Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

              Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
I
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Williamson, Jackson, and Union Counties, Illinois
Proposed action: Adopt and implement a compre-hensive
conservation plan that will guide man-agement
for the next 15 years.
Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional
Director
For further information:
Refuge Manager
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
8588 Route 148
Marion, Illinois 62959
Tel: (618) 997-3344
Email: conwr-ccp@fws.gov
Abstract: The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for all
national wildlife refuges. Five alternative
approaches to management, including a Pre-ferred
Alternative and a No Action (Current
Management) Alternative, were considered for
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. The five
alternatives are described and evaluated in the
Draft EIS. All alternatives would achieve the
Refuge’s purposes of wildlife conservation, agri-culture,
recreation, and industry. Under all alter-natives,
group camps and most non-wildlife
dependent recreation would remain; technical
rock climbing would be prohibited; a modified
recreational fee structure would be implemented;
a 14-day camping limit would be instituted; man-agement
of sport fish populations would continue;
use of prescribed fire would increase; and the
agricultural acres would not change by more than
5 percent. All alternatives would maintain neces-sary
food for a significant population of wintering
Canada geese. Alternative A would continue the
present course of management. Alternative B
would reduce habitat fragmentation and empha-size
wildlife-dependent recreation. A land
exchange with Southern Illinois University would
be a significant part of this alternative. Alterna-tive
C would emphasize management of open
lands and consolidate and improve recreation
facilities. Alternative D would emphasize man-agement
of forest lands and consolidate and
improve recreation facilities. Alternative E, the
preferred alternative, would reduce habitat frag-mentation
and consolidate and improve recre-ation
facilities. Conflicts among water users
would be addressed by increasing areas desig-nated
as no-wake zones and better enforcement
of current use zoning regulations. The quality of
campgrounds and marinas would be increased by
consolidating and improving them. The agricul-tural
program would remain pretty much intact
and its economic effect continued. The industrial
program would continue to support the munitions
manufacturing industry. By encouraging other
industries to locate in nearby industrial parks,
the economic effect of the industry would remain
in the local economy, and the needs of the indus-try
would be met more efficiently. With goal,
objective, and strategies formalized to better
improve communication between the Refuge and
the community, we would do a better job of talk-ing
with and listening to the community.
Comment deadline: January 17, 2006
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
III
Reader’s Guide
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to
prepare and then manage Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) consistent with a Compre-hensive
Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP pro-vides
15 years of guidance for Refuge management
and boundary modification. The CCP also provides
a framework for adaptive management through the
steps of implement, monitor, evaluate, and revise.
Step-down plans will be required to provide addi-tional
details as certain programs outlined in the
CCP are implemented.
This document combines both a Draft Compre-hensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS). Following pub-lic
review and comment, we will publish a Final EIS
followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identi-fies
the alternative selected as the CCP. We will then
publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1,
the selected alternative from Chapter 2, Chapters 3,
5, 6 and the appendices. The three most important
Appendices to review in this draft include Appendix
A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Implementa-tion,
Appendix J: Compatibility Determinations,
and Appendix L: Land Protection Plan. Another key
section to review is Section 2.5.1.8 Operational Poli-cies,
which presents proposed changes in Refuge
operations. We have provided the following chapter
and appendix descriptions to assist you in locating
and understanding the various components of this
combined document.
Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action,
includes legal and policy guidelines, the regional and
ecosystem context of the Refuge, a brief history of
the Refuge, Refuge Goals, and a discussion of the
issues identified early in the planning process.
Chapter 2, Alternatives, Objectives, and Strate-gies,
describes five possible management alterna-tives.
Each alternative represents a potential
comprehensive conservation plan for Crab Orchard
NWR. Alternative A describes the current manage-ment
direction on the Refuge. Alternative E, the
Preferred Alternative, presents the objectives and
strategies of the proposed Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. Some features are common to all
alternatives. The common features are described
before the detailed alternative descriptions.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the
existing physical and biological environment, public
use, special management areas, industrial and agri-cultural
use, cultural resources, and socioeconomic
conditions.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences,
describes the potential impacts of each of the five
alternatives on the resources and conditions out-lined
in Chapter 3.
Chapter 5, List of Preparers, lists the persons
involved in writing this document.
Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination, pre-sents
a summary of public involvement and who is
receiving this Draft CCP/EIS.
Appendix A, Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and
Implementation, pulls together in one place the
objectives and strategies of the preferred alterna-tive—
the heart of the Draft CCP. Also included are
discussions of projects and personnel needed to
implement the Draft CCP.
Appendix B, Glossary, contains acronyms, abbre-viations,
and definitions of terms used in this docu-ment.
Appendix C, Laws and Orders, contains brief
descriptions of the more pertinent laws and execu-tive
orders applicable to management of the Refuge.
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
IV
Appendix D, Species Lists, contains lists of birds,
reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals, and vascular
plants of Crab Orchard NWR.
Appendix E, State-listed Species Potentially
Found at Crab Orchard NWR, contains species
listed by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection
Board as endangered or threatened.
Appendix F, Bibliography, contains the biblio-graphic
references cited or consulted while prepar-ing
this document.
Appendix G, Public Law 80-361, contains a copy
of the law that established Crab Orchard NWR.
Appendix H, Summary of Public Comment, sum-marizes
public reaction to four concepts that we
were considering as preliminary management alter-natives
in September 2001. We presented the con-cepts
in a project update mailed to over 1,400
persons.
Appendix I, Letter Outlining the Exchange Pro-posal,
contains a copy of a letter from Southern Illi-nois
University that outlines the use the University
would make of Fish and Wildlife Service property if
a proposed land exchange were to take place. The
proposed land exchange would be a major compo-nent
of Alternative B.
Appendix J, Compatibility Determinations,
describes proposed uses, availability of resources
for management, anticipated impacts, and stipula-tions
necessary for a use to be compatible on the
Refuge. The Service is required to prepare these
Compatibility Determinations and make them avail-able
for public review.
Appendix K, Refuge Operating Needs System
(RONS) and Maintenance Management System
(MMS) lists, describes the larger projects that
would be pursued if the preferred alternative is
developed into a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
RONS refers to new initiatives and MMS describes
maintenance of existing facilities.
Appendix L, Land Protection Plan, describes a
proposal to adjust the authorized boundaries of the
Refuge, which would permit acquisition of land from
willing sellers and improve the efficiency of manage-ment
in the long-term. The intent of the detailed
plan is to inform neighbors, landowners, and the
interested public of the Service’s proposal and pro-tection
priorities.
Appendix M, Objectives and Strategies by Alter-native,
is a large table that displays the differences
and similarities of each alternative in the details
provided by objectives and strategies. We con-structed
this appendix so the reader could more eas-ily
compare the alternatives presented in Chapter 2
in detail.
Appendix N, Wildlife-Habitat Matrix, displays
the table of values that was used in estimating the
effects of habitat change on species that occur at
Crab Orchard NWR and are of particular manage-ment
concern to the Service’s region. The values in
the table reflect how important a particular habitat
is to a species.
Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
V
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................i
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose of Action ................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 Need for Action ..................................................................................................................................................1
1.5 Decision to be Made ...........................................................................................................................................3
1.6 Overview of the Planning Process .......................................................................................................................4
1.7 Legal and Policy Guidelines ................................................................................................................................4
1.7.1 Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................................................4
1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and Principles .......................................................................5
1.8.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................5
1.8.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ..........................................................................................5
1.8.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................................5
1.9 Ecosystem Goals .................................................................................................................................................6
1.9.1 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ................................................................................6
1.9.2 Goals and Objectives for Other Landscape Level Plans .............................................................................6
1.9.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..........................................................................................6
1.9.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities (January 2002) ...............................8
1.10 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ............................................................8
1.10.1 Recent Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................................9
1.10.1.1 Wildlife and Fish Habitat ..............................................................................................................9
1.10.1.2 Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................10
1.10.1.3 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................10
1.10.1.4 Industry .......................................................................................................................................10
1.10.1.5 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................10
1.10.1.6 Contaminants ..............................................................................................................................10
1.10.1.7 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................10
1.11 Refuge Purposes .............................................................................................................................................11
1.12 Refuge Vision Statement ................................................................................................................................11
1.13 Refuge Goals ...................................................................................................................................................11
1.13.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals ...................................................................................................................11
1.13.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .................................................................................................................12
1.13.3 Agricultural Goal ....................................................................................................................................12
1.13.4 Industrial Goal ........................................................................................................................................12
1.13.5 Wilderness Goal .....................................................................................................................................12
1.13.6 Protection Goal .......................................................................................................................................12
1.13.7 Outreach Goal ........................................................................................................................................12
1.14 Planning Issues ..............................................................................................................................................12
1.14.1 Issue 1: Recreation .................................................................................................................................13
1.14.2 Issue 2: Wildlife Conservation ................................................................................................................13
1.14.3 Issue 3: Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................13
1.14.4 Issue: Recreational Boating ....................................................................................................................13
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
VI
1.14.5 Issue 5: Role in Regional Economy .........................................................................................................14
1.14.6 Issue 6: Communication between Refuge and Community ....................................................................14
1.15 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................................................................14
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................15
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................15
2.2 Formulation of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................15
2.3 Selecting the Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................................15
2.4 Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................16
2.4.1 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action .......................................................................................16
2.4.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................16
2.4.1.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................16
2.4.2 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis With
Land Exchange ......................................................................................................................................17
2.4.2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................17
2.4.2.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................17
2.4.3 Alternative C: Open Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation .......................................18
2.4.3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................18
2.4.3.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................18
2.4.4 Alternative D: Forest Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ....................................18
2.4.4.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................18
2.4.4.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................19
2.4.5 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Consolidate and Improve Recreation
(Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................................................19
2.4.5.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................19
2.4.5.2 Summary .......................................................................................................................................19
2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................................................20
2.6 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..........................21
2.6.1 Features Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................................21
2.6.1.1 Operational Policies ......................................................................................................................27
2.6.1.2 Fire ................................................................................................................................................30
2.6.2 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action .......................................................................................32
2.6.2.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................32
2.6.2.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................36
2.6.2.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................38
2.6.2.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................38
2.6.2.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................38
2.6.3 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis
With Land Exchange ...............................................................................................................................39
2.6.3.1 Land Exchange ...............................................................................................................................39
2.6.3.2 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................39
2.6.3.3 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................45
2.6.3.4 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................53
2.6.3.5 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................54
2.6.3.6 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................54
2.6.4 Alternative C: Open Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation .......................................57
2.6.4.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................57
2.6.4.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................60
2.6.4.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................64
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
VII
2.6.4.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................64
2.6.4.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................65
2.6.5 Alternative D: Forest Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation .....................................65
2.6.5.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................65
2.6.5.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................68
2.6.5.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................68
2.6.5.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................68
2.6.5.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................68
2.6.6 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Consolidate and Improve Recreation
(Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................................................69
2.6.6.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals ........................................................................................................69
2.6.6.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................69
2.6.6.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................70
2.6.6.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................70
2.6.6.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................70
2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................70
2.7.1 Comparison of Funding and Personnel Needs by Alternative ..................................................................70
2.7.1.1 Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) .........................................................................70
2.7.1.2 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/ Wildlife-dependent Recreation
Emphasis With Land Exchange ..................................................................................................70
2.7.1.3 Alternative C: Open Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation ...........................70
2.7.1.4 Alternative D: Forest Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation ..........................71
2.7.1.5 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Consolidate and Improve
Recreation (Preferred Alternative) ...............................................................................................71
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................79
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................79
3.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................................79
3.2.1 Physiography ............................................................................................................................................79
3.2.2 Geology ....................................................................................................................................................79
3.2.3 Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................80
3.2.4 Climate .....................................................................................................................................................80
3.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................80
3.2.5.1 Crab Orchard Lake .........................................................................................................................80
3.2.5.2 Little Grassy Lake ..........................................................................................................................81
3.2.5.3 Devils Kitchen Lake .......................................................................................................................81
3.2.6 Contaminants ...........................................................................................................................................82
3.2.6.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) ................82
3.2.7 Administrative Facilities ...........................................................................................................................82
3.3 Habitat Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 83
3.3.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................83
3.3.2 Forests ......................................................................................................................................................84
3.3.3 Shrubland .................................................................................................................................................84
3.3.4 Grassland .................................................................................................................................................84
3.3.5 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................84
3.3.6 Open Water ..............................................................................................................................................84
3.3.7 Cropland ...................................................................................................................................................86
3.3.8 Developed Land .......................................................................................................................................86
3.3.9 Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................................86
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
VIII
3.3.10 Natural and Current Role of Fire .............................................................................................................88
3.4 Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................................................88
3.4.1 Mammals .................................................................................................................................................88
3.4.2 Birds .........................................................................................................................................................89
3.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ..........................................................................................................................91
3.4.4 Fish ...........................................................................................................................................................91
3.4.4.1 Crab Orchard Lake .........................................................................................................................91
3.4.4.2 Devils Kitchen Lake .......................................................................................................................93
3.4.4.3 Little Grassy Lake ..........................................................................................................................93
3.4.4.4 Small Impoundments .....................................................................................................................93
3.4.5 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................94
3.5 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................................................95
3.5.1 Mammals .................................................................................................................................................95
3.5.2 Birds .........................................................................................................................................................95
3.5.3 Plants ........................................................................................................................................................95
3.6 Public Use Resources and Trends ......................................................................................................................96
3.6.1 Hunting .....................................................................................................................................................96
3.6.2 Fishing ......................................................................................................................................................98
3.6.3 Camping .................................................................................................................................................100
3.6.4 Wildlife Observation ...............................................................................................................................100
3.6.5 Hiking Trails ...........................................................................................................................................101
3.6.6 Boating ..................................................................................................................................................103
3.6.6.1 Crab Orchard Lake .......................................................................................................................103
3.6.6.2 Devils Kitchen Lake .....................................................................................................................103
3.6.6.3 Little Grassy Lake ........................................................................................................................103
3.6.7 Swimming ..............................................................................................................................................105
3.6.8 Picnicking ...............................................................................................................................................105
3.6.9 Horseback Riding ...................................................................................................................................105
3.6.10 Group Camps ........................................................................................................................................107
3.6.11 Environmental Education ......................................................................................................................107
3.6.12 Interpretation .......................................................................................................................................108
3.6.13 Visitor Center ......................................................................................................................................108
