Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LOGAN CAVE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Benton County, Arkansas
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
December 2007
Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 3
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 3
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 4
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction and Purposes ............................................................................................................ 5
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 5
Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 9
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 11
Geology and Topography ................................................................................................ 11
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 12
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 12
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 13
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 13
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 13
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 13
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 14
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 15
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 15
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 16
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 16
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 16
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 16
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 17
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 17
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 17
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .................................................................. 17
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................. 18
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 18
Karst Dependent Species ................................................................................................. 18
Neotropical Migratory Birds ............................................................................................... 19
Habitat Management .................................................................................................................. 19
Logan Cave ....................................................................................................................... 19
Logan Stream .................................................................................................................... 19
Surface Habitat ................................................................................................................. 20
Land Protection .......................................................................................................................... 20
Recharge zone .................................................................................................................. 20
Land Protection .......................................................................................................................... 20
ii Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Recharge zone ................................................................................................................. 20
Bat Foraging Area ............................................................................................................. 20
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 21
Scientific Monitoring and Research .................................................................................. 21
Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 21
Funding and Staffing ......................................................................................................... 21
Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 21
Fences/Gates/Boundary Signs ......................................................................................... 21
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 23
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 25
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 25
Goal 4. Education and Visitor Services ........................................................................ 31
Goal 5. Refuge Administration ..................................................................................... 32
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 35
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 35
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 35
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 35
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 37
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 38
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 38
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 39
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 39
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 39
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 39
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 40
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 41
SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 43
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 43
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 43
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 43
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 44
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 44
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 44
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 44
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 47
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 49
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 49
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 49
Alternative 1 - (Current Management) .............................................................................. 49
ALTERNATIVE 2 - (No management) .............................................................................. 50
Table of Contents iii
Alternative 3 - (Proposed Alternative) ............................................................................... 50
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 51
Resource Management ..................................................................................................... 51
Compatible Uses ............................................................................................................... 51
Other Management ........................................................................................................... 51
Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 51
Refuge Revenue Sharing .................................................................................................. 52
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 59
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 59
Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................ 59
Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 59
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 59
Other Management ........................................................................................................... 60
Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 60
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 60
Refuge Revenue-Sharing .................................................................................................. 60
Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 61
Summary of Effects by Alternative ............................................................................................. 61
Alternative 1 - CURRENT MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 61
Alternative 3 - Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 61
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 62
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ............................................. 63
Wildlife Disturbance .......................................................................................................... 63
Vegetation Disturbance ..................................................................................................... 63
User Group Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 63
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 63
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 64
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 64
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 64
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 65
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 67
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ........................................................ 79
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................. 81
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 93
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................. 95
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 101
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................... 107
iv Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 113
Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review ........................................................................ 113
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................... 115
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 117
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 117
Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 118
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Logan Cave NWR ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Management boundary for Logan Cave NWR ...................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Ark/Red Rivers Ecosystem .................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Recharge area for Logan Cave NWR showing priority areas for protection ........................ 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 40
Table 2. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ................... 41
Table 3. Comparison of the alternatives for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 53
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive
first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as
long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for
which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year plan period. This Draft CCP/EA describes
the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their
effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to State and Federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was
established;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans and
contributes to the mission of the ecosystem in which it is located; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and the public’s
participation in carrying out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies,
organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance
the mission of national wildlife refuges.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
2 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Act
(Act), which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System. The Act established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to
complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with
full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural
resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be
managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The National Wildlife Refuge System hosts over 38 million annual visitors. Economists found that
these refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to local economies. In 2001, on
conservation lands throughout the nation, approximately 37.8 million people participated in wildlife-related
activities, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These visitors represented nearly
40 percent of the county’s adults who spent $108 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 2001, according
to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau 2002).
As visitation continues to grow on conservation lands and waters in general, and specifically on
refuges, adjacent local communities are realizing significant economic benefits.
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority
public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated, where appropriate, into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports the Recovery Plans for the Gray Bat, Indiana Bat, Ozark Cavefish
(Amblyopsis rosae), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) and Partners for Amphibians and
Reptile Conservation (PARC) Plan.
4 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Recovery Plan. This plan was completed in 1982, and provides
priorities for protection and management of caves, guidelines for protection of foraging habitat, public
education, and monitoring procedures. Logan Cave NWR was purchased mainly to protect the
maternity gray bat colony that uses the cave.
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Recovery Plan. The original plan was approved in 1983, and revised
in 1999, by the Indiana Bat Recovery Team. The plan provides the current status of the Indiana bat,
habitat requirements, and limiting factors and actions needed for recovery.
Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) Recovery Plan. This plan was completed in 1989, and outlines
distribution, status, habitat requirements, limiting factors, and causes of decline for the Ozark cavefish.
Several of the recovery actions listed in the plan have been implemented at Logan Cave NWR.
Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) Recovery Plan. This species was listed as
endangered in 1993, and the recovery plan was completed in 1996. At that time, C. aculabrum was
known to exist in only two caves in northwest Arkansas: Logan Cave and Bear Hollow Cave. Since then,
two additional populations were discovered although together they only represent a total of two crayfish.
The plan outlines known habitat requirements, limiting factors, and actions needed for recovery.
Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation Plan. This plan was founded in 1998, to
address the need for conservation of herpetofauna – amphibians and reptiles – and their habitats. Its
mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of the ecosystem and
culture through proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent
agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and
collaboration with other State fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the
course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas and national
wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the State of Arkansas.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) is a State-partnering agency with the
Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered
species, as well as managing State natural resources, including over 100 lakes and wildlife
management areas spanning thousands of acres. The AGFC has a perpetual goal to improve
hunting and fishing opportunities for the sportsmen of the State, but it also realizes that a
healthy environment for our fish and wildlife assures a healthy environment for the citizens of
Arkansas. The AGFC’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will
provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological diversity of fish
and wildlife in Arkansas. A vital part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is
integrating common mission objectives where appropriate.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSES
Logan Cave NWR covers 123 acres near the northwest corner of Benton County, Arkansas (Figures
1 and 2), and includes a limestone solution cave with approximately 1.5 miles of passageways.
Logan Cave NWR was established in 1989, to protect cave inhabitants, including the endangered
gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Benton cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), and the threatened Ozark
cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). The cave also has historically provided habitat for the endangered
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).
There are only two known entry points for the cave: the sinkhole and spring. The sinkhole, located on
a forested hillside, consists of a steep-sided funnel shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter.
The spring entrance is located on a hillside under an overhang rock bluff. Most of the refuge consists
of hillsides, which support a mature climax community of oak and hickory.
Groundwater surfacing within the cave forms a stream that flows throughout the cave, and at the
outfall, forms Logan Spring, which drains to Osage Creek just south of the refuge. Osage Creek is a
major tributary of the Illinois River, which is the main drainage in southwestern Benton County, and
their confluence is about 1.2 miles south of the refuge. In past years, spring water from the cave had
a measured flow of approximately 5 million gallons per day and supplied the Logan community, a fish
hatchery, and 49 fish ponds.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Logan Cave NWR is located within the Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem (Ark/Red), which contains
approximately 245,000 square miles and extends from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the
bayous of Louisiana, and includes all of Oklahoma and parts of seven other states, including western
parts of Arkansas (Figure 3). Elevations within the Ark/Red range from over 14,000 feet ngvd
(national geodetic vertical datum) to less than 300 feet ngvd along the Red River in Louisiana.
Because of the diversity in land forms, soils, average annual precipitation, and other factors, the
Ark/Red supports the greatest diversity of fish and wildlife and wildlife resources of any Service
ecosystem nationwide.
There are 16 defined ecoregions that occur within the Ark/Red. One of these ecoregions is the Ozark
Highlands. The Ozark Highlands Ecoregion (approximately 50,000 square miles) is in the States of
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and a small portion of Kansas. It is a dome-shaped uplift composed of
four distinct areas (Boston Mountains, St. Francois Mountains, Salem Plateau, and Springfield Plateau).
Logan Cave NWR is located within the Springfield Plateau of the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion.
The highest elevations reach above 1,500 feet ngvd, with the general slope of the area to the
southwest, and drainage primarily to the Illinois and Neosho rivers. The natural communities of this
ecoregion are dominated by a western extension of the oak-hickory forest. More mesic floodplain
forests occur along the major streams of the region. Another dominant feature of the Ozarks
Highlands Ecoregion is the extensive network of cave habitats formed in the underlying limestone
bedrock. Numerous rare, endangered, and endemic fish and wildlife species are associated with and
are dependent upon these habitats. The most critical resource issues in the Ark/Red center on
management of water quality and quantity.
6 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Logan Cave NWR
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 2. Management boundary for Logan Cave NWR
8 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Ark/Red Rivers Ecosystem
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Factors most likely to limit or cause a decline in the species inhabiting Logan Cave include the
following: (1) destruction of habitat, including water quality degradation; (2) disturbance by cavers or
trespassers; (3) collecting; and (4) low reproductive potential of cave fauna.
1. Groundwater contamination problems are common in cave regions. Unfortunately, most of the
public perceives that the subsurface cleanses wastewater and subsurface disposal of waste is
practical and harmless. Most of the water which enters caves and spring systems, such as Logan
Cave, does not receive effective natural cleansing. Thomas Aley of the Ozark Underground
laboratory mapped the recharge areas for Logan Spring in 1987, and delineated the areas into the
following categories:
A) Low Hazard Areas: These are lands located near, yet apparently outside of the Logan
Spring recharge areas.
