Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuges Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Illinois River
National Wildlife and Fish
Refuges Complex
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management deci-sions;
set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes;
and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans
detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget
allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program
prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national
network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 History and Establishment ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. 3
1.2.3 Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 4
1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................. 5
1.3.1 Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................. 5
1.3.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ..................................................................... 6
1.3.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................. 6
1.3.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................. 6
1.3.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................... 7
1.4 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ............................................................ 7
1.5 Goals and Objectives for Other Landscape Level Plans .......................................................... 8
1.5.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ......................................................................... 8
1.5.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ................................... 10
1.6 Purposes of the Refuges .............................................................................................................. 11
1.7 Refuge Complex Vision Statement ............................................................................................ 11
1.8 Purpose of and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................... 12
1.9 Existing Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 13
1.10 Legal And Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................. 15
2.1 Meetings and Other Forums ........................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Planning Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Wildlife Management Issues and Concerns .................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Habitat Management Issues and Concerns ................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Visitor Services Issues and Concerns ............................................................................. 18
2.2.4 Other Issues Cited ............................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ............................................................................................ 20
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .................................................................................................. 20
3.1.1 Geography, Topography and Hydrology ......................................................................... 20
3.1.2 Surface Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 21
1.1.3 Floodplain Structure and Function ................................................................................. 21
3.1.4 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.1.5 Archaeological and Cultural Values ................................................................................ 23
3.1.6 Social and Economic Context ............................................................................................ 26
3.1.6.1 Population .................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.6.2 Employment .............................................................................................................. 27
3.1.6.3 Income and Education .............................................................................................. 27
3.2 Refuge Resources And Public Uses .......................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Refuge Resources ............................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1.1 Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................. 27
3.2.1.2 Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................... 28
3.2.1.3 Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................... 35
3.2.1.4 Conservation Focus Areas Within the Illinois River Basin .............................. 35
3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources .............................................................................................. 35
3.2.2.1 Listed Species........................................................................................................... 35
3.2.2.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds ................................................................. 42
3.2.2.3 Native Fish and Mussels .......................................................................................... 45
3.2.2.4 Mammals .................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.2.5 Reptiles/Amphibians ............................................................................................... 46
3.2.3 Plant Communities .............................................................................................................. 46
3.2.3.1 Wetland Resources ................................................................................................... 46
3.2.3.2 Forest Resources ..................................................................................................... 47
3.2.3.4 Grassland Resources ............................................................................................... 50
3.2.3.5 Savanna Resources .................................................................................................. 52
3.2.3.6 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health .............................. 54
3.2.4 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................. 55
3.2.4.1 Potential Refuge Visitors ........................................................................................ 55
3.2.4.2 Administrative Facilities ......................................................................................... 59
3.3 Current Management .................................................................................................................. 59
3.3.1 Wetland Management ........................................................................................................ 59
3.3.2 Forest Management........................................................................................................... 63
3.3.3 Grassland Management ...................................................................................................... 63
3.3.4 Savanna Management ........................................................................................................ 64
3.3.5 Fish and Mussel .................................................................................................................. 64
3.3.6 Wildlife Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 65
3.3.7 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................. 65
3.3.7.1 Environmental Education and Interpretation ..................................................... 67
3.3.7.2 Outreach .................................................................................................................... 67
3.3.7.3 Law Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 67
3.4 Wilderness Review ...................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter 4: Management Direction............................................................................................... 69
4.1. Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...................................... 69
4.1.1 Development of Goals, Objectives and Strategies ........................................................ 69
4.1.2 Wildlife Management ......................................................................................................... 70
4.1.2.1 Listed Species ............................................................................................................ 70
4.1.2.2 Native Fish and Mussels ......................................................................................... 71
4.1.2.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health .............................. 72
4.1.3 Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 75
4.1.3.1 Native Grasslands .................................................................................................... 75
4.1.3.2 Native Savannas ...................................................................................................... 79
4.1.3.3 Native Forests ......................................................................................................... 80
4.1.3.4 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 81
4.1.4 Visitor Services Management .......................................................................................... 83
4.1.4.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreation ............................................................................... 83
4.1.4.2 Environmental Education and Interpretation .................................................... 86
4.1.4.3 Outreach .................................................................................................................... 87
4.1.5 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 89
4.1.5.1 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................... 89
Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring ............................................................................... 90