3.6.14 Existing Transportation Patterns and Visitor Facilities .........................................................................108
3.7 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................108
3.7.1 Wilderness .............................................................................................................................................108
3.7.1.1 Inholdings and Lands Contiguous to the Crab Orchard Wilderness ...........................................109
3.7.2 Research Natural Areas ..........................................................................................................................109
3.7.3 Conservation Easements .........................................................................................................................111
3.8 Industrial Use Status and Trends .....................................................................................................................111
3.9 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................................112
3.10 Archaeological and Cultural Values ...............................................................................................................114
3.11 Law Enforcement ..........................................................................................................................................116
3.12 Socioeconomic Environment ..........................................................................................................................116
3.12.1 Economic Setting .................................................................................................................................116
3.12.1.1 Population .................................................................................................................................117
3.12.1.2 Employment ...............................................................................................................................117
3.12.1.3 Employment Earnings and Personal Income .............................................................................119
3.12.2 Impact of the Refuge Budget ................................................................................................................119
3.12.3 Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation ..............................................................................................121
3.12.4 Tax Impacts of Refuge Recreation Spending ........................................................................................123
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
IX
3.12.5 Economic Impacts of Refuge Agriculture, Grazing, Timber Harvesting and
Commercial Use ...................................................................................................................................123
3.12.6 Comparison of Refuge-Related Economic Impacts to Study Area Economy ........................................124
3.12.7 Current Staff and Budget ......................................................................................................................126
3.12.7.1 Staff ..........................................................................................................................................126
3.12.8 Budget ..................................................................................................................................................126
3.13 Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................126
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................128
4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................128
4.1.1 Quantifying Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species ........................................................................128
4.1.2 Effects on Archaeological and Cultural Values ......................................................................................129
4.2 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives .....................................................................................................131
4.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................................131
4.2.2 Cooperative Fishery Management ..........................................................................................................132
4.2.3 Canada Geese ........................................................................................................................................132
4.2.4 Communication and Community Support ...............................................................................................132
4.2.5 Wilderness .............................................................................................................................................132
4.2.6 Climate Change Impacts .........................................................................................................................132
4.2.7 Prescribed Fire ........................................................................................................................................132
4.2.7.1 Social Implications ......................................................................................................................132
4.2.7.2 Cultural and Archaeological Resources ......................................................................................133
4.2.7.3 Flora ............................................................................................................................................133
4.2.7.4 Listed Species .............................................................................................................................133
4.2.7.5 Soils ............................................................................................................................................133
4.2.7.6 Escaped Fire ...............................................................................................................................134
4.3 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action ..............................................................................................134
4.3.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................134
4.3.1.1 Land cover ..................................................................................................................................134
4.3.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................134
4.3.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................136
4.3.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................136
4.3.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................136
4.3.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................137
4.3.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................137
4.3.1.8 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................137
4.3.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................137
4.3.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................137
4.3.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................137
4.3.3 Volunteers and Support Groups ..............................................................................................................138
4.3.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................138
4.3.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................138
4.3.6 Impact on Archaeological and Cultural Values .......................................................................................138
4.3.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................138
4.4 Alternative B, Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis
With Land Exchange ...................................................................................................................................138
4.4.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................138
4.4.1.1 Land Cover ..................................................................................................................................138
4.4.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................139
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
X
4.4.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................139
4.4.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................139
4.4.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................139
4.4.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................139
4.4.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................139
4.4.1.8 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................141
4.4.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................141
4.4.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................141
4.4.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................141
4.4.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................142
4.4.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................142
4.4.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................142
4.4.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................143
4.4.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................143
4.5 Alternative C: Open Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ..............................................144
4.5.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................144
4.5.1.1 Land Cover ..................................................................................................................................144
4.5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................144
4.5.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................144
4.5.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................144
4.5.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................144
4.5.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................146
4.5.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................146
4.5.1.8 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................146
4.5.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................146
4.5.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................146
4.5.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................146
4.5.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................147
4.5.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................147
4.5.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................147
4.5.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................147
4.5.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................148
4.6 Alternative D: Forest Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ............................................148
4.6.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................148
4.6.1.1 Land Cover ..................................................................................................................................148
4.6.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................148
4.6.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................148
4.6.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................148
4.6.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................148
4.6.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................148
4.6.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................150
4.6.1.8 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................150
4.6.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................150
4.6.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................150
4.6.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................150
4.6.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................151
4.6.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................151
4.6.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................151
4.6.6 Archaeological and Cultural Values ........................................................................................................151
4.6.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................151
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XI
4.7 Alternative E, Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Consolidate and Improve Recreation
(Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................................................................151
4.7.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................151
4.7.1.1 Land Cover ..................................................................................................................................151
4.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................151
4.7.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................151
4.7.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................151
4.7.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................152
4.7.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................152
4.7.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................152
4.7.1.8 Wilderness .................................................................................................................................152
4.7.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................153
4.7.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................153
4.7.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................153
4.7.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................154
4.7.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................154
4.7.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................154
4.7.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................154
4.7.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................154
4.8 Summary of Economic Effects of Alternatives ................................................................................................155
4.8.1 Economic Effects of Recreation ..............................................................................................................155
4.8.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................155
4.8.1.2 Hunting .......................................................................................................................................155
4.8.1.3 Fishing ........................................................................................................................................155
4.8.1.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography .......................................................................................155
4.8.1.5 Boating .......................................................................................................................................157
4.8.1.6 Facilities and Marina Slips ..........................................................................................................157
4.8.1.7 Camping / Day Use ......................................................................................................................157
4.8.1.8 Summary of Recreation Economic Effects ..................................................................................158
4.8.2 Economic Effects of Commercial Use .....................................................................................................158
4.8.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................158
4.8.2.2 Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................158
4.8.2.3 Grazing ........................................................................................................................................159
4.8.2.4 Timber Harvesting .......................................................................................................................159
4.8.2.5 Industry .......................................................................................................................................160
4.9 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................161
4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..............................................................................161
4.11 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................................................161
4.12 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................................................161
4.12.1 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Habitat Management Actions ......................................................161
4.12.1.1 Forest ........................................................................................................................................161
4.12.1.2 Grassland ..................................................................................................................................162
4.12.2 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Recreation Changes ......................................................................163
4.12.3 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Agricultural Management .............................................................163
Chapter 5: List of Preparers .....................................................................................................................................167
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................................168
6.1 Summary of Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................168
6.2 List of Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Receiving a Draft Document ...............................................168
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XII
6.2.1 Elected Officials .....................................................................................................................................168
6.2.2 Organizations .........................................................................................................................................169
Appendix A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation ....................................................................173
Appendix B: Glossary .............................................................................................................................................187
Appendix C: Laws and Orders ...............................................................................................................................193
Appendix D: Species List .......................................................................................................................................211
Appendix E: State-listed Species Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR ................................................265
Appendix F: Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................269
Appendix G: Public Law 80-361 .............................................................................................................................279
Appendix H: Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives .............................................................................283
Appendix I: Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal .......................................................................................289
Appendix J: Compatibility Determinations .........................................................................................................293
Appendix K: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System
(MMS) Projects ................................................................................................................................345
Appendix L: Land Protection Plan ........................................................................................................................353
Appendix M: Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative .........................................................367
Appendix N: Wildlife and Habitat Matrix ............................................................................................................397
Index ..............................................................................................................................................................403
Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XIII
Table 1: Proposed Recreational Entrance Fees and Federal Passes That Will Permit Entry,
Crab Orchard NWR ........................................................................................................................................29
Table 2: Area of Food-producing Canada Goose Habitat by Alternative ....................................................................41
Table 3: Millions of Potential Goose-use-days of Food by Habitat and Alternative ...................................................41
Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives ........................................................................................................72
Table 5: Crab Orchard NWR Lake Details ...................................................................................................................81
Table 6: Area and Percent Cover of Habitats on Crab Orchard NWR, 1807 and 2000 ...............................................86
Table 7: Principal Invasive and Exotic Species, Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................................87
Table 8: Principal Weed Species in Agricultural Fields, Crab Orchard NWR .............................................................87
Table 9: Number of Wildlife Species Found in Illinois and at Crab Orchard NWR .....................................................89
Table 10: Nongame Species of Management Concern, Crab Orchard NWR ................................................................91
Table 11: Crab Orchard NWR Fish Species List ............................................................................................................92
Table 12: Small Fishing Ponds on Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................................................93
Table 13: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................111
Table 14: Most Frequently Cited Offences on Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001 ..........................................................116
Table 15: Williamson County and Jackson County, Illinois and the United States Population,
Percentage Change 1980, 1990, 2000 .........................................................................................................117
Table 16: Demographic Profile of Jackson County, Williamson County, Illinois and the United States ....................117
Table 17: Employment by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000 ............................................118
Table 18: Employment by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000 .................................................118
Table 19: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000 .............................119
Table 20: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000 ..................................120
Table 21: Williamson County and Jackson County Per Capita Income, 1980, 1990 and 2000 ...................................120
Table 22: Annual Economic Impact of Refuge Budget Expenditures ..........................................................................120
Table 23: Annual Tax Impacts of Refuge Expenditures ...............................................................................................121
Table 24: Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation in Two-county Study Area ..........................................................122
Table 25: Recreation Expenditures and Economic Impacts for Non-resident Visitors to the Refuge .........................123
Table 26: Federal, State and Local Tax Revenue Derived From Refuge-related Recreational Spending by
Residents and Non-residents .......................................................................................................................123
Table 27: Tax Revenue Generated by Non-resident Refuge Recreation Spending ....................................................124
Table 28: Annual Concession Revenue and Fees Paid for Crab Orchard NWR Recreational Facilities .....................124
Table 29: Recreation and Refuge Budget Expenditures Compared with Study Area .................................................125
Table 30: Annual Number of Refuge Acres Farmed and Production Value Compared with the Study Area .............125
Table 31: Annual Refuge Grazing and Value Compared with the Study Area ............................................................125
Table 32: Annual Amount of Timber Harvest on the Refuge Compared with the Study Area ...................................125
Table 33: Resource Conservation Priority Species Used to Assess the Broad Impacts of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..............................................................................................................130
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XIV
Table 34: Potential Species Occurrence Scores for Threatened and Endangered Species or Groups
for the Year 2000 and For Each Alternative in 2015 and 2100 ...................................................................131
Table 35: Areas of Land Cover at Crab Orchard NWR in 2000 and Acres Projected for 2015 and 2100
Under Each Alternative, With Change from 2000 Shown in Parentheses (Land Cover for
Alternative E is the Same as Alternative B) ................................................................................................135
Table 36: Predicted Difference in Land Cover by Alternative for 2000, 2015 and 2100 .............................................136
Table 37: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting in the Study Area ............................156
Table 38: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing in the Study Area .............................156
Table 39: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation ....................................156
Table 40: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Boating .........................................................157
Table 41: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Camping and Picnicking ...............................157
Table 42: Summary of Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use .....................................................................158
Table 43: Comparison of Annual Average Crop Values in Study Area .......................................................................159
Table 44: Comparison of Economic Effects of Grazing at Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................160
Table 45: Impacts of Each Alternative on Timber Harvesting and Pine and Hardwood Forest Cover ........................160
Table 46: Impacts of the Alternatives on Industry ......................................................................................................161
Table 47: Summary of Effects of Alternatives Described in Chapter 4 .......................................................................164
Table 48: Step-down Management Plans ...................................................................................................................185
Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XV
Figure 1: Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Location of Crab Orchard NWR .......................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecosystem Units .................................................................................................6
Figure 4: Protected Lands in Southern Illinois ................................................................................................................9
Figure 5: Results of Crab Orchard NWR Wilderness Inventory ....................................................................................26
Figure 6: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No Action)
Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................................................................................................34
Figure 7: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No Action),
Projected Conditions, 2100 ............................................................................................................................35
Figure 8: Lands Proposed for Exchange Between Crab Orchard NWR and Southern Illinois University .....................40
Figure 9: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected Conditions 2015 ................................42
Figure 10: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected Conditions 2100 ................................43
Figure 11: Crab Orchard Lake Watercraft Zoning Proposed Under Alternatives B, C, D and E .....................................51
Figure 12: Devils Kitchen Lake Zoning, Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................................................52
Figure 13: Proposed Horseback Riding Trails on Crab Orchard NWR Under Alternatives B, C and E ...........................53
Figure 14: Crab Orchard NWR Inholdings, Boundary Modification, and Adjacent Protected Lands .............................56
Figure 15: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................58
Figure 16: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 2100 .............................................59
Figure 17: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................66
Figure 18: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 2100 .............................................67
Figure 19: Streams and Watersheds of Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................81
Figure 20: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR .................................................................................................................83
Figure 21: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, 2000 .......................................................................................................85
Figure 22: Peak Counts of Wintering Canada Geese on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947 to 2001 .........................................90
Figure 23: Canada Goose-use Days on Crab Orchard NWR, 1952 to 1999 ....................................................................90
Figure 24: Bald Eagle Survey Counts on Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2002 ......................................................................95
Figure 25: Bald Eagle Fledgling Counts on Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2000 ..................................................................96
Figure 26: 1948 Area Designations, Crab Orchard NWR ...............................................................................................97
Figure 27: Bank Fishing Sites on Crab Orchard NWR .....................................................................................................99
Figure 28: Crab Orchard NWR Campground Visits Per Year ........................................................................................101
Figure 29: Observation Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................................................102
Figure 30: Boat Launches on Crab Orchard NWR .........................................................................................................104
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
XVI
Figure 31: Picnic Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ............................................................................................................106
Figure 32: Annual Group Camp Attendance at Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001 ..........................................................107
Figure 33: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................110
Figure 34: Conservation Easements Administered by Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................112
Figure 35: Number of Agricultural Cooperators at Crab Orchard NWR, 1953, 1979, and 2001 ..................................113
Figure 36: Total Area of Agricultural Fields on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947-2001 .........................................................114
Figure 37: Area of Row Crop Fields, Pastures and Hay Fields in 1953, 1979, and 2001 .............................................114
Figure 38: Crab Orchard NWR Current Staffing Chart ..................................................................................................127
Figure 39: Differences in Land Cover, Crab Orchard NWR (Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative B
and Alternative E (Preferred Alternative), 2015 ..........................................................................................140
Figure 40: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative C
(Open Land Management), 2015 ..................................................................................................................145
Figure 41: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative D
(Forest Land Management), 2015 ................................................................................................................149
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
i
Executive
Summary
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to
prepare and implement a Comprehensive Conserva-tion
Plan (CCP) for each unit in the National Wild-life
Refuge System. We developed this document as
part of preparing a plan for Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge.
Located in southern Illinois, Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in
1947 for wildlife, agriculture, recreation and indus-try.
The Refuge consists of 43,888 acres. Figure 1
shows the location of the Refuge.
We are preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) as part of the comprehensive con-servation
planning process. Preparation of the EIS
establishes scientific data on which we can base our
selection of a management direction and it provides
an opportunity for residents, communities, state
agencies and governments, and non-government
organizations to express their ideas on Refuge man-agement.
The EIS will establish a management
direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years, and it
will assure that this direction best achieves the Ref-uge’s
purposes, vision and goals; contributes to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; is
consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management; and addresses relevant mandates and
major issues developed during scoping.
For Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,
there is a need to resolve the inconsistencies
between the purposes of the Refuge as stated in its
establishing legislation and the mission of the Ref-uge
System. There is a need to specify the priority
species of management concern and allocate habitat
components among them. There is a need to recog-nize
the recreational demands of the public and the
Refuge’s role in fulfilling those demands. Also, there
is a need to improve the relations between the com-munity
and the Refuge.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have
thoughtfully considered how we should manage the
Crab Orchard NWR. We have drafted a recom-mended
management plan for the next 15 years.
The highlights of our proposed plan are:
# Provide for wintering Canada geese at
approximately current levels.
# Continue current management of resident fish
and wildlife.
# Recommend an additional 120 acres for
Wilderness designation.
# Propose the acquisition of lands that are
surrounded by the Refuge and some land along
the boundary from willing sellers.
# Reduce forest and grassland fragmentation to
benefit certain birds.
# Improve the quality of recreation through
consolidation and improvement of facilities,
# Eliminate area designations.
# Maintain the existing group camps.
# Limit camping stays to 14 days.
# Simplify the recreational fee structure.
# Officially designate a trail through the
Wilderness for hiking and equestrian use.
In the rest of this summary we describe the steps
that led us to our recommended approach and a fur-ther
discussion about our approach. The details of
our process and results are in the body of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehen-sive
Conservation Plan.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
ii
Steps in Formulating
Our Plan
Our planning process began in 1999 when we dis-cussed
what issues we thought needed to be
addressed and how the planning process should be
organized. Our planning team consists of refuge
staff, regional office planning staff, representatives
from other programs within the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and representatives from the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources. Sometimes we
asked other experts to help us address a particular
topic.
In late 2000 we asked citizens for their ideas on
what the plan should include and the issues that
should be addressed. We gave citizens the opportu-nity
to comment at open houses and through written
comments. In three meetings early in 2001, we
asked a diverse group of stakeholders to identify
and prioritize issues facing the Refuge. Then, we
formed special work groups made up of the planning
Figure 1: Location of Crab Orchard NWR
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
iii
team and subject area experts. We asked the groups
to review the past vision and goals and to draft new
goals for the next 15 years.
In April 2001, we considered the issues that had
been raised, the new goals, rules and regulations,
and what we thought could reasonably be accom-plished
in 15 years, and we developed four alterna-tive
management concepts. We described the
management concepts in a newsletter that we sent
to everyone on the planning mailing list in Septem-ber
2000. We invited citizens and stakeholders to
comment on the concepts.
Using the comments that we received, land cover
data analysis, and other data, we modified and
refined the concepts—which became the alterna-tives
described in Chapter 2 of the Draft Environ-mental
Impact Statement. After we had the
alternatives well defined, we estimated the conse-quences
of implementing each alternative. That
analysis is described in Chapter 4 of the Draft Envi-ronmental
Impact Statement. After comparing the
consequences of each alternative, we chose one
alternative to develop into a Comprehensive Con-servation
Plan, which is presented in Appendix A of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We
wrote the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Comprehensive Conservation Plan during 2002-
04.
In preparing our document, members of the plan-ning
team prepared an initial draft that was
reviewed by regional office subject experts and
administrators who suggested changes. The refined
draft was given to staff in the Washington office of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources for review. The
draft document is now available for review and com-ment
by the public. The public will have the oppor-tunity
to comment in a public meeting and through
written comments. We will consider the comments
we receive as we prepare the Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conserva-tion
Plan for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Ref-uge.
Issues Addressed in Our
Plan
Citizens brought up many of the issues and we
identified some others. We organized the issues into
major topics – wildlife conservation, recreation, ref-uge
purposes, recreational boating, role in regional
economy, communication between refuge and com-munity,
and Wilderness.
Wildlife Conservation
From comments submitted by the public and the
State of Illinois, we knew that we had to address
how we intended to provide for wintering Canada
geese. In the past we considered reducing the
amount of croplands that we provide for geese.
Local citizens, particularly waterfowl hunters, and
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources were
critical of a reduction of croplands. Early in the
planning process we decided that we would continue
to provide close to the current amount of cropland
for wintering geese. We think that more food will be
available for geese than they will use in most years.
In our proposed plan we provide for ‘worst case sce-nario’
conditions of poor crop years and large migra-tions
of geese. In the plan we propose to provide
approximately 1,760 acres of corn, 880 acres of win-ter
wheat, and 1,760 acres of clover each year for the
geese on the average. We also plan to actively man-age
500 acres of moist-soil habitat for geese, ducks,
shorebirds, and other waterbirds.