B) Moderate Hazard Areas: These are lands which are topographically tributary to the Logan
Spring recharge area. Groundwaters directly beneath these areas do not appear to
routinely discharge through Logan Spring. Under moderate- and high-flow conditions,
some waters from these areas will enter the groundwater systems and discharge through
Logan Spring.
C) High Hazard Areas: These are lands which are known or presumed to lie within the
groundwater recharge area for Logan Spring. High Hazard Areas exclude losing stream
valleys and areas which contribute groundwater solely to Logan Spring.
D) Extremely High Hazard Areas: These are losing stream valleys in the Logan Spring
recharge area, or are lands which contribute groundwater solely to Logan Spring.
According to Aley, two major classes of land-use activities occur in the Logan Cave recharge zones
and surrounding areas: residential/light commercial development and agriculture. If runoff of high
concentrations of harmful biological (i.e., fecal Coliform, E. coli) or chemical (i.e., pesticides)
pollutants occur, or high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates are present, a biological oxygen
demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) can occur and place an abnormal oxygen
demand on the aquatic cave, spring, and river fauna. The following are some potential impacts of
land use activities in the recharge areas of Logan Spring:
Agriculture and waste disposal activities: Numerous farms with cattle, hogs, and poultry operate
within the recharge areas of Logan Cave and produce substantial quantities of animal waste. Large
quantities of animal waste entering groundwater will deplete dissolved oxygen in subsurface water
and can severely impact aquatic cave fauna. Adequate treatment of animal wastes is typically
expensive and often not attempted. There is no incentive from local or Federal Government agencies
to encourage adequate and careful disposal of large quantities of animal waste in Arkansas, therefore
the cheapest and easiest disposal method is utilized: land application. The waste does serve as
fertilizer and can enhance grass production in most areas. The farmers are usually left to apply the
waste as often as they feel necessary and unfortunately without much regard to runoff effects. In
karst areas like Logan Cave, waste can significantly impact groundwater quality if it rapidly enters
groundwater systems, especially after rainfall sufficient to cause overland runoff following a recent
land application of animal waste.
10 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Residential and commercial land development: Since the construction and operation of the
Northwest Regional Airport at Highfill, Arkansas, land values in the vicinity of the cave have increased
substantially, with a great deal of real estate development and road construction in the areas
surrounding Logan Cave. With the residential development boom, commercial development will
inevitably follow. Leaks and spills of hazardous materials occur frequently from roads and
commercial businesses. A substantial amount of the groundwater contamination from residential and
commercial development occurs from inadequate sewage disposal systems. Septic field systems
routinely use on-lot disposal in most of northwest Arkansas’ karst region, which produces
groundwater contamination and pollution. The potential of this impending groundwater contamination
is sufficient to endanger cave fauna.
Increasing utilization of the water in the cave poses a threat to the aquatic habitat and the cave’s
aquatic species. A past attempt to drill into the reservoir of water in the cave was unsuccessful.
The shaft entered the cave but missed the water, despite surveying by a geologist to direct the
drilling. Current and future surveying techniques would make drilling directly into the cave stream
possible. Water is currently being pumped from the pool, which is formed by the spring to supply a
large poultry operation, several residences, and a plant/tree nursery. During periods of drought, the
water pumped from the spring could affect water levels within the cave stream, which would obviously
have a negative impact on the cave’s aquatic habitat and species.
Transportation and pipeline routes: Construction and maintenance of roads and pipelines can cause
sediments to enter groundwater systems. This problem can be avoided through the use of good current
methods to reduce surface soil erosion. Leaks and spills that could occur in the recharge area for Logan
Cave’s groundwater system could have a serious effect on the water quality and cave fauna.
Loss of foraging habitat for the gray bat: Development within the recharge area of the cave and
along the Osage River and surrounding woodlands is decreasing the foraging area for the Logan
Cave gray bat maternity colony. In 1968, 59 percent of the recharge area was forested; this had
decreased to 43 percent by 1987, and has steadily decreased until the only forested areas are
along creek bottoms or ridge tops where it’s too steep for livestock or poultry operations. Adult
gray bats feed on insects almost exclusively over water and in forest canopies along river or
reservoir edges. Also, whenever possible, gray bats of all ages fly in the protection of forest
canopy between caves and feeding areas for increased protection from predators, such as
screech owls. Construction of houses, paving of roads, and clearing of forests impose a risk of
lower water quality for this karst area. Insects that the bats feed on are quite sensitive to aquatic
pollution. Logan Cave’s gray bat maternity colony may decrease as the forest canopy declines
and development with the inevitable chemical pollution and siltation of the waterways over which
the gray bats forage increases.
2. Trespass into Logan Cave has been frequent in the past. Extensive writing on the walls
record visits by people from the 1930s until the present. The spring entrance was gated in 1998,
and the sinkhole was fenced in 2005. Trespass decreased greatly since both entrances were
fenced and gated. But, despite protection afforded the cave, trespass by cavers will continue to
be a problem. Disturbance by cavers impacts the physical condition of individual cavefish and
crayfish. Obligate cave dwellers have a low metabolic level and have limited opportunities to
feed and reproduce. Physical activity that results from disturbances uses up energy that normally
would be used in feeding or reproduction for the cavefish and crayfish. Physical disturbance is a
direct threat because it agitates stream bottom sediments, causing turbidity and reduced visibility,
which greatly increases the likelihood that a crayfish or cavefish may be stepped on, causing
injury or mortality. Disturbances can interrupt breeding or feeding activities of the crayfish,
cavefish, and gray bat, along with other cave species. It is especially important to protect the
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
maternity colony of gray bats at Logan Cave because both the crayfish and cavefish rely
indirectly or directly on the bat guano (organic input) for food. Disturbance inside the cave or
near the cave entrances could result in bat mortality, abandonment of the cave, and the loss of
an energy source for the crayfish and cavefish.
3. Most troglobitic (cave-adapted) species have a low reproductive rate and need a relatively long
period to reach maturity. Removal of any cave crayfish or cavefish by collectors will affect the ability
of the species to reproduce. Loss of mature individuals capable of reproducing obviously causes a
decline in population levels.
4. Although the cave entrances are owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service and are protected, most
of the recharge zone for Logan Cave, Logan Spring, and foraging areas for the bats is privately
owned. Past water quality studies by the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville have shown that the
Logan Cave stream has good water quality with the exception of high fecal coliform counts in the
summer, indicating heavy agricultural use of the watershed that should be monitored carefully along
with dissolved oxygen that could also be affected by agricultural and residential material.
Maintaining the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at Logan Cave will require more than preventing
trespass into the cave and protecting recharge zones. It will require educating adjacent landowners
and others about the sensitivity of karst systems, and it will take an ecosystem approach to protecting
the variety of resources dependent on northwest Arkansas’ karst topography through partnerships
with private landowners, conservation and caving organizations, universities, and State and Federal
conservation agencies. With the help of these partners, management agreements can be developed
with private landowners, and easements and lands can be purchased from willing sellers.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Because of its geographic location, northwest Arkansas’ weather is characterized by sudden and
dramatic changes in temperature and climate as warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico battles it
out with cold air from Canada and hot dry air from the southwest. The average high temperature
is 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the average low is 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The recorded high and
low temperatures are 114 degrees Fahrenheit and -15 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.
Average rainfall is 45 inches and the average snowfall is 12 inches. The first frost of the cold
season typically occurs between October 9 and October 13, and the last frost of the season
typically occurs between April 8 and April 19.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Logan Cave, is located in the NW ¼ NE ¼ Section 33, T18N, R32W, Benton County,
Arkansas. The elevation of Logan Spring (lower entrance) is 1,040 feet and the sinkhole
entrance is at 1,100 feet. This area is typical of the Ozarks with rocky soils, numerous
caves, losing streams, springs and underground rivers. The landscape around Logan Cave is
picturesque with gently rolling hills, springs, streams, pasture and wooded hillsides giving way
to the Osage Creek valley.
Geographically, Logan Cave NWR is located within the Springfield Plateau geologic province on
the southwest flank of the Ozark Dome, which is a broad uplift centered in southeast Missouri.
The Springfield Plateau is comprised of bedrock units formed from sediments deposited by
Paleozoic seas. These bedrock units dip gently to the south, and many are cut by normal faults
12 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
with downward motion on their south sides. The upper part of the Springfield Plateau is
composed of cherty limestone of the Lower Mississippian Boone Formation, which is underlain by
chert-free limestone of the St. Joe Formation.
Logan Cave is underlain by generally flat-lying bedrock of the Boone Formation, or possibly by the St.
Joe Formation. Chattanooga Shale is mapped just beyond the southern boundary of the refuge so it
probably underlies the Boone or St. Joe Formation at shallow depths below the refuge. The shale is
exposed to the south because elevations in the area decrease to the south. A normal fault is mapped
along the east boundary of the refuge. The regional water table, which occurs in the St. Joe-Boone
aquifer, has been mapped at a depth of 75 feet in the vicinity of the sinkhole entrance to Logan Cave.