5.1 Personnel Needs ........................................................................................................................... 90
5.2 New and Existing Projects .......................................................................................................... 90
5.3 Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................... 91
5.4 Partnership Opportunities .......................................................................................................... 92
5.5 Monitoring And Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 93
5.6 Plan Amendment and Revision .................................................................................................. 93
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ........................................................................................... 97
Appendix B: Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 169
Appendix C: Species Lists ................................................................................................................ 175
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations...................................................................................... 201
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ........................................................................................... 205
Appendix F: RONS and MMS Lists .................................................................................................. 211
Appendix G: Mailing List .................................................................................................................. 215
Appendix H: List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 219
Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority List ............................................................................... 223
Appendix J: References ................................................................................................................... 229
Appendix K: Summary and Disposition of Comments on Draft CCP ............................................... 235
Figures
Figure 1: Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuges ................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Illinois River Basin Within Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ........ 7
Figure 3: North American Bird Conservation Initiative-designated Bird Conservation Regions 10
Figure 4: Illinois River Basin Location .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 5: Watersheds in the Area of the Illinois River NWR ............................................................ 22
Figure 6: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR .......... 29
Figure 7: Land Cover, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR ......................................................... 30
Figure 8: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of
Chautauqua NWR ...................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 9: Land Cover, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR ............................................. 32
Figure 10: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Meredosia NWR ............................................... 33
Figure 11: Land Cover, Meredosia NWR .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 12: Conservation Focus Areas, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR ............................. 36
Figure 13: Conservation Focus Areas, Meredosia NWR .................................................................... 37
Figure 14: Focus Area Boundaries, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR ...................... 38
Figure 15: Focus Area Boundaries, Lower Sangamon ........................................................................ 39
Figure 16: Conservation Boundaries Within Focus Areas, Chautauqua NWR and
Emiquon NWR........................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 17: Conservation Boundaries Within Focus Areas, Meredosia NWR .................................. 41
Figure 18: Visitor Services Facilities, 2003, Emiquon NWR ............................................................. 56
Figure 19: Visitor Services Facilities, 2003, Chautauqua NWR ........................................................ 57
Figure 20: Visitor Services Facilities, 2003, Meredosia NWR ........................................................... 58
Figure 21: Future Land Cover, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR.......................................... 76
Figure 22: Future Land Cover, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR ............................ 77
Figure 23: Future Land Cover, Meredosia NWR ................................................................................ 78
Figure 24: Future Facility Development, Emiquon NWR ................................................................. 85
Figure 25: Illinois River NWR Complex Staffing, 2003 ...................................................................... 90
Tables
Table 1: Annual Waterfowl Use Days..................................................................................................... 43
Table 2: Total Number of Visitors to Illinois River NWR Complex, 2002 ........................................ 55
Table 3: Step-down Management Plan Schedule .................................................................................. 91
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and
Background
1.1 Introduction
The Illinois River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge Complex stretches along 124
miles of the Illinois River in west central
Illinois (Figure 1). The Complex includes
three refuges: Meredosia National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Chautauqua
NWR and Emiquon NWR. The three
refuges, which together total 12,163 acres,
are a mix of backwater lakes, bottomland
forests, floodplain wetlands and a small
amount of upland forest and prairie.
The Refuge Complex provides habitat for between 60 percent and 70 percent of
the waterfowl that migrate along the Illinois River and has been designated as an
“Important Bird Area” and accepted into the “Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network.” In addition to being important to migratory birds, the
refuges’ backwater lakes serve as spawning and nursery habitat for a highly
productive river fishery.
1.2 History and Establishment
1.2.1 Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge
Located along the Illinois River from river mile 124 to 129 in Mason County,
Chautauqua NWR is 4,488 acres in size. The Refuge serves as the headquarters
for the Complex and also manages the Cameron-Billsbach Division, which is
located in Marshal County between Sparland and Henry, Illinois. The 4,488-acre
refuge includes roughly 3,250 acres of backwater lake, 930 acres of bottomland
hardwoods, and 320 acres of woodlands and prairie.
The area was one of many floodplain wetlands along the Illinois River that was
diked and drained for crop production in the 1920s. Shortly after the area was
acquired by the federal government, dikes were repaired and water control
structures constructed to allow for flood control and management. By the late
1930s, water levels in the area could be managed during moderate to low river
stages. As a result, waterfowl food plants such as long-leaf pondweed and coontail
were abundant in the lake during 1939 and 1940, as was waterfowl use. In 1939,
500,000 Mallards were recorded on the area during fall migration. Those num-
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Illinois River National Wildife and Fish Refuges
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
3
bers increased to 1,050,540 in 1943, and in 1945 the number of Mallards using the
area reached an all-time high of 1,500,000. Diving duck use of the area was also
common.
During the 1990s, Chautauqua NWR was rehabilitated to a functioning backwater
lake, bottomland forest, and floodplain wetland complex through force account and
contract efforts of the Fish and Wildlife Service and through the Environmental
Management Program of the Corps of Engineers. The water management system
allows Refuge Complex staff to mitigate some of the human induced impacts
associated with navigation, the diversion of Lake Michigan water down the
Illinois River, and conversion of the tallgrass prairie and wetlands to cropland
production and other uses. These factors have artificially eliminated the historic
dry season associated with the river and its floodplain due to a 4-foot increase in
average low water levels and irregular and abrupt spikes in river levels. Refuge
Complex personnel approximate the historic hydrograph using a series of low
level levees, spillways, and water control structures to mimic the historical flood
cycle, especially during spring fish migration and the summer dry period.
The Cameron-Billsbach Division (a unit of Chautauqua NWR) is located in Mar-shal
County, between Sparland, Illinois, and Henry, Illinois. The Cameron-
Billsbach Division is bisected by the Illinois River creating two separate areas –
the Cameron Unit and Billsbach Unit. They extend from river mile 192 to 195 and
are 64 miles up river from the Refuge Headquarters. The purpose of each unit is
to serve as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. The Illinois Department of
Natural Resources Sparland Conservation Area is contiguous to the south
boundary.
The Cameron unit includes 1,064 acres of backwater lake habitat, 634 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest, and 10 acres of upland forest. The unit includes the
177-acre Cameron Research Natural Area, which was established in 1972. The
late Judge Glen J. Cameron of Pekin, Illinois, donated the land to create the
Cameron Unit on May 17, 1958. The unit supports a population of decurrent false
aster plants and has a Bald Eagle nest. Waterfowl peak numbers commonly
exceeded 50,000 birds in the fall but declined precipitously after 1973 because of
habitat degradation.