As the primary federal agency providing for
migratory birds, we want to identify and manage for
those birds that are particularly important. Within
our eight-state region we have identified the species
that are the priority species for us. There are also
collaborative efforts among several groups to pro-vide
a coordinated approach toward bird conserva-tion
across the North and South American
continents. We looked at how Crab Orchard NWR
might contribute toward these efforts and con-cluded
that the Refuge would contribute by provid-
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
iv
ing unfragmented forest and grassland to benefit
species that need these kinds of habitat. In our plan-ning
process we looked at three alternative ways to
provide unfragmented habitats. In one of our alter-natives
we looked at maximizing the unfragmented
forest habitat. In another alternative we looked at
maximizing the unfragmented grassland habitat. In
the third alternative we looked at making small
changes in the current habitat cover to gain larger,
unfragmented blocks of both forest and grassland
habitats. We chose this third alternative as our pro-posed
course of action.
In comparing our different approaches to habitat,
we were surprised by how little difference there was
in land cover among alternatives. The difference in
core acres (the acres that are particularly beneficial
to area-sensitive birds) of mixed hardwood upland
forest between an alternative where we emphasized
grasslands and where we emphasized forests was
only 476 acres, which is a very small percentage of
the Refuge. We expect that natural succession will
greatly contribute to changes in land cover over
time. Our role may be only to speed up that succes-sion
in some cases.
The management activities that we propose in
our plan to benefit forest and grassland birds
include, among other things: reforestation of
selected areas, accelerated succession of pine plan-tations
to native hardwoods, removal of woody
fencerows and roadside vegetation, control of inva-sive
species, and conversion of fescue pastures to
native, warm-season grasses and more desirable
cool-season grasses.
The Bald Eagle is the only federally designated
threatened species known to occur on the Refuge.
The Indiana bat, which is federally classified as
endangered, is known to occur in proximity to the
Refuge. We constructed a goal, objective, and strat-egies
for the protection of these species in our plan.
We will follow established management guidelines
for the bald eagle, and we will coordinate with the
Ecological Services staff of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to avoid possible impacts to Indiana bats
from our management activities.
Our planning requirements and past land trans-actions
caused us to look at the desirability and need
for acquiring interests in lands adjacent to the Ref-uge.
In the past we have had neighbors who wanted
to sell their land to the Service and a purchase had
biological benefits to the Refuge. We analyzed each
purchase individually. But, this tract-by-tract analy-sis
is inefficient and does not provide for an overall,
cumulative analysis of possible land transactions.
We propose in our plan to acquire interests, from
willing sellers only, in approximately 4,242 acres of
land either completely surrounded by or adjacent to
the Refuge as part of a boundary modification. The
boundary modification would allow the acquisition of
inholdings from willing sellers and move segments
of the boundary to coincide with roads that would
better define the limits of the Refuge (see Figure 2).
The boundary modification would increase the effi-ciency
of management, reduce incompatible land
uses, and enhance public use opportunities.
Recreation
The recreation issue was made up of several
parts and elicited the most comments from the pub-lic.
Citizens were concerned about the loss of recre-ational
opportunities and lack of support for
recreation by the Refuge. At Crab Orchard NWR,
we have had a difficult time meeting people’s expec-tations
and providing for certain kinds of recreation
that are not traditionally a part of Service activities.
Also, we are obligated by a 1997 law to facilitate
wildlife-dependent recreation on national wildlife
refuges, if possible. We examined two alternatives
to doing a better job of providing recreation. One
alternative calls for what we consider a major
change at Crab Orchard – exchanging part of the
Refuge with developed recreation facilities to
Southern Illinois University for undeveloped land
that the University owns adjacent to the Refuge. In
the other alternative we considered how we could do
a better job of providing recreation without the land
exchange. In this second alternative we thought that
it would be necessary to consolidate the facilities
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
v
Figure 2: Crab Orchard NWR Proposed Boundary Modification and Other Assorted
Public Lands
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
vi
that we have and improve them. We do not think
that it is likely that we could support high quality
facilities at all of the sites that currently exist.
During our initial analysis, we considered the
alternative with the land exchange as our “working”
preferred alternative. We thought that the Univer-sity
would be able to offer better swimming, camp-ing,
boating, and picnicking facilities than we have
been able to. We also thought that the University
would be able to develop a hotel and resort complex
that is beyond the capabilities of the Refuge. By
having the University provide the majority of the
non-wildlife oriented recreation, we thought that we
would be able to provide better quality wildlife-dependent
recreation – hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental educa-tion,
and interpretation.
We abandoned the alternative with the land
exchange, however, when we confronted the difficul-ties
of implementing the exchange. If we exchange
land, Federal regulations require that the land
involved in the exchange be of approximately the
same value. Our preliminary appraisal estimates
indicated that the Federal property in the proposed
exchange would exceed the value of the Southern
Illinois University property by as much as $20 mil-lion.
The proposed exchange could only be accom-plished
with Congressional action, which we did not
want to pursue. We thought that the exchange
would be politically sensitive and that the likelihood
for its resolution in the political process would be
lengthy and out of our control. Rather than pursue a
course with an uncertain timetable and outcome, we
chose the alternative to consolidate and improve our
recreational facilities, which we can implement
within our current authority.
We plan to make visitors feel more welcome by
improving our signs, kiosks, and facilities. We pro-pose
to work with the administrators of the group
camps on the Refuge to emphasize the mission of
the National Wildlife Refuge System in their pro-grams.
We expect to close the campground at Devils
Kitchen Lake, because the current site is too steep
and there are no better alternatives at the lake. In
order to reduce conflicts among recreational boat-ers,
we propose to expand no-wake zones on Crab
Orchard Lake. (See Figure 3.)
We also propose changing the classification of
areas on the Refuge. When the Refuge was estab-lished
we published a classification of lands indicat-ing
where wildlife would be emphasized and where
recreation would take place. We propose to do away
with the past classification of areas and treat the
entire Refuge as one unit, which will allow more bal-anced
management responsibilities across all por-tions
of the Refuge. Only the industrial area will be
designated as “restricted access.”
During the planning process we examined our
current way of doing business and saw a need for
revision and additional explicitness for some topics.
We propose to restrict length of camping stays to 14
days. This is a change from the unlimited length
stays that are now permitted. We think limiting the
length of stays is more equitable and will lead to
higher quality camping experiences. We also pro-pose
to implement a new recreational fee system
that will be more convenient for visitors. We pro-pose
to charge only one fee rather than multiple fees
for cars and boats. We have not explicitly addressed
rock climbing in past regulations, and some visitors
who engage in this activity have been unsure of its
legality. Because rock climbing is available in
nearby Giant City State Park, we propose to pro-hibit
it on the Refuge.
The Haven and the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht
Club are available only to a limited segment of the
general population. The facilities and activities at
these clubs amount to private use of public land. Our
long-term goal is to make these areas available to a
broader portion of the public. During the length of
the planning period established for this Refuge CCP
(next 15 years), the Refuge Staff will work collabo-ratively
with the Egyptian Past Commanders Club
to evaluate the effectiveness of this facility in achiev-ing
the purpose of Haven’s establishment, and to
make recommendations for its future use.
Glenn Smart
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
vii
Figure 3: Recreational Use Zoning, Crab Orchard Lake
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
viii
We will extend the lease of the Crab Orchard
Boat & Yacht Club for two years after the approval
of the Refuge CCP. After the lease expires, we will
convert the operation of the club facilities to a con-cession
contract. This would end what amounts to
private use of public land and make the facilities
available to a wider portion of the public. Horseback
use has been occurring on the Refuge without offi-cial
recognition by our regulations.
Horseback riders want to ride through the Ref-uge
as part of the River-to-River Trail, but a trail
through the Refuge has not been officially desig-nated
or recognized. We have been concerned about
trail erosion caused by horses. In the plan we pro-pose
to officially designate a horse trail through the
Crab Orchard Wilderness and take measures to
actively control erosion. We would prohibit horse-back
riding elsewhere on the Refuge.
Recreational Boating
When we distributed our initial thoughts about
draft conceptual alternatives, we proposed to pro-hibit
gas motors on Devils Kitchen Lake. Our intent
was to further reduce the sounds of motors on the
lake. We received a number of comments stating
that this would unnecessarily reduce anglers’ access
to the lake. In order to accommodate this view, we
propose to prohibit gas motors on the lake south of
the southernmost boat ramp. We think this compro-mise
allows anglers with gas motors access to most
of the lake and still reduce the sound of motors on a
portion of the lake.
