2000). Paleoethnobotanical investigations at the Big Rice Site: Laurel culture use 

of wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) and associated radiocarbon dates. Pages 27-39 in Proceedings of the Wild Rice Research and 

Management Conference. Great Lakes Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Commission, 7-8 July 1999, 

Carlton, Minnesota, USA.

Wovcha, D.S., Delaney, B.C., and Nordquist, G.E. 

(1995). Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley 

and the Anoka Sandplain: A guide to native 

habitats. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.

Wright, H.E., Jr,. (1972). Quaternary History of 

Minnesota, in Sims, P.K., and Morey, G.B., 

eds., Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume. Minnesota Geological survey: St. Paul, 

MN.

Appendix J: List of Preparers and Contributors 

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Appendix J: List of Preparers and Contributors 

Preparers

Sherburne/Crane Meadows NWR Complex

 Anne Sittauer – Refuge Manager

 Paul Soler – Wildlife Refuge Specialist

 Lizzy Berkley – Biologist

 Nancy Haugen – Park Ranger

Midwest Region, Regional Office, Division of Conservation Planning

 Jared Bowman – Wildlife Biologist / Refuge 

Planner

 Jane Hodgins – Technical Writer/Editor

Minnesota DNR – Little Falls Area Wildlife Office, Section of Wildlife

Beau Liddell – Area Wildlife Supervisor

Acknowledgements:

Contributions to the CCP were made by the following individuals:

 Bob Russell, Nongame Biologist (Region 3 

Regional Office, Division of Migratory Birds)

 David Kluth, Regional Archaeologist (Region 3 

Regional Office, NWRS)

 Maggie O’Connell, Chief of Visitor Services and 

Outreach (FWS, Region 3 Regional Office, 

NWRS)

 Pat Heglund, Chief of Biological Resources 

(Region 3 Regional Office, NWRS)

 Josh Eash, Hydraulic Engineer/Hydrologist 

(Region 3 Regional Office, Division of Facilities, 

Management, and Budget)

Guidance and assistance were provided during 

the planning process by the following individuals:

 Charlie Blair, Refuge Manager (Minnesota 

Valley NWR)

 Jeanne Holler, Wildlife Refuge Specialist 

(Minnesota Valley NWR)

 Sue McDonald, Supervisory Park Ranger 

(DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge)

 Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist 

(Minnesota DNR, Central Region Division of 

Ecological Resources)

 Liz Harper, Nongame Wildlife Specialist 

(Minnesota DNR, Central Region Division of 

Ecological Resources)

 Eric Altena, Area Supervisor (Minnesota DNR, 

Little Falls Area Fisheries Office)

 Todd Holman, Central Minnesota Program 

Director (The Nature Conservancy)

 Bill Faber, Professor of Natural Resource 

Management (Central Lakes College, Brainerd 

Campus)

Planning support was provided by: 

 Sherburne-Crane Meadows NWR Complex

 Region 3 Regional Office, Division of 

Conservation Planning

 Friends of Crane Meadows NWR

Thanks to all members of the public who contributed comments during the planning process!

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Appendix K: Crane Meadows NWR CCP 

Communications List

Elected Federal Officials

 U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

 U.S. Senator Al Franken

 U.S. Congressman Jim Oberstar (8th District)

Elected State Officials

 Governor Tim Pawlenty

 Senator Paul Koering (District 12)

 Representative Al Doty (District 12B)

Federal Agencies

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office

 Service Historic Preservation Officer

 National Training Conference Center

 Planning Offices, Regions 1-9

 U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation 

Service – Morrison County

Tribal Representatives

 Mille Lacs Band of the Ojibwe Tribe

State Agencies

 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

 Division of Ecological Resources

 Division of Fish and Wildlife

 Division of Forestry

 Division of Lands and Minerals

 Division of Waters

 Shallow Lakes Program

 Minnesota Historical Society - State Historic 

Preservation Officer

 Board of Water and Soil Resources

 Soil and Water Conservation District – 

Morrison County

 National Guard – Camp Ripley Environmental 

Office

Morrison County

Commissioners:

 Thomas Wenzel

 Jeffrey Schilling

 Richard Collins

 Donald Meyer

 Duane Johnson

 Planning and Zoning

 Engineer

 Sheriff

 Auditor

 GIS

 Historical Society

 Recreational Trails Association

City of Little Falls

 City Government Office

 Convention and Visitors Bureau

Schools

 Northwest University –Institute for Policy 

Research

 St. Cloud State University – Department of 

Biological Sciences

 Central Lakes College

 Mary of Lourdes School
Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

 Pierz School

 Swanville Public Schools

 Upsala School

 Royalton High School

 Royalton Elementary

 Little Falls Community Schools

 Holy Trinity School

Public Libraries

 Little Falls City Library

 Pierz Public Library

 Royalton Public library

 Swanville Public Library

 Upsala Public Library

Organizations – Regional and National

 National Wildlife Federation – Great Lakes 

Field Office

 Sierra Club – Midwest Office

 Audubon Society

 Defenders of Wildlife

 National Trappers Association, Inc.