The 1,072-acre Billsbach Unit is located along the east side of the Illinois River
and joins the center portion of Billsbach Lake. The Illinois Chapter of the
Nature Conservancy purchased the land from the Armour Hunt Club and then
sold the land to the Fish and Wildlife Service on December 22, 1981, for $30,000.
The Billsbach unit supports an active Bald Eagle nest (probably the same pair
that build a nest on the Cameron Unit). Billsbach Lake is badly degraded
because of excessive sedimentation and continuous resuspension of silt by wind,
tows, and exotic fish.
1.2.2 Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge
Meredosia NWR is located in Cass and Morgan counties within the Illinois River
floodplain in the upper end of Alton Pool and extending from river mile 71.5 on
the south to river mile 76.7 to the north. The Refuge presently owns and man-ages
3,852 acres of land within the approved 5,255-acre boundary. Meredosia
Lake is a meandered lake and, therefore, is under the control of the Illinois
Division of Water Resources. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources
manages waterfowl hunting and fishing on Meredosia Lake.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
Much of what is now the Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge was previously
owned and managed by the Chicago Meredosia Gun Club (Club), which was
responsible for developing the area for waterfowl management through the
construction of levees, water control structures, and a network of ditches needed
to transport water to backwater sloughs and small impoundments. The area was
later purchased by a club member, Mr. James Anderson, who stipulated in his will
that upon his death, the Club and its belongings would be donated to a conserva-tion
agency for management. In May 1972, the Anderson estate donated 1,780
acres to The Nature Conservancy for ultimate management by the Service. On
May 9, 1973, The Nature Conservancy deeded the property to the Service.
However, at the request of Mr. Anderson, deed restrictions would encumber the
land to ensure perpetual protection. These include:
1) The area shall not be used for hunting except that deemed necessary for
proper management of the waterfowl resource;
2) Cutting of timber from the area shall not be undertaken except that deemed
necessary for wildlife and habitat improvement; and
3) Public use of the area shall not include motorized vehicles, except upon roads
authorized for public use.
Meredosia NWR is a backwater lake component of the Illinois River floodplain.
There are currently eight small impoundments with associated levees, ditches,
and water control structures on the Refuge. The impoundments range in size
from 4 to 20 acres in size and are primarily managed for moist soil vegetation.
Controlled flooding of impoundments is conducted by pumping from the river or
Meredosia Lake. There are roughly 5.2 miles of river bank habitat.
1.2.3 Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge
Emiquon NWR is located along the Illinois River at river mile 121 in Fulton
County. As of April 2002, the Service owned and managed 2,114 acres of land
within the 11,122-acre authorized boundary. Approximately 90 percent of the land
within the area where the Service is authorized to purchase land, or authorized
boundary, is cropland. However, the partnership restoration of wetlands and
associated upland habitats should result in a highly productive, functioning system
to support historical biological diversity for the enjoyment and use by American
people.
Historically two backwater lakes (Thompson Lake with 1,800 acres and Flag
Lake with 1,000 acres) provided excellent habitat for migratory birds, fish, and
resident wildlife. Nearly the entire Thompson Lake Drainage District was owned
by Wilder Farms. The Nature Conservancy purchased Wilder Farms in 2000 and
now owns 7,063 acres within the acquisition boundary for Emiquon NWR. Most of
the land within the acquisition boundary was ditched, cleared, leveed, tiled, and
pumped in the early 1900s to facilitate row crop agriculture. Because of the
levees, Thompson Lake and Flag Lake basins have not been subjected to heavy
annual sedimentation and contaminants as most other backwater lakes along the
Illinois River. Restoration of clearwater aquatic habitat approximating original
depths and contours is possible without substantial dredging or earth moving.
Public involvement, detailed hydrologic, engineering, and environmental data will
be required for specific site planning and development. The Nature Conservancy
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
5
is developing plans for restoration of the Wilder Farms property. Wilder Farms
retained farming rights through 2002. The Conservancy cash-rented the farm
ground in 2003 and 2004. Restoration of Thompson and Flag lakes will begin in
2005.
Following restoration of the wetlands on Service-owned lands, water levels will
be managed to provide conditions essential for sustaining the diverse plant and
animal communities that existed prior to the devastating human induced impacts
on the watershed and river ecosystem. This will require maintaining levees,
water control facilities, and management of water levels to simulate hydrologic
conditions prior to the 1900s and to protect the wetland areas from the effects of
unnatural hydrology, sedimentation, contamination, and non-native species. The
Globe Drainage District lands could be opened for spring flooding to provide
river fish spawning and nursery habitat while managed as an open marsh.
1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service
manages the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System of more than 530
national wildlife refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special
management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery
resource offices and 78 ecological services field stations.
Among its key functions, the Service enforces federal wildlife
laws, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds,
restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores
wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments
with their international 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. The Service employs approximately
7,500 people at facilities across the country, with a headquarters
in Washington D.C., seven geographic regions, and nearly 700 field
units.
The Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Complex is
located in the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service, which includes the
states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wiscon-sin.
The Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region manages over 1.2 million acres of land
and water on 46 national wildlife refuges and nine wetland management districts,
including more than 240,000 acres in waterfowl production areas. The Region
also manages six national fish hatcheries, nine fisheries stations, 10 ecological
services field offices, and 18 law enforcement field offices.
1.3.1 Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of
the American people.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
1.3.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations: Migratory birds, endangered fish
and wildlife species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals are conserved,
protected, enhanced, or restored. The Service is participating in conservation of
other species when its expertise, facilities, or land can enhance state, tribal, or
local efforts.
Habitat Conservation: Network of Lands and Waters: An ecologically diverse
network of lands and waters, of various ownerships, is conserved to provide
habitats for marine mammals and migratory, interjuristictional, endangered, and
other species associated with ecosystems conserved in cooperation with others.
Connecting Americans to Wildlife: The American public understands and partici-pates
in the conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.
Workforce Excellence: The Service’s workforce, scientific capability, and business
practices – in cooperation with the Department of Interior’s scientific expertise –
fully support achievement of the Service mission.
1.3.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System
America’s National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s
largest and most diverse collection of lands and waters set
aside specifically for wildlife. The Refuge System began in
1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre
Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a
national bird sanctuary. Today, over 540 national wildlife
refuges have been established from the Arctic Ocean to the South Pacific, from
Maine to the Caribbean. Varying in size from half-acre parcels to thousands of
square miles, they encompass more than 92 million acres of the nation’s best
wildlife habitats. The vast majority of these lands are in Alaska, with the rest
spread across the United States and several U.S. territories. Like Pelican Island,
many early wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets, and other water
birds. Other refuges were set aside for large mammals like elk and bison. How-ever,
most national wildlife refuges were created to protect waterfowl. This is a
result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties for
migratory bird conservation and legislation such as the Migratory Bird Conserva-tion
Act of 1929. Refuges dot the map along the four major “flyways” that water-fowl
follow from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas.
National wildlife refuges play a vital role in preserving endangered and threat-ened
species and their habitat. Among these are Aransas National Wildlife
Refuge in Texas, the winter home of the Whooping Crane; the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge, which protects one of the Nation’s most endangered
mammals; and the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, which provides critical
habitat for the federally-listed endangered Karner blue butterfly.
1.3.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national
network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
7
appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.
1.3.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the
following goals:
■ To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the
System mission.
■ To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
■ To perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine
mammal populations.
■ To conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
■ To conserve and restore where appropriate representative ecosystems of
the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of
those ecosystems.
■ To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife,
and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe,
high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use
includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
1.4 Upper Mississippi
River/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem
The Refuge Complex lies within the
Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem, one of eight
ecosystems managed by Region 3 of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Figure 2). The Ecosystem is a large
and ecologically diverse area that
encompasses land in the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
and Wisconsin. Six ecotypes are focus
areas for this ecosystem. The Refuge
Complex lies within the Mississippi
River Corridor ecotype. The Upper
Mississippi River and tributary
corridors provide the largest area of
contiguous fish and wildlife habitat
remaining in the Central United
Figure 2: Illinois River Basin Within Upper Mississippi River/
Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
States. The Mississippi River and the tributaries have always provided an
important haven and migration route for fish and wildlife, but because of the
continuing loss of wetlands, loss of forests, expansion of urban and agricultural
areas, navigation, and channelization of many rivers, its importance has greatly
increased in recent history.
The goals for the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem are:
Goal 1: Protect, restore, and enhance populations of native and trust species
and their habitats.
Goal 2: Restore natural ecosystem processes, including hydrology and
sediment transport to maintain species and habitat diversity.
Goal 3: Promote environmental awareness of the ecosystem and its needs
with emphasis on sustainable land use management.
Goal 4: Identify water quality problems affecting native biodiversity and
habitat of trust species.
Goal 5: Reduce conflicts between fish and wildlife needs and other uses.
1.5 Goals and Objectives for Other Landscape
Level Plans
1.5.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Over the last decade, bird conservation planning has become increasingly excit-ing
as it has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to a more regional,
landscape-oriented perspective. Significant challenges include locating areas of
high quality habitat for the conservation of particular guilds and priority bird
species, making sure no species are inadvertently left out of the regional planning
process, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, and identifying unique
landscape and habitat elements of particular tracts targeted for protection,
management and restoration. Several migratory bird conservation initiatives
have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. Collec-tively,
they comprise a tremendous resource as refuges engage in comprehensive
conservation planning and its translation into effective on the ground manage-ment.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
outlines a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conserva-tion
efforts in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is
to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The NAWMP is designed to
reach its objectives through key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and
state implementation plans within these joint ventures.
The Refuge Complex is found within the Upper Mississippi River and Great
Lakes Joint Venture area of the NAWMP – Illinois River Focus Area and
contributes to the achievement of waterfowl objectives outlined in the Imple-
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
9
mentation Plan for this area. One of 12 habitat based joint ventures, this Joint
Venture encompasses the states of Michigan and Wisconsin in their entirety, plus
portions of Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and
Ohio. The goal of this Joint Venture is to increase populations of waterfowl and
other wetland wildlife by protecting, restoring and enhancing wetland and
associated upland habitats within the Joint Venture region.
The objectives of this Joint Venture are:
Objective 1: Conserve 9,118,884 acres of habitat capable of supporting an
annual breeding duck population of 1,542,000, under average
environmental conditions, by the year 2013.