Refuge Purposes
An issue that has been a challenge to us and was
mentioned by some citizens was the lack of support
for the four original purposes of the Refuge and the
concern that the purposes might be seen as incom-patible
with the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System due to recent legislation and chang-ing
policies. Conflicts between the Refuge purposes
and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
are dealt with in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. In the case of
conflict between the purposes of a refuge and the
mission of the System, the conflict is to be resolved
in a manner that protects the purposes of the ref-uge,
and, to the extent practicable, that also
achieves the mission of the System. We think that,
overall, we are meeting the intent of the law.
We think that the activities associated with the
original purposes of the Refuge are compatible. The
compatibility determinations found in Appendix J of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement formal-ize
our thoughts regarding these activities and their
compatibility. We determined that all existing activ-ities
are compatible.
We considered how we should manage for the
agricultural and industrial purposes of the Refuge
for the next 15 years. The agricultural program is
closely tied to providing food for wintering geese
and other wildlife. As we thought about how the
agricultural program might be improved, we inves-tigated
possible ways to make it more beneficial to
wildlife and ways to use better management prac-tices.
We learned that in fitting the agricultural pro-gram
with our wildlife conservation goals, our
alternatives varied by small percentages in how
many acres were devoted to row crops, pasture, and
hayfields. Currently about 4,500 acres are farmed as
row crops. We looked at alternatives that ranged
from 4,300 to 4,800 acres of row crops. Our proposed
plan would maintain about 4,400 acres in row crops.
Currently about 1,000 acres of pasture are grazed.
All the alternatives we looked at would maintain
those acres. Currently about 700 acres are hayed.
We looked at alternatives that ranged from 500 to
700 acres of hayfields. Our proposed plan would
maintain about 600 acres in hay fields.
We do not plan to make large changes in the
number of acres that are a part of the agricultural
program. Rather, we propose to place greater
emphasis on conservation practices that would pro-vide
more benefits to wildlife and improve water
quality. We plan to address erosion with buffer
strips and discontinue farming in wetlands. We plan
to permit cooperator farmers to harvest corn
remaining in the field in the spring. To better pro-tect
nesting birds, we plan to limit mowing of clover
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
ix
and hayfields until after August 1. We propose to
change pastures from fescue grass to other cool-sea-son
and native warm-season grasses with higher
wildlife value. We will divide existing pastures into
three or four paddocks and cattle will be rotated
among the paddocks during the season. We will ask
for technical oversight from the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and the University of Illinois
Extension for our agricultural program.
Industry on the Refuge was identified by the
public as an issue only in the context of its contribu-tion
to the regional economy. We were concerned
about how to manage industry because of past con-tamination
and the aging infrastructure of build-ings,
roads, water, and sewer lines. Most of the
manufacturing and storage buildings are reaching
the limits of their expected lifetime. The buildings
require a lot of maintenance and refurbishing to
meet today’s standards. Recently, several industrial
parks have been developed nearby that offer ameni-ties
not available on the Refuge.
Of the industries on the Refuge, the munitions
industry is in a unique position of requiring widely
spaced facilities for safety reasons. By providing a
safe area for munitions manufacture, the Refuge is
able to contribute to and support the national
defense. We plan to continue to provide an area for
defense munitions manufacture. We will encourage
new industrial expansion in the neighboring indus-trial
parks with newer facilities. We plan to maintain
water and sewer infrastructure sufficient for cur-rent
industrial tenants. We will expect industrial
tenants to bring their facilities up to prescribed
safety, health, environmental and maintenance stan-dards
under all new leases. Our intent is to consoli-date
the areas occupied by industry. We considered
discontinuing the use of facilities as they were
vacated, which would hasten the move of non-muni-tions
industry off the Refuge. However, we did not
think this would be an efficient use of resources. So,
if tenants do not renew leases, we plan to seek suit-able
tenants for facilities that meet standards of
occupancy.
Refuge’s Role in the Local
Economy
In the early stages of planning we learned that
several citizens perceive recreation, agriculture, and
industry on the Refuge as important to the economy
of Southern Illinois. We asked a technical expert to
help us determine the role of the Refuge in the local
economy and the possible effects the alternatives
that we were considering might have on the local
economy. The general finding is that the Refuge
contributes millions of dollars to the economy of
Jackson and Williamson Counties, but the contribu-tion
is a small percentage of the total economy. The
impacts of the Refuge operating budget and the rec-reation
that occurs on the Refuge account for less
than 1 percent of the total economy and employment
in the two-county study area. The Refuge crop value
is more than 10 percent of the total Williamson
County crop value. Grazing value on the Refuge is
about 8 percent of the grazing value for Williamson
County. For commercial and industrial space, the
Refuge accounts for just over one percent of indus-trial/
commercial site acreage in the Greater Marion
area.
Communication With the
Community
As we began planning it was apparent to us that
the Refuge administration could do a better job of
communicating with the community. Our observa-tion
was confirmed by comments made by citizens
during open houses and focus groups. Because the
topic is important to us and the successful accom-plishment
of the Refuge mission, we established a
goal that addressed the understanding of the Ref-uge
by the community and staff receptiveness to
concerns of the public. We plan to improve our com-munication
with the public by regularly reviewing
USFWS
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
x
comments from the public, providing reports on the
“State of the Refuge,” and supporting selected com-munity
events.
Wilderness
Our refuge planning policy requires us to exam-ine
existing Wilderness and the potential for desig-nating
additional lands as Wilderness. We
recommend that the Wilderness Management Plan
that was approved in 1985 be reviewed for possible
revision. The plan will need to be revised if horse-back
use is to be officially recognized as an appro-priate
use in the Wilderness. We reviewed the
entire Refuge for possible additions to the Wilder-ness.
We identified two tracts that total 120 acres
and are surrounded by Wilderness and meet the cri-teria
for Wilderness Study Areas. We propose that
these tracts be recommended for Wilderness desig-nation
by the U.S. Congress.
Affected Environment
This section reviews the main points of the physi-cal
and social environment and current management
of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. For a
more complete and detailed description, see Chap-ter
3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Physical Environment
Low relief, broad valleys, and relatively well-developed
drainage systems characterize the north-ern
portion of the Refuge. The southern portion con-sists
of narrow ridges dissected by deep, narrow
valleys with steep slopes and numerous sandstone
outcrops. Water quality, drainage modification,
shoreline erosion and sedimentation remain ongoing
concerns for water bodies on the Refuge. Refuge
waters are impacted by agricultural runoff, waste-water
treatment effluent, urban runoff, stream
channelization, and industrial contaminants.
Crab Orchard Lake, which was created in 1938, is
the oldest, largest, and most heavily used lake on
the Refuge. Created for water supply and recre-ation
purposes, it is no longer used as a source for
industrial or drinking water. Little Grassy Lake was
impounded in 1950 as a recreation resource and
today is most commonly used for sport fishing. Dev-ils
Kitchen Lake was impounded in 1959 as a recre-ation
resource and today is most commonly used for
sport fishing. Devils Kitchen is one of the deepest
and clearest lakes in Illinois.
Following World War II and the transfer of the
War Department's Illinois Ordnance Plant to the
Department of the Interior, explosives production
continued to be the principal industry on the prop-erty.
New industries moved into buildings formerly
used by wartime companies. A number of locations
on the Refuge were contaminated with hazardous
substances as a result of handling and disposal
methods that were once considered acceptable.
Approximately $85 million has been spent so far for
investigation and clean up of contaminated sites.
Investigation and cleanup are continuing at several
sites in existing and former industrial areas. These
activities are expected to continue into the foresee-able
future.
Habitat
The landcover of the Refuge area has changed
dramatically in the last 200 years. The area that is
now the Refuge was 90-95 percent forest prior to
European settlement. During the late 1800s and the
first half of the 1900s, nearly all of the area was
either logged for timber or cleared and converted to
other uses, particularly agriculture. By the 1930s,
the soils in the area were depleted and eroding.
Starting in 1938, the Resettlement Administration
acquired 32,000 acres of the land along Crab
Orchard Creek in an effort to prevent further deg-radation.
Additional clearing and development
occurred with the establishment of the Illinois Ord-nance
Plant during World War II. The changes in
Refuge landcover since 1807 can be summarized as
follows: the original hardwood forest was converted
to open habitats of agricultural fields and open
water by the 1930s. The forests that exist today are
pine plantations or hardwood forest in an earlier
USFWS seral stage than the forests of the past. Savannah (7
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xi
percent of original area) and native prairie (1 per-cent
of original area) have been completely con-verted
to other habitats. The overall result has been
the fragmentation of the hardwood forest and an
increase in aquatic habitats with the construction of
the lakes. The current land cover for the Refuge is
displayed in Figure 4. .
About 56 percent of the Refuge is covered by for-est.