 National Wildlife Refuge Association

 Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility

 The Conservation Fund

 The Humane Society of the United States

 The Wilderness Society

 Wilderness Watch

Organizations – Local

 Central Minnesota Audubon

 Minnesota Waterfowl Association 

 The Nature Conservancy

 Minnesota Land Trust

 Ducks Unlimited

 Minnesota Deer Hunters Association

 Morrison County Birding Club

 Friends of Crane Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge

 National Wild Turkey Federation

 Lindberg Historic Site

 Morrison Pheasants Forever 

 Trust for Public Land

 Minnesota Trappers Association

 Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls

 Quality Deer Management Association

 Great River Greening

 East Central Landscape Committee

 Morrison County Agricultural Society

 Disabled American Veterans

 Morrison County Animal Humane Society

 Morrison County Volunteer Network

 Minnesota Fishing Museum

 Eastern Morrison County Four Wheelers Club, 

Inc.

 Little Falls Sno Dogs Inc. Snowmobile Club

 Buckman Trail Blazers

 Rice Area Sportsmen's Club

 Randall Sportsman's Club

 Little Falls Sportsman's Club

 Harding Sportsman's Club

 Cushing (Big Lake) Sportsman's Club 

 Pinnacle Hunt Club 

 Wheelin' Sportsmen

 Eastern Morrison County Sportsman Club

 20 Gun Club

 Royalton Gun Club

 Royalton Sportsmen’s Club

Media

 Outdoor News

 St. Cloud Times

 Brainerd Dispatch

 Morrison County Record

 Little Falls Radio

Businesses and Individuals

 American Farms, Inc.

 B and B Properties LLP

 Leidenfrost Farms LLP

 Sloughhole, Inc.

 All neighbors within one-half mile of the Refuge

 All individuals who submitted comments, 

participated in open houses, attended planning 

meetings, or requested they be added to the 

CCP mailing list
Appendix L: Oak Savanna Definition

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

Appendix L: Oak Savanna Definition

Working Definition of “Savanna” for 

Restoration Efforts at Crane Meadows 

NWR

General Definition of Southern Dry Savanna:

Savanna habitat at Crane Meadows NWR, like 

savanna across its range, is a fire-dependent, 

dynamic community characterized by scattered 

trees or groves of trees, mostly comprised of oaks 

(Quercus sp.) with a canopy cover ranging from 10–

70%, but more typically between 25-50%; and a 

basal area (BA) of 5-50 sq ft / acre. A wide range is 

used because canopy cover is not the most important characteristic that defines savanna and also 

because savanna ecosystems are dynamic and are 

associated with a natural range of variation through 

space and time. In addition, canopy cover can also 

vary at a small-scale (stand level), where areas of 

both scattered trees and areas with groves of trees 

are present within a stand. Essential variables 

when defining savanna habitat include tree species, 

tree size and shape, the presence and abundance of 

native savanna forbs and graminoids, shrub density, 

light penetration, and disturbance regimes. At 

Crane Meadows NWR on the Anoka Sandplain in 

Central Minnesota, bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) 

and black oak are typically the dominant tree species interspersed with jack pine (Pinus banksiana), 

red oak (Quercus rubra),or northern pin oak (Quercus elipsoidalis) (or a hybrid of the two) (Buchanan 

1996, Law et al. 1994, Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources 2005). 

Savannas are mosaic communities with variation 

of open, closed, and partially shaded areas. Thus, an 

important component when defining savanna is the 

composition of the understory vegetation. Savanna 

understory consists of a mosaic of both heliophiles 

typical of prairie as well as species well adapted to 

shaded environments under trees, shifting as the 

tree canopy becomes more open or closed. Herbaceous species typical of prairie and forest co-occur; 

in addition to a set of very specific savanna species 

(see lists below) that have high fidelity to this community type (Texler Personal commun., Drobney 

Personal commun. (Buchanan 1996). This spatial 

variation within the understory is a function of the 

varying degrees of species tolerance to shade and 

sun. Forbs are an essential component of the understory. Another important component of savanna 

understory is the shrub layer. The understory of 

savanna on the Anoka Sandplain, including those at 

Crane Meadows NWR, can be present with or without shrubs. The extent of shrub density is dependent on the subtype savanna classification and the 

frequency of fire (Law et al. 1994, Swanson 2008, 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005). 

Along with shrubs, the presence of saplings and 

pole trees (consisting of canopy tree species) is 

important to maintain in some areas in the subcanopy layer or as a single-canopy area within a stand. 