Objective 2: Conserve 532,711 acres of habitat on migration focus areas
capable of supporting 266 million duck use days during annual
fall migration, under average environmental conditions, by the
year 2013.
Objective 3: When consistent with Objectives 1 and 2, contribute to the
protection and/or increase of habitats for wetland and associated
upland wildlife species in the Joint Venture, with emphasis on
declining non waterfowl migratory birds.
Partners In Flight
Formed in 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) is concerned with most landbirds and
other species requiring terrestrial habitats. Partners in Flight has developed
Bird Conservation Plans for numerous Physiographic Areas across the U. S. (see
http://www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists,
associated habitats, and management strategies.
The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan address the concerns for shorebird and waterbirds. These
larger scale plans identify priority species and conservation strategies.
In a continental effort, the Partners in Flight, North American Waterfowl
Management, U. S. Shorebird Conservation, and the North American Waterbird
Conservation plans are being integrated under the umbrella of the North Ameri-can
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the
delivery of the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based,
biologically driven, landscape oriented partnerships (see http://www.dodpif.org/
nabci/index.htm). The NABCI strives to integrate the conservation objectives
for all birds in order to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies.
NABCI uses Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as its planning units. Bird
Conservation Areas are becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice for
regional bird conservation efforts. The Refuge Complex lies within Eastern
Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22).
Each of the four bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating
conservation priority species, modeled to a large extent on the PIF method of
calculating scores based on independent assessments of global relative abun-dance,
breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area impor-tance
(at a particular scale, e.g. physiographic area or BCR), and population trend.
These scores are often used by agencies in developing lists of bird species of
concern; e.g., the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service based its assessments for its 2002
list of nongame Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in
Flight, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment scores.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
1.5.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation
Priorities
The Resource Conservation Priorities list is a subset of all species that occur in
the Region and was derived from an objective synthesis of information on their
status. The list includes all federally listed threatened and endangered species
and proposed and candidate species that occur in the Region, migratory bird
species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning
efforts, and rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that
represent an abbreviation of the Endangered Species program’s preliminary
draft “Species of Concern” list for the Region.
Although many species are not included in the priority list, this does not mean
that we consider them unimportant.
The list includes 129 species or populations for the Service’s Upper Mississippi
River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem (Appendix I).
Figure 3: North American Bird Conservation Initiative-designated Bird Conservation Regions
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
11
1.6 Purposes of the Refuges
The purpose for which a national wildlife refuge is established provides the basic
framework for developing management direction for the refuge. It is within the
guidelines of the refuge purpose that management functions are developed from
and from which appropriate uses and facilities can be determined.
Chautauqua NWR was established by Executive Order 7524 on December 23,
1936, which authorized the Federal government (U.S. Biological Survey) to
purchase land owned by the former Chautauqua Drainage and Levee District
(District). Under that order, the purpose of Chautauqua NWR is defined as: “... as
a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive
Order 7524) Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Refuge’s purpose is:
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Meredosia NWR was established in 1973 under the authority of the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Under that Act, the purpose is defined as “...for
use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migra-tory
birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) Under the Refuge Recreation Act,
the Refuge’s purpose further states: “...suitable for 1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, 2) the protection of natural resources, 3) the
conservation of endangered species or threatened species...the Secretary...may
accept and use...real..property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the
terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” (Refuge
Recreation Act)
Emiquon NWR was established under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986 and the purchase of the first tract of 283.71 acres occurred on December 29,
1993. The purpose the Emiquon NWR is for “...the conservation of the wetlands of
the nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill
international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conven-tions.”
1.7 Refuge Complex Vision Statement
The vision for the future of the Illinois River Complex of Refuges is:
Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Complex is a wild and thriving
place where abundant grasslands and savannas, bottomland forests, and backwa-ter
lakes support diverse and productive populations of plants and animals. With
numerous opportunities to learn about and utilize its resources, the Refuge
Complex serves as a regional and national destination for visitors seeking high
quality educational and recreational experiences. Through outreach with others,
the Refuge Complex has expanded the publics understanding and appreciation of
Illinois River fish and wildlife resources, and in doing so, has perpetuated these
resources within the communities surrounding the Refuge Complex.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
1.8 Purpose of and Need for the Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, CCP or “Plan,” identifies the role the
Refuge Complex will play in supporting the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and provides guidance for Refuge management. The Plan articu-lates
management goals for the next 15 years and specifies objectives and
strategies that will achieve these goals. Congress mandated that the Service
would prepare CCPs for every national wildlife refuge within the NWRS in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Legislative mandates
and other policies, including the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997, have guided the development of this plan. These mandates include:
■ Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
■ Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpreta-tion
are priority public uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activities
when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the Refuge’s purpose
or the mission of the Refuge System.
■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when determined appropri-ate
and compatible with Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge
System.
The plan will guide the management of Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish
Refuges Complex by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the
Refuge Complex.
■ Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and those activities
that occur off-Refuge.
■ Providing Refuge Complex neighbors, users, and the general public with
an understanding of the Service’s land acquisition and management actions
on and around the refuges.
■ Ensuring that Refuge Complex actions and programs are consistent with
the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Ensuring that Refuge Complex management is consistent with federal,
state, and county plans.
■ Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge Complex management.