Examples of wildlife that use Refuge forests are
deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls, and a variety
of forest bird species. A Refuge goal has been to
manage for productive oak-hickory forest domi-nated
by native species. Management activities have
included tree planting, prescribed burning, thin-ning,
and control of exotic and invasive plants.
About 2 percent of the Refuge is covered by shru-bland.
Examples of wildlife that use shrubland are
deer, rabbit, loggerhead shrike, Bell's vireo, and
field sparrow. Most Refuge shrubland is the result
of abandoning farm and industrial areas.
About 4 percent of the Refuge is covered by
grassland. Examples of wildlife that use grassland
are deer, rabbit, northern bobwhite, grasshopper
sparrow, loggerhead shrike, dickcissel, and eastern
meadowlark. The majority of Refuge grassland is
managed pasture (55 percent) and hay (35 percent)
with the remainder (10 percent) represented by
planted, native warm-season grasses. Management
activities have included planting agricultural land to
native grasses, prescribed fire, mowing, control of
exotic and invasive plants, and fertilizing
Before European settlement, there was little wet-land
habitat in the area. Most wetland habitat on the
Refuge consists of man-made ponds and lakes. Wet-lands
cover about 6 percent of the Refuge. Exam-ples
of wildlife that use wetlands are Canada geese,
other waterfowl, herons, raccoons, turtles, frogs,
and other amphibians and reptiles. The majority of
the wetlands are bottomland hardwood forests
(1,900 acres) and moist-soil units (450 acres).
About 20 percent of the Refuge is covered by
open water, almost all of it in man-made reservoirs.
Open water serves as habitat for warm-water sport
fish, waterfowl and other waterbirds. Management
activities include maintenance of dams, levees, and
water control structures, and manipulation of water
levels.
About 10 percent of the Refuge is covered by
cropland. Examples of wildlife that use cropland are
deer, Canada goose, northern bobwhite, and turkey.
Management activities include mowing, disking,
planting, herbicide and fertilizer application, and
harvesting.
Invasive, exotic and noxious weed species are rel-atively
abundant on the Refuge. These species are
quite diverse and are found in most Refuge habitats,
including agricultural fields, lakes and ponds.
Current Role of Fire
We use prescribed fire to manipulate vegetation
in a safe and cost-effective manner. Our principal
purpose is to improve the wildlife habitat conditions
in the southern pine plantations. Prescribed burning
also reduces hazardous fuels, encourages oak and
hickory and discourages sugar maple. Burning
improves the condition of the understory. And,
although burning is not undertaken for these pur-poses,
burning enhances the aesthetics of the forest
by making the understory more open and improves
access for both habitat management and recreation.
Areas identified as “fallow herbaceous fields” are
old fields that have been invaded by low, woody veg-etation
and vines and are in an early seral stage. We
use fire to maintain the openings and habitat diver-sity
of these lands.
Tallgrass prairie has been established on several
areas on the Refuge. Prescribed fire stimulates
growth of the grasses, increases seed germination
and growth of forbs, creates open ground for wild-life,
retards encroachment of woody vegetation, and
reduces the fuel load.
Wildlife
Forty-three species of mammals have been
recorded in or near the Refuge. Whitetailed deer,
USFWS
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xii
Virginia opossum, raccoon, rabbits, squirrels, bea- ver, and coyote are commonly seen on the Refuge.
Figure 4: Current Land Cover Type, Crab Orchard NWR
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xiii
Two-hundred sixty-nine species of birds have
been recorded in or near the Refuge. Herons, Can-ada
geese and other waterfowl, raptors, wild turkey,
and songbirds are commonly seen on the Refuge.
Refuge records indicate that there were only
about 2,200 Canada geese on the Refuge in 1947.
Establishing a large, wintering population was a pri-ority
of early Refuge management. Refuge staff
kept pinioned or penned geese as a decoy flock to
attract migrating geese and emphasized production
of corn and other grains in the Refuge farm pro-gram
to provide food for wintering geese. Canada
geese quickly responded; in 1948 the peak count on
the Refuge was 24,000. The average peak count
from 1947 to 2001 was 82,000.
Twenty species of amphibians and 28 species of
reptiles have been recorded on the Refuge. Cricket
frog, Fowler's toad, bullfrog, painted turtle, eastern
box turtle, racer, and diamondback water snake are
commonly seen on the Refuge. Prior to dam con-struction,
fish habitat in the area consisted prima-rily
of the larger, named streams. Over the last half-century,
most fish habitat has been provided by the
three large lakes and eight smaller manmade
impoundments. Fish management on the Refuge
has emphasized mixed-species, warm-water sport
fish. Since 1995, the fisheries on the Refuge have
been managed cooperatively by Illinois Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Refuge.
Monitoring
We, along with staff from the IDNR and volun-teers,
survey wildlife use. We use the survey infor-mation
in Refuge management. Others use the
information to support state and national conserva-tion
efforts.
Public Use Resources and Trends
Swimming, boating, picnicking, dog trials, camp-ing,
hunting and fishing were a part of the Crab
Orchard Creek Project before the establishment of
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. A wide
spectrum of recreational activities continue to occur
on and around Crab Orchard, Devils Kitchen and
Little Grassy lakes. The activities include boating,
water skiing, swimming, camping, picnicking, hunt-ing,
fishing, wildlife observation, environmental
education, environmental interpretation, horseback
riding, and photography. Public use facilities include
campgrounds, marinas, boat ramps, fishing piers,
beaches, picnic areas, hiking trails, auto tour, visitor
center, environmental education complex, observa-tion
decks, and photo blinds.
Small game, big game, and migratory waterfowl
are hunted on the Refuge. Most hunting occurs
within approximately 23,000 acres open to all hunt-ing
activities in accordance with State hunting sea-sons.
Hunting includes muzzle loader, archery,
shotgun and pistol deer hunting, waterfowl hunting,
archery and shotgun wild turkey hunting, small
game hunting, game bird hunting and furbearer
hunting.
Fishing is one of the more popular visitor pas-times
on the Refuge. People fish in Crab Orchard,
Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen Lakes. The main
species of fish sought by the anglers are largemouth
bass, crappie, bluegill and channel catfish. Five fish-ing
tournaments are held annually on the Refuge's
three lakes under special use permit. The three
major lakes receive a lot of visits from fishing clubs
hosting club events called “fish-offs” – an organized
club fishing event of 20 boats or fewer. The Refuge
registered over 130 fish-offs in 2001 and more occur
without being registered.
At one time camping was allowed throughout
open areas of the Refuge. Because of litter and trash
problems, we restricted camping to a concession-operated
campground on each of the three major
lakes. Crab Orchard Campground began operation
in 1964 as a concession. Little Grassy and Devils
Kitchen Campgrounds are concession-operated
campgrounds and marinas. Crab Orchard Boat &
Yacht Club, a private organization, operates a
marina and a campground.
Wildlife observation is the most popular activity
occurring on the Refuge, and there are many good
observation areas on the Refuge. Points of interest,
trails, auto tours and viewing blinds have been
developed in an effort to encourage and enhance
wildlife viewing. Refuge volunteers maintain seven
trails that are open to the general public and one
trail that is provided for educational purposes only.
Numerous fire trails have served as hiking trails on
the Refuge.
Boating has long been a popular activity on the
Refuge. When Crab Orchard Lake was completed in
1938, it was the largest man-made lake in Illinois.
The Refuge offers boating on Crab Orchard, Devils
Kitchen, and Little Grassy lakes. Crab Orchard
Lake has 14 public boat launching facilities; three
ramps are provided on Devils Kitchen Lake; four
are provided at Little Grassy Lake.
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xiv
At one time the Refuge supported six public
beaches -- four on Crab Orchard Lake and one each
on Devils Kitchen Lake and Little Grassy Lake.
Today swimming is allowed in Crab Orchard and
Little Grassy lakes and prohibited in Devils Kitchen
Lake.
From the late 1940s through the 1960s, picnick-ing
was a very popular activity on the Refuge.
Today picnicking is encouraged in four locations on
the Refuge. The areas vary in size, character and
type of use.
Four group camps are located on Little Grassy
Lake. The camps operate under a cooperative
agreement with the Refuge. About 20,000 campers
participate in group camping activities on the Ref-uge
each year. The Refuge provides educational
assistance to area teachers, educators, and Refuge
group camps.
Refuge staff, interns, and volunteers present
both on-site and off-site environmental educational
programs to area school groups. Educational mate-rials
(books, posters, videos, and other supplies) are
maintained by the Refuge and are available for loan
to area educators.