It seems that Logan Cave may have formed because ground water perched on chert beds or low-permeability
limestone beds flowed preferentially through fractures formed by tectonic activity on the
nearby fault, resulting in dissolution of surrounding limestone.
SOILS
According to the Soil Survey of Benton County, Arkansas, Clarksville series soils cover the majority of
the hill slopes near Logan Cave, whereas Nixa series soils cover the ridge tops. Clarksville soils form
from very cherty limestone and generally consist of a cherty silt loam with high permeability and
moderate strength. These soils typically are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System as silty, clayey, or poorly graded gravel. The fine-grained fraction of Clarksville
soils is non-plastic to slightly plastic and has low potential for swelling and shrinking with variations in
moisture content. Nixa series soils are very similar to Clarksville soils, except that the Nixa soils have
very low permeability. Both soil series generally are brown to yellowish brown, although the Nixa
soils grade to reddish brown near bedrock. Both soil series grade into weathered bedrock and fill
fractures within the upper parts of the bedrock.
HYDROLOGY
The Boone and St. Joe Formations form the dominant groundwater aquifer in northwestern Arkansas.
Chert content within the Boone Formation ranges from a few to 70 percent, and laterally extensive
chert layers have been observed to perch groundwater at different zones within the formation.
Overall, groundwater within the Boone-St. Joe aquifer is perched upon the underlying Chattanooga
Shale. Both the Boone and St. Joe Formations are dissected by numerous caves and solution
channels. Groundwater flow within the Boone-St. Joe aquifer occurs preferentially through solution
channels (including caves), fault zones, and fractures. The widespread occurrence of solution
channels also affects surface water, resulting in disappearing streams and springs throughout the
area. More than 90 percent of springs in northwest Arkansas, with discharge in excess
of 3.4 million gallons per day, are within 1,600 feet of faults, and many fault zones and fault-related
fractures have associated parallel caves and solution channels that formed by preferential
groundwater flow.
The recharge zone for Logan Cave is described by Aley and Aley (1987) as 3.108 ha in an area lying
north and east of the cave entrance. The recharge zone is the surface and groundwater regions that
contribute water to the Logan Cave stream and spring. Nearly the entire recharge zone for Logan
Cave is underlain by the Boone Formation. The surface streams are primarily discrete losing streams
that flow through mostly agricultural land. In 1968, 59 percent of the recharge zone was forested; this
had decreased to 43 percent by 1987, and has steadily decreased until the only forested areas are
along creek bottoms or ridge tops where it’s too steep for livestock or poultry operations.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
AIR QUALITY
Benton County ranks high in the state and the nation for smog and air borne pollutants and is at the
top of the list of Arkansas counties for pollutants due to animal waste (primarily poultry). Air quality in
the area of the refuge is good because of its mostly rural nature. Local industries and urban
concentrations of vehicles lessen the overall air quality of the county.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Caves, their recharge zones, and surrounding habitats are extremely important to certain species.
The flora and fauna in and around caves serve as an indicator of the Ozark’s environmental quality
because it suffers from a number of the same factors affecting the human environment. Groundwater
quality is vital to the health of most cave dwellers, as well as to the region’s people who rely on wells
for water. Such is the case with Logan Cave.
During the 1990s, water quality was tested in Logan Cave and compared with water quality of surface
streams within the recharge area. Water quality measurements for the cave system were strongly
correlated with water quality of the surface streams. All water quality sample parameters showed no
significant difference between surface and cave streams. Water quality for Logan Cave and the
recharge streams were well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits for
environmental compounds except for fecal coliform. Fecal coliform counts were always above the
EPA drinking water standards. Similar comparisons between Logan Cave and recharge streams
were noted for conductivity, phosphorus and total phosphorus. Alkalinity for Logan Cave was
comparable to the other highland streams. Water samples tested for heavy metals and pesticides fell
within the domestic water supply standards set forth by the EPA.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The Logan Cave area has a very diverse habitat which includes representatives of several Ozark
Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, floodplain, marshland, bottomland
hardwood, upland deciduous, and a small prairie. Logan Cave’s ecology has been described as the
highest quality cave habitat in the entire Ozark region. The cave entrances provide particularly rich
habitat and consist of extensive rock overhangs with subdued lighting that maintains a higher
humidity than the surrounding oak-hickory forest. The resulting environment supports a variety of
plant and animal life forms.
A spring-fed stream, with an average water flow of 5 million gallons per day, extends the entire length
of the cave. This stream, fed by small springs that emanate from the cave, flows into a natural oxbow
lake and then into the Osage Creek, a large tributary of the Illinois River.
The northwestern third of the refuge consists of hillsides which support a mature climax community of
oak and hickory. The climax forest growing on the slopes surrounding the cave’s sinkhole entrance
provides natural organic litter to the cave ecosystem for a food energy base. Leaves that fall through
the sinkhole and into the stream are the base energy source for the cave’s aquatic fauna. Upstream
from the sinkhole, the cave area contains several large seeps which cascade down the walls from the
ceiling. These seeps introduce organic matter in the form of fine particulates and dissolved material.
These organic materials supply nutrients for many inhabitants of the cave.
14 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Logan Cave is a large limestone-solution cave with approximately 1.5 miles of surveyed
passageways. The three ecological classification types (tunnel, seepage, and sinkhole) are present
in different sections of the cave. The sinkhole and spring entrances are the only two known entry
points. The sinkhole consists of a funnel-shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter on a forested
hillside. The spring entrance is located on a hillside under an overhang rock bluff. The cave’s
passageway is relatively narrow with a low ceiling. In some areas, the ceiling gradually declines
leaving only a tiny crawl space. Approximately halfway through the cave is an area with a high dome
ceiling where gray bats congregate their maternity colony.
For past research projects and descriptive purposes, the cave was divided into three reaches,
separated conveniently by morphological features. The lower reach is 365 m long and includes the
distance from the mouth of the cave (spring) to the sinkhole. This section is typified by shallow (10 to
20 cm) riffles with only a single 10 m long pool (approximately 1 m deep) near the mouth of the cave.
The middle reach is 220 m in length and consist of one continuous pool located upstream of the
sinkhole. The pool attains a maximum depth of 2.5 m with a mean depth of approximately 1 m. The
third reach extends upstream from the pool 685 m to a large ceiling collapse that limits further
upstream access. The cave’s internal temperature is a constant 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
WILDLIFE
Logan Cave’s unique ecosystem provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat (Myotis
grisescens), endangered Benton Cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), the threatened Ozark
cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae), and historically, the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).
Adult female gray bats utilize the cave from March through August as a maternity site for raising their
young. Each adult female will give birth to a single young in late May or early June. Most young
begin to fly within 20-25 days after birth. Late summer emergent counts for Logan Cave average
around 20,000. The 2005 summer survey yielded 30,000 bats, however, the summer surveys for
2006 and 2007 yielded only 5,170 and 11,530, respectively. The gray bat is probably one of the most
restricted to cave habitats of any U.S. mammal. With rare exception, it roosts in caves year-round.
Because of highly specific roost and habitat requirements, fewer that 5 percent of available caves are
suitable for occupation by gray bats.
In the recovery plan for the Indiana Bat, Benton County is historically noted for having Priority Three
hibernacula (< 500 bats). Logan Cave was utilized in the far past as a hibernacula.
Logan Cave is one of only four known habitats for Cambarus aculabrum. Cave crayfish are highly
specialized for living in stable cave environments with low light and low temperatures and are unable
to cope with changes in their habitats that may be induced by human activities.
The threatened Ozark cavefish is found in 31 caves and springs in northwest Arkansas, southwest
Missouri, and northeast Oklahoma. Logan Cave��s population is the second largest known. All of the
caves with cavefish contain some comparatively large source of allochthonous energy, usually bat
guano and/or leaf litter.
Other interesting life forms found throughout the cave include: pseudoscorpions, isopods, amphipods,
beetles, collembolans and other insects which are blind, without pigment, and strictly adapted to a
subterranean habitat.
The oak-hickory forest outside the cave provides a home for a variety of wildlife. The most visible
mammalian species are squirrels, woodchucks, armadillos, skunks, and white-tailed deer. Several
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
avian, amphibian, and reptilian species can be found around the refuge. Vultures, herons, swallows,
and hawks are the most visible birds. Amphibians and reptiles that can be observed on the refuge
include: bullfrogs, green frogs, skinks, snapping turtles, and grotto salamanders. Other species that
are abundant in the area include northern fence lizard, midland water snake, chorus tree frog, and the
Ozark redback salamander.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There has never been an archaeological investigation within the refuge by the Service. There is
evidence of an old homeplace close to the mouth of the cave and in the 1940s, a cannery operated
close to the mouth of the cave, using the water from the spring. The remnants of an old fish hatchery
remain just south of the refuge boundary and the old fish ponds were across the road. Water from
the cave (Logan Spring) supplied the hatchery, fish ponds, and the Logan community. Today, water
from the spring supplies water for a large poultry operation, several residences, and a tree/plant
nursery.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Logan Cave NWR lies in the northwest corner of Benton County. Benton County is located in the
northwest corner of Arkansas and adjoins Oklahoma to the west and Missouri to the north. The
county seat is Bentonville, in the center of the county. Benton County, established in 1836, was the
first county in the State of Arkansas.