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the refuges’
operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
13
1.9 Existing Partnerships
The Refuge Complex continues to serve as a leader, facilitator and source of
information for a variety of natural resource initiatives or issues to enhance the
quality and quantity of fish and wildlife habitats along the Illinois River. These
include efforts such as serving on the Illinois River Coordinating Council, serving
as the leader of the Illinois River Focus Team of the Midwest Natural Resources
Work Group, serving on the executive board of the Upper Mississippi River/Tall
Grass Prairie Ecosystem Team, serving as a member of the planning team for the
2005 Governors Conference on the Illinois River and working closely with
partners and support groups such as Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy,
Friends of the Illinois River and others.
The Illinois River NWR Complex is also working with ecosystem partners and
other local, state, and federal organizations to restore the Illinois River water-shed
by various enhancement projects to slow siltation and promote a system of
highly diverse and healthy habitats. Two excellent examples are the Department
of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resource’s Illinois River 2020 Initiative.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a partnership effort to
restore waterfowl populations to historic levels, with objectives and strategies
evolving through North American Waterfowl Management Plan Updates. The
Illinois River NWR Complex is found within the Upper Mississippi River and
Great Lakes Joint Venture area of the Plan and contributes to the achievement of
waterfowl objectives outlined in the implementation plan for this area.
The Refuges’ Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides technical assis-tance
and cost sharing to complete habitat restoration or enhancement projects
provided that the land owner agrees to maintain the project for a period of 10
years or more. The program focuses on restoring and enhancing habitats that
provide wildlife, fisheries, water quality, aesthetic, and recreation benefits. The
Illinois River Private Lands District covers 11 counties and includes working
with 365 hunt clubs encompassing 34,000 acres along the Illinois River. Over the
past 10 years, roughly 6,000 acres of habitat have been restored by the Service in
Illinois River Focus Areas through partnership efforts. Other agencies provide
invaluable contributions in research, restoration, protection and maintenance of
wildlife habitat. Partnerships with private groups greatly enhance public invest-ment
in the Refuge Complex, building enthusiasm for its mission and support in
funding issues. The Refuge Complex has established partnerships with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the
Illinois Natural History Survey, the Forbes Biological Station, and several other
notable conservation interests, including:
■ Private landowners
■ The Wetland Initiative
■ Ducks Unlimited
■ Refuge volunteers
■ Pheasants Forever
■ The Nature Conservancy
■ The Izaak Walton League of America
■ The Natural Resources Conservation Service
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
■ Soil and Water Conservation Districts
■ Rural Fire Districts
1.10 Legal and Policy Guidance
Management and administration of the Refuge Complex is accomplished in
accordance with authority delegated by Congress and interpreted by regulations
and guidelines established in accordance with such delegations. In addition to the
legislation establishing each individual refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, numerous other federal laws, executive
orders, and regulations govern the management and administration of the
Refuge Complex. See Appendix E for a complete list.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
15
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated EA were prepared
in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Service policy set forth
in the Departmental Manual on National Wildlife Refuge System Planning (part
602 FW 1).
The planning area used for this CCP spanned the Illinois River Corridor from
roughly Hennipen, Illinois, downstream to Meredosia, Illinois. Management
direction was developed for land within the authorized boundaries of the refuges
within the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Complex and associ-ated
land within the Illinois River Corridor.
2.1 Meetings and Other Forums
This planning project was launched with public meetings aimed at giving neigh-bors,
the community, state and local government, and state and federal agencies
an opportunity to describe the issues they believe should be addressed in long-term
planning. Public meetings were held between April 19-21, 1999, in the
communities of Meredosia, Henry and Lewistown, Illinois, to solicit public
comment on refuge planning. Refuge staff have met with the Illinois Division of
Water Resources, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and several
non-government organizations. Staff have participated in several technical
groups and have met with local organizations. Refuge staff and planners hosted a
public meeting at the Dickson Mounds Museum to discuss the CCP. In addition,
Refuge staff and planners have asked for regional office comment on the issues
that should be considered in planning.
The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan was released for public review in
September 2003. The Service asked that comments be returned by October 20,
2003. Three open house meetings were conducted to give people interested in the
future of the Refuge Complex a chance to speak directly with Refuge staff and
Service planners. These meetings were conducted on September 23, 2003, in
Meredosia, Illinois; September 24, 2003, in Lewistown, Illinois; and September
25, 2003, in Henry, Illinois.
A summary of the comments received on the draft plan and how Refuge staff and
Service planners responded to the comments is included in Appendix K.
2.2 Planning Issues and Concerns
The following paragraphs briefly describe the issues and concerns we heard in
the scoping process when the planning project began.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
2.2.1 Wildlife Management Issues and Concerns
■ Protection of endangered and threatened species and restoring them to
secure status in the wild. Federally listed species found on the Refuge
Complex or species that could be candidates for reintroduction on Refuge
Complex land include three threatened plants (Decurrent false aster, Mead’s
milkweed, and prairie white-fringed orchid); one endangered mollusk
(Higgin’s eye pearlymussel); one endangered bird (Least Tern), one threat-ened
bird (Bald Eagle), and one endangered mammal (Indiana bat).
■ Twenty-eight species of waterfowl are known to use the Refuge Complex,
including Trumpeter and Tundra swans. The north and south pools of Lake
Chautauqua provide prime habitat for diving ducks and dabbling ducks.