Interpretive programs are given by Refuge staff
and volunteers to school, civic and other groups. The
programs are presented through automobile tours,
talks and walks. Some of the better attended pro-grams
include Bald Eagle tours, wildflower walks
and owl prowls. The Refuge also presents its inter-pretive
message through bulletin boards, signs and
wayside exhibits. The Visitor Center consists of an
information and exhibit area, conference room, book
store and office space for visitor services staff. The
Williamson County Tourism Bureau also occupies
office space in the building.
The Refuge maintains an extensive system of
roads within its boundaries. According to a 2001 sur-vey
of Refuge roads completed by the U.S. Depart-ment
of Transportation, the Refuge maintains 38
miles of paved surface roads and 17 miles of gravel
roadway for a total of 56 roadway miles.
Wilderness
Congress designated the Crab Orchard Wilder-ness
as a unit of the National Wilderness Preserva-tion
System in 1976. The 4,050-acre wilderness was
the first in the State of Illinois. The Crab Orchard
Wilderness is located in the extreme southern por-tion
of the Refuge bordering the shores of Devils
Kitchen and Little Grassy lakes.
Industry
When the War Department and Soil Conserva-tion
Service lands were transferred to the Depart-ment
of the Interior in 1947, approximately 1.6
million square feet of space suitable for industrial
leasing were included in the transfer. The industrial
complex currently consists of about 1.2 million
square feet. The Refuge collects about $500,000 in
rental receipts each year. Rental receipts are
returned to the Refuge and are used as part of its
operation and maintenance budget.
Agriculture
The Refuge began farm management in 1948.
The original focus of management was to: 1) reclaim
farmland that had been fallow during ordnance
plant operations, 2) improve soil fertility, 3) improve
farm practices, 4) emphasize establishment of pas-ture,
and 5) use crops to help establish a wintering
flock of Canada geese. Current row crop manage-ment
emphasizes soil protection and integrated pest
management. Management consists of crop rota-tion,
no-till planting, higher weed tolerance,
restricted use of herbicides, and no insecticide use.
The current grazing program consists exclusively of
cattle grazing on fescue pastures. The current hay
program consists of improved timothy fields and
unimproved fields that are mostly old fescue pas-tures.
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xv
Archaeological and Cultural
Values
About 1,000 acres of the Refuge have been sub-jected
to controlled and reported archeological sur-vey
and investigation. One hundred and thirty-six
prehistoric sites have been reported on the Refuge.
In the 1930s farmsteads and small towns covered
the Refuge area. Documents indicate at least 28
farmsteads and habitations, 34 cemeteries, three
churches, 12 schools, and two towns existed within
the Refuge boundaries.
Socioeconomic Environment
Williamson County population grew at a faster
rate than the state but substantially less than the
U.S. from 1980 to 2000. Jackson County lost popula-tion
during this period.
We defined a study area for estimating the eco-nomic
effects of the recreational, agricultural and
commercial use of the Refuge as Williamson and
Jackson counties. Most visitors to the Refuge (about
89 percent) come from within a 50-mile radius of the
Refuge, and about 90 percent of these visitors come
from Williamson and Jackson counties. We esti-mated
the economic impacts of refuge uses and
expenditures on the economy and taxes. The
impacts are large dollar figures, but a small portion
of the total economy.
Current Staff and Budget
The Refuge has a staff of about 30 people. Based
on the annual average Refuge budget between 1996
and 2000, the Refuge budget includes $1.4 million in
salaries and $770,937 in non-salary expenditures.
Partnerships
The Refuge has many partnerships with local,
state, and national organizations. These partner-ships
benefit the Refuge in many ways, including
fostering good community relations and enhancing
Refuge habitats and wildlife populations. In addi-tion,
the Refuge has many dedicated friends and
volunteers that assist with a wide variety of tasks.
The Refuge needs the help and support of partners,
friends, and volunteers to accomplish its mission.
Alternatives Considered
The five alternative approaches to management
that we considered are summarized in the following
paragraphs and table. For a more extended and
detailed discussion of the alternatives, see Chapter
2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Our Preferred Alternative
In selecting a preferred alternative, we consid-ered
environmental, economic, and social factors
and our ability to accomplish the alternatives. We
based our decision on how well the goals of the Ref-uge
were met by each alternative and the environ-mental
consequences of each alternative. We
selected Alternative E as our preferred alternative.
Alternative E will fulfil our statutory mission and
responsibilities, and we have adequate authority to
implement it.
By focussing on relatively small alterations in
land cover, we can gain benefits for both forest and
grassland area-sensitive bird species at a reason-able
cost. In our preferred alternative, as in all
alternatives, we intend to provide food to support a
significant population of wintering Canada geese.
The conflicts experienced among water users is
addressed by increasing areas that are no-wake
zones and a recognition that we need to do better
enforcement of current use zoning regulations.
The agricultural program on the Refuge and its
economic effect will remain pretty much intact. The
industrial program will continue to support the
munitions manufacturing industry and current ten-ants.
By encouraging other industries to locate in
nearby industrial parks, the economic effect of the
Glenn Smart
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xvi
industry will remain in the local economy, and the
needs of the industry will be met more efficiently.
Finally, with a goal, an objective, and strategies for-malized
to better improve communication between
the Refuge and the community, we think we will be
able to do a better job of informing and listening to
the community.
Alternative A: Current
Management (No Action)
Under this alternative the current management
activities at the Refuge would continue. The Refuge
would continue to provide sufficient habitat for the
needs of wintering geese. All current recreation
uses and patterns on the Refuge would continue.
Current industrial policies would remain in place
and the Refuge would provide facilities for the exist-ing
tenants at fair market value rental rates. The
amount of agricultural land would remain fairly con-stant.
However some loss may occur through install-ing
buffer strips needed for soil and water
protection.
Alternative B: Reduced Habitat
Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent
Recreation Emphasis
With Land Exchange
Through the years the Refuge has been criticized
for its lack of support of the recreational purpose of
the Refuge. Recreation on the Refuge drew the
greatest number of comments during the scoping of
issues. When the Refuge was established, the Direc-tor
of the Service assured Congress that the Service
would be able to manage for the four purposes of the
Refuge. In 50 years of management, the Service has
not been able consistently to provide facilities and
management for quality non-wildlife-dependent rec-reational
experiences. Providing for swimming, pic-nicking,
and power boating does not fit well with the
capabilities and resources of the Service. Under this
alternative the non-wildlife-dependent recreation
that would remain the responsibility of the Refuge
would be guided by the philosophy of “consolidate
and improve.” Over the last decade habitat frag-mentation
has been identified as a significant result
of changing land use. Habitat fragmentation is
known to have negative effects on biological diver-sity.
Under this alternative, management emphasis
would be on reducing habitat fragmentation and
reconciling conflicts between the Refuge’s recre-ation
purpose and the Refuge System mission by
focusing on wildlife-dependent recreation on the
Refuge while still providing a full spectrum of recre-ational
activities in the area.
Some of the current management activities at the
Refuge would be modified to provide greater bene-fits
to wildlife. The main point of this alternative is
to offer increased recreational opportunities by
exchanging land in the developed northwestern por-tion
of the Refuge for undeveloped land at another
location.
The Refuge would update the industrial use pol-icy
with the intent of not promoting expansion and
consolidating the areas occupied by industrial ten-ants.
The Service would seek not to compete with
neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant
were to leave the Refuge and their facilities were
suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make
them available for new tenants. The amount of row
crops would decrease slightly. Current acreage of
hay fields and pastures would remain about the
same. All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover
fields would take place after August 1 to protect
nesting birds. The Refuge would convert fescue pas-tures
to other cool-season and native warm-season
grasses over a period of 15 years and modify grazing
regimes to benefit grassland birds.
Alternative C: Open Land
Management: Consolidate and
Improve Recreation
Both grassland and forest species are negatively
affected by habitat fragmentation. Under this alter-native
the Refuge would take advantage of the lands
that are already open and increase the size of exist-ing
large blocks of open land for grassland depen-dent
species, especially birds. The Refuge
recognizes that improvements in the recreation pro-gram
are needed. Under this alternative the Refuge
would satisfy the Refuge’s recreation purpose as
much as possible within Service budget priorities
and expanding emphasis on wildlife-dependent rec-reation.
Under this alternative cropland and grassland
would increase slightly. Pasture and hayfield man-agement
would change to provide more emphasis on
habitat quality for grassland birds. The Refuge
would manage one large forest block to benefit area-
Executive Summary
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP
xvii
sensitive forest birds. To enhance non-wildlife-dependent
recreational activities, the Refuge would
consolidate marinas and picnic areas, upgrade exist-ing
boat ramps and designate times and places for
the various types of boa