Northwest Arkansas is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation and Benton County is the fastest
growing county in the State. The related development is moving toward regions like the refuge that
retain a rural atmosphere, yet remain close to cities that are bustling with economic activity.
Population change can be an indication of economic vitality. However, the types of economic sectors
likely to be strong can cause development and disturbance impacts on wildlife habitat. The U.S.
Census Bureau ranks Benton County second in the State for total population. First is Pulaski County
with the capital city of Little Rock. In April 2000, Benton County had a population of 153,406 and in
July 2006, a population of 179,756. That’s a 27.8 percent increase (the highest in the State). The
population percent change from 1990 to 2000 was 57.3 percent.
Poultry and cattle agribusiness, light manufacturing, retail distribution, retail support, and
transportation are the most important economic sectors. Important agricultural crops include hay and
pasture for livestock. Benton County leads the State and is third in the nation for broiler (poultry)
production. Much of the Tyson’s Foods operation is located in Benton County and headquartered in
adjacent Washington County.
There are several large manufacturing industries in Benton County, including Glad Manufacturing
(Glad plastic bags and cling wrap), Kraft Foods (bulk cheese), Rogers Tool Works (carbide compacts
for the oil industry and other drills and tools), Allen Canning (one of the country’s top vegetable
canning companies), Daisy Outdoor Products (the world’s oldest and largest producer of airguns, BB
guns, pellet rifles, and CO² pistols), and J.B. Hunt (one of the nations largest trucking companies).
The world’s largest company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and its subsidiaries, is headquartered in
Bentonville. Numerous Fortune 500 companies (as well as smaller firms) have regional offices in
Benton County to support their accounts at Wal-Mart. The newly constructed Northwest Arkansas
Regional Airport is centrally located in Highfill; which is only a few miles from the refuge.
16 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
With major industries located nearby and the rapidly increasing population, development in the
region has skyrocketed in the past few years. Real estate values have increased significantly
and the once wooded landscape surrounding the refuge is quickly turning into houses,
apartments, golf courses, and other commercial developments. The refuge is rapidly becoming a
small island in a sea of development.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
To protect the cave from trespassers and vandalism, the entire refuge, not just the cave, is closed to
all public use. Both entrances have protection from trespass. The mouth of the cave or the spring
entrance has a gate located up inside the cave. This was the only feasible way to protect the spring
entrance and gray bats prefer internal gates. The sinkhole entrance was fenced with a steel fence
that completely circles the entire sinkhole area.
To protect this valuable Ozark resource for future generations, it will be necessary for the Service
to continue protecting the cave, spring, and recharge areas; to improve public understanding of
Logan Cave NWR’s valuable resources; and to develop and maintain public and private
partnerships to protect not only the refuge but additional resources that are vulnerable to
northwest Arkansas’ rapid development.
VISITOR SERVICES
Due to the sensitive nature of the refuge’s flora and fauna, public use, educational programs, and
scientific research are limited. No one is allowed inside the cave from March through September to
protect the gray bat maternity colony. Disturbance inside the cave before young are able to fly would
cause the young to fall to their deaths as their frightened mothers hurried out of the cave. Also,
walking through the cave increases turbidity with the potential to step on cavefish and crayfish.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Logan Cave NWR has never been funded or staffed. All operations and maintenance are provided
through Holla Bend NWR. Site visits to the refuge seldom occur due to lack of staff and distance
from Holla Bend NWR (160 miles, one way). Visits to the cave generally are for wildlife surveys and
for maintenance of signs, gates, and fences. The refuge relies to a great extent on karst biologists
from TNC’s office in northwest Arkansas, and karst biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Ecological Services’ office in Arkansas to keep refuge staff up-to-date on environmental activities and
issues in the Logan Cave region.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
Early in the process of developing this Draft CCP/EA, the planning team identified a list of issues and
concerns that were likely to be associated with the conservation and management of Logan Cave NWR.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act
recommendations, public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of
the Draft CCP/EA for Logan Cave NWR. This Draft CCP/EA has been written with input and
assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and
State agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value
in setting the management direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge
staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas
to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so
many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge.
Initial CCP planning meetings were attended by refuge personnel. At these meetings,
strategies for completing the CCP were discussed, issues and concerns were identified, and a
mailing list of likely interested organizations and individuals was compiled.
A planning team consisting of Service personnel from Arkansas and Oklahoma, representatives
from TNC of Arkansas, and the AGFC was assembled. Members were introduced to the refuge
and its planning process and asked to identify their issues and concerns.
A public scoping meeting was held in April 2006. Announcements giving the location, date, and
time for the public meeting were sent to local newspapers. The planning team met again after
the public meeting to review individual goals and objectives and identify strategies and projects
for the Draft CCP/EA.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish
and wildlife protection, habitat restoration, water quality, recreation, and management of
threatened and endangered species. Additionally, the planning team considered Federal and
State mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also
directed the process of obtaining public input through the public scoping meeting, open
planning team meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. All public and advisory
team comments were considered, however, some issues important to the public fall outside the
scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team considered all issues
raised during the planning process, and developed a Draft CCP/EA that attempts to balance the
competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the
team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the
significant issues follows.
18 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important responsibility
delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Furthermore, Logan Cave NWC was
established in 1989 to conserve fish or wildlife listed as threatened or endangered. Four threatened or
endangered animals use, or could use, Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge: endangered Benton cave
crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), threatened Ozark cavefish
(Amblyopsis rosae), and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).
Logan Cave is one of three caves and one spring in Benton County, Arkansas, where a known
population of cave crayfish exists. Logan Cave supports the largest population of Cambarus
aculabrum in Arkansas and the world. Logan stream flows through the entire length of the cave, and
provides habitat for the crayfish. Population numbers seem to be stable, but are generally low. The
last survey was completed in 2006, with biologists observing 31 crayfish. Factors most likely to limit
or cause the decline of the Benton cave crayfish are: 1) destruction of habitat including water quality
degradation, 2) disturbance by trespassers, 3) collecting, 4) low reproductive rate, and 5) competition
and predation by troglophilic species.
Logan Cave is one of 31 caves known to have a population of the Ozark cavefish; however, Logan
Cave has the second largest population in Arkansas, and throughout its range. The last survey was
completed in 2006, with biologists observing 43 cavefish. Factors most likely to limit or cause the
decline of the Ozark cavefish are: 1) habitat destruction, 2) collecting, 3) disturbance by trespassers,
and 4) low reproductive rate.
The range of the gray bat is concentrated in the cave regions of Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Alabama. Gray bats are cave residents year-round; however, they occupy different
caves in summer and winter. Logan Cave is utilized as a maternity site by approximately ten to
fifteen thousand female gray bats. Typically, the bats arrive in February/March and leave in
September/October. This maternity colony utilizes a domed room between the sinkhole and spring
entrance. Disturbance of the bats is a major concern, especially when newborn young are present.
Disturbance can result in the young dropping to their deaths from the cave’s ceiling or being
abandoned by their mother.
The range of the Indiana bat is in the eastern United States from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin
east to Vermont and south to northwestern Florida (Harvey 2000). The present total population is
estimated at 457,374, with more than 67 percent hibernating at only nine locations in Missouri,
Indiana, and Kentucky. Due to the habitat and internal environment, Logan Cave could be used by
Indiana bats as hibernacula. The bats hibernate from October to April, depending on climatic
conditions. Hibernating bats form large, tight, compact clusters normally estimated at 300 – 400 bats
per square foot. Approximately 2,500 Indiana bats are known to hibernate in 10 Arkansas caves.
KARST DEPENDENT SPECIES
As well as A. rosae and C. aculabrum, Logan Cave harbors several other aquatic troglobites. These
include an isopod (Caecidotea antricola) and an amphipod (Stygobromus ozarkensis), and other
insects, which are blind, without pigment, and strictly adapted to a subterranean habitat. Troglophiles that
inhabit the cave include the grotto salamander (Eurycea spelaeus), cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga),
and dark-sided salamander (Eurycea longicauda melanopleura). Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) and
epigeal ringed crayfish (Orconectes neglectus) also enter the cave and live in light and dark zones.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS
Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Based on compiled
lists of birds, approximately 75 species potentially use the surface habitat on Logan Cave NWR.
Although this small refuge cannot provide ideal habitat for forest dwelling birds, potential
management strategies need to be considered as part of this Draft CCP/EA
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
LOGAN CAVE
Karst biologists have described Logan Cave as having the highest quality cave habitat in the entire
Ozark region. Logan Cave is a large limestone-solution cave approximately 1.5 miles in length. The
three ecological classification types (tunnel, seepage, and sinkhole) are present in different sections
of the cave. The cave’s internal temperature is 55 degrees Fahrenheit. The terrestrial cave
environment is extremely stable and such stability is of primary importance to troglobitic organisms
that inhabit the cave. However, the aquatic cave environment is not as stable due to the relationship
with surface water entering the cave through the recharge zone.
The sinkhole and spring entrances are the only two known entry points. The sinkhole consists of a
funnel shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter on a forested hillside and the spring entrance is
located on a hillside under an overhanging rock bluff. Upstream from the sinkhole, the cave contains
several large seeps, which cascade down the walls from the ceiling. These seeps introduce organic
matter in the form of fine particulates and dissolved material. These organic materials supply
nutrients for many inhabitants of the cave.