Saplings and pole trees ultimately replace mature 

trees in the overstory that age and eventually drop 

out of the canopy. Thus, in order to maintain oak 

savanna in perpetuity, it is important to consider 

maintaining or managing areas for regeneration. 

Because it is difficult to manage for savanna habitat 

described above and maintain sapling and pole 

trees, different management scenarios should be 

implemented throughout the Refuge to maintain 

both mature trees in savanna habitats as well as 

areas varying in age classes (including saplings and 

pole trees). Areas managed for regeneration should 

maintain a range of 100-200 saplings and pole trees /

acre and a minimum threshold of 40 saplings and 

pole trees/ acre to insure regeneration. There may 
Appendix L: Oak Savanna Definition

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

also be natural regeneration when a tree-fall gap is 

created in the canopy which allows for light penetration and localized regeneration within a stand. 

Barrens Oak Savanna 

There are many subtypes of oak savanna habitat 

that have been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005). A common 

savanna type on sandy soils of the Anoka Sandplain 

is barrens oak savanna; a relatively open community 

with scattered or clustered (10-70% canopy cover, 

but more typically 25-50%), stunted (15-35 feet tall), 

open-grown bur oak and black oak trees, often interspersed with jack pine, and with grass-dominated 

herbaceous ground layer (Wovcha et al. 1995, Minnesota DNR 2005). The understory vegetation is 

sparse or patchy with both native grasses (25-100%) 

and forbs (5-50%) (MNDNR 2005). Northern pin 

oak is sometimes present as a secondary tree species in the overstory or in the shrub layer. The density of shrubs is less than 30% in high quality 

occurrences (Dunevitz 1993). 

Measurement Scale:

Post assessments of oak savanna restoration 

activities must be measured and quantified to evaluate whether management is producing the desired 

outcome and the Refuge oak savanna habitats comply with this definition. The scale used to evaluate 

savanna restoration efforts at Crane Meadows 

NWR will include both the designated Fire Management Units (FMU) and the land most suitable for 

oak savanna restoration as defined by the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). 

For more details, refer to “Field Guide to the 

Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province” pgs. 89 and 289; 

and/or “Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and 

Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats” pg. 

68-77. 

Oak Savanna Native Plant Species for Crane 

Meadows NWR: Target species for management

Barrens Oak Savanna (Wovcha et al. 1995, Minnesota DNR 2005 Ups14a)

Canopy

Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)

Black oak (Quercus velutina)

Northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis)

Jack pine (Pinus banksiana)

Shrub Layer

Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)

Oak (Quercus sp.)

New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus)

Prairie willow (Salix humilis)

Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra)

American hazelnut (Corylus americana)

Ground Layer

WOODY SPECIES

Leadplant (Amorpha canescens)

Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)

Prairie rose (Rosa arkansana)

FORBS

Western ragweed (Ambrosia coronopifolia)

Hairy puccoon (Lithospermum caroliniense)

White sage (Artemisia ludoviciana) 

Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis)

Hairy golden aster (Heterotheca villosa)

Horseweed (Conyza canadensis)

Large-flowered beard-tongue 

(Penstemon grandiflorus)

Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum 

purpureum)

Silky prairie clover (Petalostemum villosum)

Ground-cherry (Physalis virginiana)

Missouri goldenrod (Solidago missouriensis)

Prairie bird-foot violet (Viola pedatifida)

Prairie larkspur (Delphinium virescens)

Rough blazing-star (Liatris aspera)

Rigid sunflower (Helianthus rigidus)

GRAMINOIDS

Junegrass (Koeleria pyramidata)

Porcupine grass (Stipa spartea)

Hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta)

Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium)
Appendix L: Oak Savanna Definition

Crane Meadows NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)

Sand reedgrass (Calamovilfa longifolia)

Panic-grass (Panicum sp.) 

Umbrella sedge (Cyperus schweinitzii)

Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica)

Characteristic Plant Species

Sand reedgrass (Calamovilfa longifolia)

Sea-beach needlegrass (Aristida tuberculosa)

False heather (Hudsonia tomentosa)

Muhlenberg’s sedge (Carex muhlenbergii)

Silky prairie clover (Petalostemon villosum)

Old field toadflax (Linaria canadensis)

Geyer’s spurge (Euphorbia geyeri)

Cream gentian (Gentiana alba)

Kitten-tails (Besseya bullii)

Kalm’s brome grass (Bromus kalmii)

Rare Plant Species

Small-leaved pussytoes (Antennaria parvifolia)

Sea-beach needlegrass (Aristida tuberculosa)

Rhombic-petaled evening primrose (Oenothera 

rhombipetala)

James’ polanisia (Polanisia jamesii) – SE

Tall nut-rush (Scleria triglomerata) – SE

False heather (Hudsonia tomentosa)

Kitten-tails (Besseya bullii) – ST

Blunt sedge (Carex obtusata)

Hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii)

* SE = State Endangered

* ST = State Threatened