Chautauqua NWR in particular provides a haven for more than 40 percent of
the waterfowl that use the Illinois River segment of the Mississippi River
flyway. Maintaining its major role in supporting waterfowl of the Mississippi
River flyway since its inception is a concern for the Refuge Complex.
■ Habitat loss and degradation have been identified as crucial factors in the
decline of many grassland bird species.
■ Habitat fragmentation increases the rate of predation and brood parasitism
among bird species along the Illinois River.
■ Approximately 102 species of fish, 37 species of mollusks, and 10 species of
crustaceans have been collected within the vicinity of the Refuge Complex
(Appendix C), including four state-listed endangered species (lake sturgeon,
blacknose shiner, weed shiner, Iowa darter) and two state-listed threatened
species (cisco and bantam sunfish). With improvements to habitat and water
quality, populations of fish and mussels within the Illinois River Corridor
could increase, and natural communities could become reestablished in areas
where they have been eliminated or altered.
■ The introduction of exotic and non-native species into the Refuge (e.g., carp,
goldfish, zebra mussels, purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, reed canary grass,
shattercane) represents a major threat to maintaining diverse and produc-tive
biological systems on Refuge land.
■ Other exotic species present in the Illinois River have been intentionally
introduced to the detriment of native species. The common carp was intro-duced
as a valuable commercial fish, but is now regarded as a nuisance
because of its habit of retarding the growth of aquatic vegetation by consum-ing
it and by roiling the water so that increased turbidity reduces photosyn-thetic
efficiency. The Asian grass carp was intentionally introduced by the
State of Arkansas to control aquatic vegetation, and now appears to be
reproducing in the Illinois River, Upper Mississippi River and Ohio River.
The grass carp prefers the same types of aquatic plants as some waterfowl,
such as the Canvasback, and may compete with them for food or limit the
recovery of aquatic vegetation in the Illinois River. Another recent introduc-tion,
the silver carp and big-head carp, are plankton feeders and have become
a significant portion of the fish biomass in the Illinois River.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
17
2.2.2 Habitat Management Issues and Concerns
■ Over browsing by deer produces significant changes to forest structure and
composition. As such, many grazing-sensitive species have probably been
eliminated from many forest remnants on Refuge Complex land and within
the Illinois River Corridor, while those more tolerant to browsing (e.g.,
thorn-bearing taxa such as red haw, honey locust, gooseberry, blackberry)
have probably become more abundant. Non-native species also tend to
increase from over browsing, such as garlic mustard and buckbrush.
■ Stemming the loss of habitat has been cited as a concern. Past damage to the
Illinois River’s biological diversity has mainly occurred at the species,
ecosystem, and landscape scale. At the species scale, of the species present
in the State of Illinois in 1900, about one in five fish, one in three amphibians
and reptiles, more than half of all freshwater mussels, and one in five crayfish
have been eliminated from the state or threatened by extinction (Illinois
DNR 1996). The Refuge Complex and associated lands support diverse and
abundant flora and fauna populations found along the Illinois River. These
include over 404 species of plants, 45 species of mammals, 102 species of fish,
48 species of reptiles, 19 species of amphibians, 37 species of molluscs, 10
species of crustaceans, and 264 species of birds. Species-level protection has
occurred mainly through federal and state efforts (i.e., Endangered Species
Act of 1973,) and state regulatory programs.
■ A primary goal for the Refuge Complex has been managing floodplain land to
improve native biological diversity of the Illinois River Valley. The Refuge
Complex has sought to accomplish this through appropriate management of
the properties within the boundaries of each Refuge and in providing techni-cal
and financial assistance to landowners around each Refuge Unit who are
interested in restoring or enhancing habitat on their lands. However,
progress has been limited due to personnel and financial considerations. Of
late, the Refuge Complex has been tasked with providing habitat for several
regional species of management concern. However, the Refuge Complex
currently lacks management guidance to direct these new efforts.
■ The total wetland acreage in the Illinois River Corridor at the time of
European settlement was approximately 350,000 acres. Today, less than half
remain. State and federal management areas protect approximately 16,500
acres of palustrine-type wetlands. Another 16,000-plus acres are estimated
to be protected by private duck hunting clubs. Currently only 53 backwater
lakes survive along the full length of the Illinois River, and many of them are
sterile systems devoid of aquatic vegetation. The once dynamic floodplain of
the river has been reduced to roughly 200,000 acres, half the size it was 100
years ago. Once a river valley of diverse and productive wetlands, the actual
water surface area within the corridor now accounts for roughly 60 to 100
square miles (40,000 to 70,000 acres).
■ Forest resources along the Illinois River corridor have been impacted
substantially by activities of man since European settlement. What was once
a nearly continuous ribbon of bottomland forests providing migration and
nesting habitat for warblers, Wood Ducks, hawks, woodpeckers, thrushes,
and other woodland birds as well as spawning and feeding grounds for fish
during spring floods. Many forest birds are declining as a result of destruc-tion
and degradation of bottomland forests. Brown-headed Cowbirds are an
edge species and parasitize songbird nests along the edges of forests. Large
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
blocks of forests provided secure nesting habitat for many warblers whereas
fragmented habitat favors the cowbirds and can be a biological sink for birds
subject to this parasitism. Loss of mast producing species such as pecan and
pin oak trees has reduced food resources for waterfowl, deer, turkey, and
larger songbirds.