The cave’s passageway is relatively narrow with a low ceiling. In some areas, the ceiling
gradually declines, leaving only a tiny crawl space. Deep within the interior of the cave there are
several waterfalls that cascade down the walls. Approximately halfway through the cave is an
area where gray bats congregate their maternity colony. This room formed many years ago when
large rock plates caved-in.
LOGAN STREAM
Logan Stream extends the entire length of the cave and emerges at the mouth as Logan Spring,
which has an average water flow of approximately 5 million gallons per day. The spring flows into a
natural oxbow lake and then into Osage Creek, a major tributary of the Illinois River. Water clarity in
Logan Stream is very high, except after storm events that result in increased flow and decreased
clarity. Water quality is high except for seasonal increases in coliform bacteria associated with
livestock operations in the recharge zone and traces of pharmaceuticals and other organic
wastewater constituents from inadequate septic systems. To ensure success of all species in Logan
Cave, water quality needs to remain at a constant high level.
As described by Means 1995, Logan Stream is divided into three reaches classified by habitat types.
The lowermost reach is 365 m long and extends from the cave mouth upstream to the sinkhole. This
reach consists of runs and riffles with the substrate being primarily rock and rubble. The middle reach
consists of a 230-m-long pool that extends from the sinkhole to the next upstream riffle. Rock and silt
comprised most of the substrate, with the maximum depth being 3 m. The third reach is 685 m and
extends upstream from the pool to a point where the cave roof meets the stream. This reach includes
pools, riffles, and runs, with gravel, silt, and bedrock substrates.
20 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
SURFACE HABITAT
The surface of Logan Cave NWR is a diverse mix of habitats, which includes representatives of several
Ozark Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, bottomland hardwood, and upland
deciduous. The refuge was established for the species that utilize the cave, however, the 123 acres of
surface habitat and potential management techniques need to be addressed in this Draft CCP/EA.
LAND PROTECTION
RECHARGE ZONE
The surface of Logan Cave NWR is a diverse mix of habitats, which includes representatives of several
Ozark Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, bottomland hardwood, and upland
deciduous. The refuge was established for the species which utilize the cave, however, the 123 acres of
surface habitat and potential management techniques need to be addressed in this Draft CCP/EA.
LAND PROTECTION
RECHARGE ZONE
The recharge zone is described by Aley and Aley (1987) as 3,108 ha in area, lying north and east of
the cave entrance (Figure 4). The surface streams in the recharge zone are primarily discrete sinking
streams that flow through mostly agricultural pastureland. Two major classes of land use occur in the
recharge zone: 1) residential/commercial use, and 2) agriculture. The recharge zone has numerous
livestock operations, including approximately 50 hog and poultry houses from which Aley and Aley
(1987) identified three potential types of impacts. First, feedlots and animal houses are normally on
well-drained slopes, which lead to runoff during heavy rains. These runoff waters may contain high
levels of biological or chemical pollutants, which can have a negative impact on Logan Stream.
Second, farmers will occasionally dispose of wastes on unused areas of their property. These areas
may be located in areas where runoff could reach stream sources and eventually Logan Stream.
Third, toxins and chemicals in animal feeds can pass through the animals and reach streams, via
land application of wastes. Aley and Aley (1987) stated that two major impacts of
residential/commercial development are inappropriate sewage disposal and increased erosion or
storm runoff. Recovery of the species utilizing Logan Cave is directly related to the water quality in
Logan Stream, which is directly affected by land uses within the recharge zone.
Aley delineated the recharge zone into hazard areas to identify those surface areas which have
differing potentials for the introduction of groundwater contaminants into Logan Cave: 1) low hazard,
2) moderate hazard, 3) high hazard, and 4) very high hazard areas; the higher the hazard, the higher
in priority for protection of these areas.
Based on these delineations, this Draft CCP/EA will address strategies to protect these areas.
Management techniques include conservation easements, fee title acquisition, nutrient management
plans, and best management practices for landowners in the recharge zone.
BAT FORAGING AREA
Summer caves, especially those used by maternity colonies, are nearly always located within a kilometer
of rivers or reservoirs over which the bats feed. Adult gray bats feed almost exclusively over water along
river and reservoir edges. Newly volant young gray bats often feed and take shelter in forests
surrounding cave entrances. Also, whenever possible, gray bats of all ages fly in the protection of forest
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
canopy between caves and feeding areas. Such behavior provides increased protection from predators,
such as screech owls. Forested areas surrounding caves and between caves and over-water feeding
habitat clearly are advantageous to gray bat survival. Gray bat feeding areas have not been found along
sections of rivers or reservoirs where adjacent forests have been cleared.
VISITOR SERVICES
Due to intolerable disturbances to the gray bats, the cave, and other protected species, the refuge is
closed to all public use. Entrance into the cave by Service biologists is restricted to scientific
monitoring and research activities conducted biannually, and all entry is prohibited from March
through September to protect the gray bat maternity colony from disturbance. Any entrance by non-
Service personnel is authorized through special use permits only. These activities must have
approved biological and/or management implications.
The lack of exposure and awareness resulting from all activities being prohibited to the public
negatively affects the refuge’s image to the local public. Environmental education and outreach is a
very important tool to familiarize the local public with Logan Cave NWR and the importance of
keeping the refuge closed to most activities. As part of an outreach program, refuge staff should
pursue potential for a Friends group or local volunteer(s) to provide some presence with local citizens.
SCIENTIFIC MONITORING AND RESEARCH
The wildlife species that utilize Logan Cave NWR are so specialized that a certain amount of
monitoring and research needs to be done to provide a means to assess recovery/management
efforts. All monitoring and research activities need to be considered and only allowed if absolutely
necessary and have approved biological and/or management implications.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
FUNDING AND STAFFING
Logan Cave NWR does not receive annual funding for refuge management programs. All costs
associated with the refuge are absorbed by Holla Bend NWR, which is located in Dardanelle,
Arkansas, approximately 160 miles to the southeast. There are no full-time employees
assigned to the refuge.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There have been no known official archaeological investigations within the refuge boundary.
FENCES/GATES/BOUNDARY SIGNS
One of the primary management tools for the refuge is to have the ability to keep people out of the
cave to minimize disturbance to the protected species inside the cave. There are currently cave
fences and gates at the spring entrance and the sinkhole to deter unauthorized access. There are
also two steel gates on the north and south sides of the refuge boundary to prevent vehicle entry.
Boundary signs are maintained to clearly identify the property as a national wildlife refuge that is
closed to all activities. Although these things sound trivial, they are a vital part of protecting the
species inhabiting Logan Cave.
22 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Recharge area for Logan Cave NWR showing priority areas for protection
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix H.
24 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats, considering the needs of all resources in decision-making.
But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management.
A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to
maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are
appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six
priority wildlife-dependent public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
and environmental education and interpretation).
Described below is the proposed CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This
proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered. Each of these alternatives is described
in the Alternatives’ chapter of Section B. The Service chose Alternative 3 as the proposed
management direction.
Implementing the proposed alternative will result in maintaining and enhancing water quality and flora
and fauna at Logan Cave NWR and the surrounding area, while meeting the refuge’s primary
purpose of protecting its ecosystem and the threatened and endangered species utilizing the cave.
Specific projects will add the resources necessary to manage, restore, and maintain the habitats and
wildlife species on and off the refuge.
VISION
The vision for the refuge is as follows:
Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge will maintain and enhance communities and
habitats necessary for the continuing existence and recovery of federally listed
threatened and endangered species. Through communication, cooperation, and
consultation, the refuge will foster partnerships with private landowners and other
interested parties for the conservation of important Ozark cave habitat.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns,
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public, and are
presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated
with the various strategies.
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and the purposes and vision for Logan Cave NWR. The Service intends to
accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
26 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
GOAL 1. FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Maintain viable, historically diverse populations of native fish and wildlife species consistent with
sound biological principles.
Discussion: Population management activities will focus on establishing inventorying and monitoring
procedures to document species occurrence, habitat association, recruitment, and diversity.
Threatened and endangered species will be protected and managed toward recovery. All population
management activities will strive to protect, maintain, and enhance species diversity in the broad
context of the refuge.
Objective 1. Benton cave crayfish
Maintain a minimum population of 35 cave crayfish based on ocular surveys.
Discussion: Provide habitat to maintain current populations of cave crayfish and establish guidelines
to contribute to the recovery of the species.
Strategies:
1. Perform ocular surveys bi-annually in January or February. Survey teams will be properly
trained and consist of no more than 4 observers.
2. Identify what percent of the ocular surveys need to be young crayfish to establish a
recruitment estimate.
3. Maintain water quality in Logan Cave through partnerships with landowners in the recharge zone.
4. Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP’s) in recharge zone.
5. Limit entry into Logan Cave to minimize disturbance to the cave crayfish.
6. Identify life history and requirements for cave crayfish.
7. Remove predators, if needed.
Objective 2. Ozark Cavefish
Maintain a minimum population of 40 Ozark cavefish based on ocular surveys.
Discussion: Provide habitat to maintain current population of Ozark cavefish and establish guidelines
to contribute to the recovery of the species.
Strategies: (1, 3, 4, and 7 above apply under this objective.)
1. Identify what percent of the ocular surveys need to be young cavefish to establish a
recruitment estimate.
2. Identify life history and requirements for Ozark cavefish.
3. Limit entry into Logan Cave to minimize disturbance to the Ozark cavefish.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Objective 3. Gray Bat
Provide habitat for stable or increasing population of gray bats and contribute to the recovery of the
species.
Strategies:
1. Limit entry into Logan Cave (no entry from March 15-October 15) to minimize disturbance to
the maternity colony.
2. Perform bat guano pile surveys (for population estimates) associated with the
cavefish/crayfish surveys as soon as possible after bats leave, preferably late October but no
later than November 30.
3. Monitor population of gray bats by performing annual exit counts during the summer months,
utilizing night vision equipment.
4. Verify/identify current hibernacula used by Logan Cave gray bats.
5. Continue to work with the AGFC to monitor pesticides levels in gray bats. The AGFC
studied four gray bat caves in Arkansas, including Logan Cave. A breakdown product of
DDT was found in samples from each cave. No other compounds were found in the
samples from Logan Cave, but given the continuing influence of banned pesticides and the
increasing use of new compounds in agriculture, periodic monitoring of pesticide
concentrations in guano and carcasses of dead bats from Logan Cave is recommended.
Objective 4. Indiana Bat
Provide habitat for stable or increasing population of Indiana bats and contribute to the recovery of
the species.
Discussion: Indiana bats have not been observed in Logan Cave for many years. Indiana bats use
caves during hibernation from October to April, depending on climatic conditions of the cave.
Summer maternity roosts are usually in trees along wooded streamside habitat.
Strategies:
1. Observe/monitor for presence of Indiana bats during the crayfish/cavefish surveys.
2. Study micro-climate of Logan Cave to determine suitability for Indiana bats.
Objective 5. Other Karst Species
Maintain all populations of karst species, such as pseudoscorpions, isopods, amphipods, beetles,
collembolems, and other blind insects, adapted to subterranean habitats.
Discussion: Maintaining these other karst species is vital for the continued existence of Logan’s
Cave’s threatened and endangered species. Many karsts species break down the raw organic
energy (leaf litter, guano, etc.), to make the microorganisms that become the base of the food chain.
28 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Strategies:
1. Monitor abundance of grotto salamander.
2. Identify species of special concern.
Objective 6. Forest Dwelling Birds
Identify and implement strategies to improve forest conditions for forest dwelling birds.
Discussion: Forested habitat on Logan Cave NWR is predominantly mature oak/hickory forest.
Forested habitat covers most of Logan Cave (approximately100). This is small for a forested tract,
but in an area where the forest is severely fragmented, it can play a large role in the presence and
reproduction of forest dwelling birds.
Strategies:
1. Identify avian species utilizing the refuge, including nesting species, baseline occurrence,
annual, productivity, etc.
2. Develop a bird list.
3. Identify all refuge plant species and associations.
4. Use timber stand improvement techniques to implement favorable avian habitats.
GOAL 2. HABITATS
Conserve, restore, and manage the functions and values associated with a unique karst environment
in order to achieve refuge purposes and wildlife population objectives.
Discussion: Habitat management will be used to restore the biological integrity, biological diversity,
and environmental health of refuge lands, as well as lands within Logan Cave’s recharge zone and
bat foraging areas along Osage creek and other forested riparian areas used by the bats.
Objective 1. Cave Environment
Manage the aquatic and terrestrial functions associated with this unique karst environment.
Discussion: A cave’s environment is influenced by many factors, including, but not limited to, water
quality and quantity, air flow and temperature, and ground cover. These factors have changed at
Logan Cave in the past 20 years, mostly by unnatural causes.
Strategies:
1. Conduct cleanup inside and outside of the cave. Cleanup inside (in conjunction with survey trips) to
remove items left behind by trespassers, and keep debris removed from refuge property topside.
2. Monitor temperature and humidity of Logan Cave.
3. Stabilize sinkhole entrance.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
4. Perform botanical and wildlife surveys at both cave entrances.
5. Monitor water quality and quantity.
6. Identify surface location of Logan Cave, utilizing cave radiolocation equipment.
Objective 2. Cave Entrances
Maintain two known entry points into Logan Cave.
Discussion: The two known entry points to Logan Cave are on refuge land, which affords the Service
the opportunity to protect and monitor these entrances. Preventing trespass into the cave is
imperative to the survival of the species using Logan Cave. Disturbance, especially from
inexperienced cavers, can have a devastating effect on the bats, cavefish, and crayfish.
Strategies:
1. Maintain bat friendly enclosures. Inspect and perform necessary maintenance at least every
six months.
2. Perform annual maintenance of gates and fences at cave entrances.
Objective 3. Logan Stream (Logan Spring entrance south to refuge boundary)
Ensure water quality and quantity taken from the stream leave the stream at a level to achieve refuge
purposes.
Discussion: Years ago, the stream was dammed to facilitate water withdrawal from Logan Spring for
the community water supply and adjacent fish farm. Today, water is still being withdrawn for private
and commercial uses. Effects of water withdrawal on the cave aquatic species, especially during
drought conditions, need to be evaluated. This unnatural pool of water has never been evaluated to
determine if it positively or negatively affects the aquatic species in the cave. It does allow more
competition/predation from epigeal crayfish and fish living in the pool.
Strategies:
1. Monitor water quality and amount withdrawn from adjacent landowner.
2. Identify sensitive aquatic species in the pool.
3. Remove competitors/predators, if needed, to protected threatened or endangered species.
Objective 4. Bat Foraging Habitats
Explore opportunities to increase or protect important bat foraging habitat along the Osage
creek corridor.
Discussion: The gray bat uses caves year-round, but when it’s not hibernating, it must feed. Since
the gray bat forages primarily over water along rivers or lakes shores, it makes sense to protect not
only the caves it utilizes, but also the areas where it feeds.
30 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Strategies:
1. Identify important bat foraging habitats.
2. Obtain FEMA floodplain map for Osage Creek to identify floodplain.
3. Utilize BMP’s and work with partners and landowners to protect and increase forested riparian
corridors and improve water quality of Osage Creek and its tributaries.
Objective 5. Forest Habitat
Maintain and enhance forest habitat to allow sustained use by forest dwelling birds.
Discussion: Forested habitat at the refuge can be managed to provide different structural habitat for
forest birds, and adjacent landowners can obtain assistance from Federal and State agencies to
enhance and increase forested habitat on their land.
Strategy:
1. Perform Continuous Forest Inventory (or similar survey) and work with partners and
landowners to provide additional forested acres surrounding the refuge, especially in the
recharge zone and bat foraging areas.
GOAL 3. LAND PROTECTION
Discussion: Critical to the achievement of the vision for this refuge is the protection of the land and
development of partnerships with landowners and conservation organizations to improve karst
habitat, especially within the caves recharge zone.
Objective 1. Recharge Zone
Protect all surface acres in the recharge zone, but focus on the very high and high priority areas.
Discussion: Preventing contamination of the groundwater within the recharge zone is critical to
continued existence of the aquatic species inhabiting the cave.
Strategies:
1. Identify all landowners in recharge zone. Identify landowners within the different hazard areas
of the recharge zone. Contact landowners and establish a working relationship with them.
2. Establish partnerships with landowners, local governments, and land developers to implement
BMP’s and various land conservation programs through the NRCS, TNC, AGFC, and the
Service.
3. Identify willing sellers within the recharge zone. Lands could be purchased by the Service or
other cooperating agencies (i.e., TNC).
4. Re-evaluate delineation of recharge zone.
5. Evaluate road projects – Gailey Hollow road paving.
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
6. Work with Benton County and the Arkansas State Highway authorities to establish county
roads within the recharge zone as “no hazardous materials” transport roads.
GOAL 4. EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Develop and implement a quality, but limited, environmental education and wildlife-dependent
recreation program that would lead to a greater understanding and appreciation for karst
environments and Logan Cave NWR’s fish and wildlife resources.
Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies six high-priority
wildlife-dependent public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
and environmental education and interpretation. Fundamental to the provision of these uses are
viable and diverse fish and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend. These
priority uses, along with all other proposed uses, must be compatible with the refuge purpose and
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Given the sensitive nature of Logan Cave NWR’s
wildlife resources, uses will be limited and focused on environmental education and interpretation.
Objective 1: Develop a community-based volunteer program.
Discussion: Volunteers play a large role in the success of management programs on refuges across
the country. They provide the eyes and ears for refuges that have administrative offices hours away
from the refuge lands.
Strategies:
1. Establish a Cave Stewards Program.
2. Seek out and educate volunteers on karst environments and management issues.
3. Utilize volunteers to assist with terrestrial flora and fauna surveys, maintenance of boundary
and refuge property, etc.
Objective 2: Develop a community-based environmental education program in coordination with area
schools and other area educational organizations.
Discussion: A quality environmental education program can lead to increased awareness and
stewardship of the environment and can strengthen the connection between wildlife and people. It is
very important to instill a land ethic in the local community and especially the local youth. Although
there are limited opportunities available at Logan Cave NWR, even a few programs can increase the
local knowledge and respect for this sensitive karst ecosystem.
Strategies:
1. Develop an outdoor classroom or gathering site, possibly an observation platform, where
staff-conducted programs allow visitors to safely view gray bats emerging from the
cave’s sinkhole entrance.
2. Give programs on karst environments, highlighting Logan Cave to local schools, adjacent
landowners, 4H groups, county officials, etc.
3. Develop crayfish/cavefish brochure.
32 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
4. Construct kiosk with information on karst environments and Logan Cave NWR.
Objective 3: Explore research opportunities that will assist in the recovery of the threatened or
endangered species utilizing the cave.
Discussion: Research on selective cave issue can lead to a better understanding of the cave
environment and refuge flora and fauna, which leads to better management of the resources.
Strategies:
1. Explore opportunity of completing underwater film documentary.
2. Identify the life history and requirements of the cave crayfish.
3. Identify the life history and requirement of the Ozark cavefish.
4. Identify hibernacula used by Logan Cave gray bat maternity colony.
5. Identify Logan Cave gray bat foraging habitats.
6. Monitor pesticide levels in gray bats.
7. Study micro-climate of the cave to determine suitability for Indiana bats.
8. Re-evaluate delineation of recharge zone.
GOAL 5. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Provide administrative support to ensure that the goals and objectives for refuge habitats, fish and
wildlife populations, land conservation, and visitor services are achieved.
Discussion: The administrative functions associated with a refuge include a wide array of activities
that are critical to the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge. These
functions include staffing, training, budgeting, planning, refuge access, law enforcement, community
relations, partnering, and maintenance. Refuges must have appropriate resources in order to
accomplish their overall goals and objectives.
Objective 1: Develop a refuge manager position to initiate and manage the needed resource
conservation projects and hire a public use specialist to develop environmental education programs.
Discussion: A full-time refuge manager position is needed to oversee and conduct many of the
studies and surveys and resource protection projects. A public use specialist is also needed to
achieve the programs as outlined.
Strategies:
1. Hire refuge manager (could possibly share this position with the Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office or Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge).
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
2. Obtain operating resources for Logan Cave NWR. This refuge has never been a stand-alone
refuge or received any special funds for projects.
3. Hire public use specialist to develop environmental education program. This position
could be shared with Holla Bend NWR, the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, or
Ozark Plateau NWR.
Objective 2: Develop effective law enforcement program to ensure trust resource protection.
Discussion: Protection of the resource is vital to the success of refuge management programs.
Preventing trespass into the cave is as critical to the survival of cave species as conserving and
enhancing the habitat. Collection of cavefish and crayfish for the pet industry is one factor that leads
to the decline of these species. Careless spelunkers and guano harvesters disturb the gray bat
maternity, increase the turbidity of the cave stream, and step on cavefish and crayfish.
Strategies:
1. Initiate and complete Standard Operating Procedures for cave search and rescue efforts.
2. Utilize Service law enforcement (Refuge, Zone Officers, and Special Agents) to respond to
violations.
3. Coordinate with AGFC’s wildlife officer on protocol for contacting refuge manager on issues.
4. Perform surveillance as needed utilizing infra-red equipment.
5. Initiate and maintain a minimum of one trip per month by refuge law enforcement officer.
34 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
V. Plan Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national
wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation
of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects
emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but
considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent
recreation and environmental education.
To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for Logan
Cave NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnership
opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and plan
review and revision.
PROPOSED PROJECTS
Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their estimated associated costs for fish and
wildlife population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and
refuge administration over the 15-year-life of the CCP. This proposed project list reflects the priority
needs identified by the public, the CCP planning team, and core refuge staff based upon available
information. These projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and
strategies (Table 1).
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Project 1: Science-based Inventory and Monitoring of Refuge Flora and Fauna
Science-based inventories and monitoring of plant and animal populations are critical to ensuring the
biological integrity of the refuge. Information collected will serve as the basis for developing habitat
management plans and will influence all management activities. A systematic inventory and
monitoring program will enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable
long-term contributions to national and regional objectives for the threatened and endangered
species and resident wildlife. All data will be shared with appropriate State and Federal partners in
an effort to further ecosystem management. A monitoring plan should be developed to describe
survey methods, survey duration, and frequency of sampling to keep surveys of Logan Cave species
consistent through the years as staff and partners change. The monitoring plan must incorporate
ways to minimize turbidity during surveys inside the cave; list needed participants and limits to cave
entry. Benton cave crayfish monitoring should be incorporated into Ozark cavefish surveys. The
estimated first-year cost for this project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000 per year.
(Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, 3 4, 5, and 6; Goal 2, Objectives 1,2,3,4, and 5.)
36 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Project 2: Identify Life History and Requirements for Ablyopsis rosae and Cambarus aculabrum for
the Logan Cave System
Little is known about the ecology and natural history of troglobitic crayfish, and only limited
observations have been made of Cambarus aculabrum. Population levels are too low to risk
individuals in studies that may result in mortality. Studies, such as species habitat utilization,
fecundity, mortality rate, longevity, food preference, etc., should only be initiated when it is
determined that such studies will have no impact on the ability of the species to survive. Notes on
behavior, location, and reproductive status should be taken of any observations of cave crayfish
during survey trips. Much is known about Amblyopsis rosae, but little is known about what is required
for successful reproduction of these fish. Spawning is likely triggered by spring floods. Gravid
females have been observed in Logan Cave during the month of January, when the lowest flows of
the year are recorded. In many caves, the greatest obstacle may be finding potential mates at the
right time. Studies are needed to determine the extent of competition and predation on A. rosae and
C. aculabrum by troglophilic and epigeal species at Logan Cave. Biannual surveys of troglophiles
and epigeans should be conducted in such a way that they do not harm A. rosae and C. aculabrum.
The estimated first-year cost for this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000 for study
duration. (Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 1and 2.)
Project 3: Purchase Night Vision Equipment to Monitor Gray Bats
Night vision/infrared equipment is needed to perform consistent exit counts of the Logan Cave gray
bat maternity colony. Two sets of night vision equipment are needed to monitor both entrances at the
same time. Currently, only one survey is performed by an AGFC contractor. Monthly surveys are
needed during late spring and through the summer to monitor bat presence and possible disturbance
to the maternity colony. The estimated cost for this equipment is $10,000. (Linkage: Goal 1,
Objective 3.)
Project 4: Conduct Banding/Monitoring Study to Verify/Identify Hibernacula Used by Logan Cave
Gray Bat Colony
The hibernacula and transient locations used by Logan Cave gray bats are unknown. Knowing
where this population of bats spends the winter and its migration routes will allow the Service and
partners to initiate plans to protect these areas. The refuge would work with the AGFC and Service
biologists in order to accomplish this project. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 3,000,
with recurring costs of $1,000 each year for an approximate 5-year study. (Linkage: Goal 1,
Objective 3.)
Project 5: Identify Logan Cave Gray Bat Foraging Areas
Gray bats feed primarily over water along river, stream, and reservoir edges and in forest canopy
along waters’ edge and take flight in the protection of the forest canopy between the cave and
feeding areas to avoid predators. Gray bat feeding areas have not been found along sections of river
or reservoir where adjacent forests have been cleared. Identifying the current feeding areas and
forested corridors is imperative to the existence of the Logan Cave gray bat colony. Once these
areas are identified, steps can be taken through partnerships with landowners to protect and enhance
these areas. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $15,000, with recurring costs of $5,000.
(Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 3 and 4; Goal 2, Objective 4.)
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Project 6: Determine Suitability of Logan Cave for Indiana Bat
Indiana bats could once be found hibernating in Logan Cave. They have not been observed in the cave
since the mid-1980s. Indiana bats have specific needs for cave temperatures during hibernation.
Changes in the air flow through caves can change the temperature enough to make it unsuitable for
Indiana bats. The air flow through Logan Cave has changed significantly over the past 20 years due to
erosion at the sinkhole entrance, which has almost closed it completely. Temperature and humidity data
loggers should be installed and monitored to record specific conditions inside the cave to determine if it’s
suitable for Indiana bats. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 5,000, with recurring costs of
$500. (Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 3 and 4; Goal 2, Objective1.)
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Project 7: Monitor Micro-climate of Logan Cave
Degradation of water quality poses the greatest threat to the aquatic species of Logan Cave. Needed
water quality data include pH, water and air temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biological
oxygen demand, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, total dissolved and suspended solids,
nitrates, metals, and pesticides. The cave stream and spring should be sampled monthly for at least
one year to establish a baseline for future comparisons. Metals should be sampled once for baseline
and additional tests conducted if warranted. Testing for pesticides, insecticides, or lawn chemicals
should be conducted after a rainfall of at least one inch. Data needs to be gathered on anthropogenic
enrichment and organic loading of Logan Cave. Water quantity has an effect on the reproduction
success of cave aquatic species. Water removal from the cave during periods of drought has an
effect on the water quality of the cave stream. The estimated first-year cost for this project is
$20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objectives 1 and 3.)
Water quantity also plays an important role in the survival of the cave’s aquatic species. Past and
future increases in the utilization of water from the cave will have an impact on water levels in the
cave, especially during periods of drought. Unnatural decreases in water levels in the cave stream
could have an adverse impact the cave’s aquatic habitat. The amount of water removed and its
effects on the cave’s aquatic species and climate should be monitored. The estimated first-year cost
for this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objectives 1 and 3).
Project 8: Initiate Sinkhole Stabilization Project Utilizing USGS Data
In 2004, the USGS studied the geologic conditions at the sinkhole entrance to Logan Cave and
recommended that it be protected from foot traffic and the slope be stabilized to lessen the erosion,
which could lead to complete filling of the sinkhole by sediments. Sedimentation around sinkholes of
caves is normal. But the sinkhole entrance of Logan Cave has had a significant amount of sediment
mainly from foot traffic (trespass) from the top of the sink to the bottom of the slope, which has almost
completely blocked the entrance. Recent fencing of the sinkhole has significantly reduced foot traffic,
but current sediments need to be removed and the slope around the foot trail stabilized to reduce
further unnatural erosion. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $5,000, with recurring costs
of $500 (Linkages: Goal 2, Objective 2.)
38 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Project 9: Utilize Cave Radiolocation to Locate and Map Cave to Surface Relationship
Cave radiolocation is a technique used to locate sections of a cave from the surface. The techniques
and equipment used allow researchers to map the cave passages and relate those passages to the
surface. Knowing where the cave passages lay from the surface will greatly enhance the ability of
management to protect the cave through partnerships with landowners and will aid rescuers in the
event of an incident. Current and future landowners will know if cave passages lie under their land
before engaging in land activities that could seriously affect the cave environment. The estimated cost
for this project is $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objective 1; Goal 3, Objective 1; Goal 5, Objective 2.)
Project 10: Increase Resource Protection by Purchasing Specialized Surveillance Equipment for Law
Enforcement
This project would provide funding for purchasing state-of-the-art surveillance equipment for refuge
law enforcement officers to increase the protection of the cave’s natural resources. This equipment
would also be used to assist local partners with cave resource protection projects. The estimated
cost is $ 8,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 2.)
VISITOR SERVICES
Project 11: Develop Logan Cave NWR Brochure
Due to Logan Cave’s sensitive fauna, no outreach occurs at or in the cave proper. Developing a
general brochure, to include information and pictures about the cave environment and refuge flora
and fauna, would be an excellent outreach tool to hand out at local events and have available via the
Internet. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 3,000, with periodic costs of approximately
$600 for additional brochures as needed. (Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 2).
Project 12: Construct Viewing Platform.
During the summer months, bats can easily be seen exiting the cave’s sinkhole entrance at
dusk to forage. The cave is fenced and gated and closed to all public entry. If a public use
specialist or manager were to be hired, a viewing platform near the sinkhole entrance could be
used for scheduled interpretation and educational activities for local youth groups, clubs, and
partners. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $500.
(Linkages: Goal 4, Objective 2)
Project 13. Construct Kiosks
A wooden kiosk would be constructed at the north entrance gate for year-round information on Logan
Cave NWR and its resources. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $10,000, with recurring
costs of $500. (Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 2.)
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Project 14: Manage Endangered Wildlife and Habitats by Re-establishing the Refuge Manager Position
In 1994, due to staff reductions, the refuge manager position for Logan Cave NWR was lost. This
project would re-establish this position to oversee the management of Logan Cave NWR and carry
out many of the biological surveys. This position could be stationed at the Complex headquarters
(Holla Bend NWR) or shared with Ozark Plateau NWR, the Conway, Arkansas, or Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Ecological Services offices. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $160,000, with recurring
costs of $89,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 1.)
Project 15: Hire Public Use Specialist.
This project would involve hiring a public use specialist to coordinate and perform outreach for the
refuge and surrounding karst environment. This position could be stationed at the Complex
headquarters (Holla Bend NWR) and would be responsible for all of Logan Cave NWR environmental
education programs. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $160,000, with recurring costs of
$70,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 1.)
To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted for the
refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine management
effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and determine how
effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem team and other
appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for target and
non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects will be made.
Subsequently, the refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be
described in the step-down management plans.
FUNDING AND PERSONNEL
To complete the wildlife and habitat management projects and conduct the necessary inventorying,
monitoring, analyses, mapping, and outreach, staff is required. The planning team and the public
identified the need for staff at Logan Cave NWR. The proposed positions listed above are needed for
the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies. The annual estimated cost of operating the
refuge, including salaries and benefits of the two positions listed above, is projected to be $160,000.
PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES
A key element of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private
organizations, and State and Federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity of the
refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with local landowners, 4-H and scout groups, land
developers, caving clubs, and Audubon groups. At regional and State levels, partnerships may be
established or enhanced with organizations such as TNC, NRCS, AGFC, USDA Forest Service, and
the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.
STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS
A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan
provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services’ management. Step-down
plans (Table 2) are also developed in accordance with NEPA, which requires the identification and
evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their implementation.
40 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed
over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive
management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven
experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan.
Table 1. Summary of projects
PROJECT
NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR
COST
RECURRING
ANNUAL
COST
STAFF
(FTE’S)
1 Science-based Inventory and
Monitoring of Refuge Flora and Fauna $20,000 $2,000
2
Identify Life History and Requirements
for A. rosae and C. aculabrum for the
Logan Cave system.
$20,000 $5,000 **
3 Purchase Night Vision Equipment to
Monitor Gray Bats $10,000 *
4 Conduct Study to Identify Hibernacula
Used by Logan Cave Gray Bat Colony $ 3,000 $1,000 **
5 Identify Logan Cave Gray Bat Foraging
Areas $15,000 $5,000 **
6 Determine Suitability of Logan Cave
for Indiana Bats $ 5,000 $ 500
7 Monitor Micro-climate of Logan Cave $20,000 $5,000
8 Initiate Sinkhole Stabilization Project $5,000 $500
9 Utilize Cave Radiolocation to Locate
and Map Cave to Surface Relationship $5,000 *
10 Purchase Surveillance Equipment for
Law Enforcement $8,000 *
11 Develop and Print Logan Cave
Brochure $ 3,000 $ 600
12 Construct Viewing Platform $ 20,000 $ 500
13 Construct Kiosk $ 10,000 $ 500
14 Re-establish Refuge Manger Position $160,000 $89,000 1
15 Hire Public Use Specialist $160,000 $70,000 1
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
PROJECT
NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR
COST
RECURRING
ANNUAL
COST
STAFF
(FTE’S)
Grand Total $ 464,000 $ 168,600 2
* No recurring cost.
** Recurring cost for duration of the study and not included in total recurring costs.
PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION
The Final CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. It
will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions
change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a major
refuge expansion. The Final CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to
address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to
the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance.
Table 2. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP
Step-down Plan Completion Date
Wildlife Management Plan 2010
Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 2010
Nuisance Animal Control 2010
Exotic Plant Control 2010
Habitat Management Plan 2009
Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan 2009
Forest Management Plan 2010
Law Enforcement 2009
Safety/Search and Rescue Plan 2009
Visitor Services 2010
Environmental Education and Interpretation 2010
42 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Environmental Assessment 43
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge has been prepared in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It discusses the purpose and
need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge which is located in Benton
County, Arkansas, and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts that could be expected
from each of the management proposals outlined in the plan. This analysis assists the Fish and
Wildlife Service in determining if it will need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the refuge’s CCP.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the nation’s primary conservation agency concerned with the
protection and long-term management of wildlife resources. The Service administers the National
Wildlife Refuge System, a system of more than 540 national wildlife refuges embracing over 93
million acres, much of which is primarily managed for the enhancement of migratory bird populations
and federally listed threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management direction for Logan Cave
National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years.
The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the
refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and to
describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each
alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge.
The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency
managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified three
alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected Alternative 3 as
the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning team, Alternative 3 is
the best approach to guide the refuge’s future direction.
There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of
the refuge, thus necessitating the need for the CCP. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years.
DECISION FRAMEWORK
Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an
alternative to implement the CCP for Logan Cave NWR. The Final CCP will include a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an
evaluation of the Service and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was
established, and other legal mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of
the CCP will begin and will be monitored annually and revised when necessary.
44 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
PLANNING STUDY AREA
Logan Cave NWR is a 123-acre Ozark Mountain refuge, which includes a limestone-solution cave,
located in Benton County, Arkansas, 20 miles west of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and two miles north of
U.S. Highway 412.
The planning study area for this EA includes lands outside the existing refuge boundary that are
being studied for inclusion in the Refuge System or partnership planning efforts. This EA will identify
management on refuge lands, as well as those lands proposed for conservation by the Service.
AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY
The Service developed this Draft CCP/EA in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described in this Draft CCP/EA also meet the requirements of
NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance with NEPA through the involvement of the public and
the incorporation of this EA in the Draft CCP, with a description of the alternatives considered and an
analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV, Section B).
When fully implemented, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Logan Cave NWR.
The Draft CCP/EA’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was
established. The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the
purposes. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service
allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or
does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes.
COMPATIBILITY
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from
incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands
and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be
found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlife-dependent
recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not
inconsistent with public safety.”
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a
crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for Logan Cave NWR. This Draft
CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation
organizations, and employees of local and State agencies. The participation of these stakeholders
and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for Logan Cave NWR.
The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has
contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the
passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge.
Section B. Environmental Assessment 45
Initial CCP planning meetings were attended by refuge personnel. At these meetings, strategies for
completing the Draft CCP were discussed, issues and concerns were identified, and a mailing list of
likely interested organizations and individuals was compiled. A planning team, consisting of Service
personnel and representatives from TNC a