■ By 1976, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, or 2,352 acres, of high-quality original
native prairie remained in the Prairie State, and four of every five that
remained were less than 10 acres in size (Illinois DNR, 1996). Loss of prairie
within the Illinois River Corridor combined with changes in natural pro-cesses
have had negative consequences for many grassland plants and
associated animals. Historically, roughly 40 percent of the lower Illinois
River was prairie. The loss of bottomland prairies, and the subsequent
isolation of those areas, is detrimental to animals that depend upon large
natural prairie areas.
■ Prior to European settlement, oak savanna covered approximately 27-32
million acres of the Midwest (Nuzzo 1985). This same author indicates that in
1985, only 113 sites (2,607 acres) of high-quality oak savanna remained.
Nationwide, over 99 percent of the original savanna has been lost, and mid-western
oak savannas are among the rarest ecosystems in the nation. The
once widespread oak savannas have become one of the nation’s more endan-gered
ecosystems (Noss et al. 1995). Development has destroyed, frag-mented,
and disrupted natural processes needed to maintain quality oak
savanna ecosystems. Currently, no high quality savanna exists within the
Refuge Complex nor is the Service aware of any being present in the Illinois
River Corridor. The long-term effect of this landscape-scale loss of savanna
has yet to be determined.
■ Refuge land (as well as other protected land within the Illinois River Corri-dor)
suffers from habitat fragmentation. Some of this results from dams
along the river and tributaries, as well as levees that isolate the floodplain
lakes from the river (which can be a barrier to fish migrations). Coupled
with the levees affecting bottomland forests, there is no longer a continuous
canopy along the river. The effects of these gaps in the corridor are largely
unknown, although it is likely they impact the use of the corridor by migra-tory
bird species.
■ It is estimated that each year more than 14 million tons of sediment are
transported through the Illinois River watershed. More than half of this is
deposited in the Illinois River Valley. Peoria Lake, the largest and deepest
bottomland lake along the Illinois River, lost 68 percent of its capacity
between 1903 and 1985 (Illinois DNR, 1996). Problems associated with
erosion and sedimentation are recognized as the number one ecological
problem in the Illinois River-floodplain ecosystem and has taken its toll.
2.2.3 Visitor Services Issues and Concerns
■ There is a strong demand for high quality, wildlife-dependent recreational
activities on Refuge Complex land, including wildlife observation and photog-raphy,
public hunting, and fishing.
■ The Service and the public have identified several new facilities that will
expand Refuge Complex recreational opportunities and support the long-term
goals of the Refuge, watershed, and Illinois River Corridor.
Chapter 2 / The Planning Process
19
■ Some people have expressed interest in the Refuge Complex providing
additional places to see wildlife (including access points) as well as additional
lands to hunt and fish. In particular, there is an increasing demand for public
hunting opportunities (mainly waterfowl and deer hunting) on the Refuge.
■ Many of the existing visitor facilities at the Refuge need upgrading or lack
accessibility for some visitors (internal issue). There has been expressed
interest (internally and externally) for improving existing Refuge Complex
infrastructure for safety and accessibility, improving visitor information
systems (signs and brochures), and bringing Refuge facilities up to Service
standards.
■ Many individuals and groups have expressed concern that the Refuge is not
well known and understood within the local area. Some area residents are
unaware of the Refuge and of the many programs it offers. Several people
commented that because it was a national wildlife refuge, they always
assumed it was closed to the public, especially for hunting. Others com-mented
they did not differentiate Refuge land from Illinois DNR land.
2.2.4 Other Issues Cited
■ Several people have expressed concern that the 3x3 structure at the mouth
of Quiver Creek should remain open until waterfowl hunting season closes
for the purpose of keeping ice off Lake Chautauqua beyond natural freeze-up.
■ Some neighboring farmers say that they are experiencing crop losses due to
grazing by geese, squirrels and deer. Early season losses following emer-gence
of corn and/or soybeans occur from all species on lands bordering the
Refuge. Canada Geese graze on soybeans, and to a lesser degree corn, for
several weeks after emergence. White-tail deer feed on crops throughout
the growing season. Crop damage varies by species and location with some
neighbors suffering greater losses than others.
■ Avian botulism has been a serious problem on Lake Chautauqua with a loss
of over 8,000 birds in 1997 and a loss of 2,623 birds in 1998. Staff from the
Wildlife Health Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, provided assistance and
confirmed that avian botulism was the agent of death of the birds. Losses
were limited to 278 birds in 1999 but the number of birds lost in 2000 was
933. Refuge staff will continue to closely monitor the health of birds on the
Refuge and react quickly and decisively to minimize losses to diseases.
■ Two written comments and several oral comments from the public expressed
concern about the amount of food presently produced for waterfowl on
Chautuaqua NWR and the potential for additional food production on
Emiquon NWR. Some hunters suggested that the Service should provide
only sanctuary for waterfowl and not produce any food. This was proposed
so waterfowl would be more likely to fly off the Refuge Complex to private
hunting clubs to find a food . Others expressed an opposite concern, saying
that without food and sanctuary on Refuge Complex land, waterfowl would
most likely pass over the area without stopping.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
3.1.1 Geography, Topography and Hydrology
The Illinois River flows 273 miles from the junction of the Des Plaines River and
Kankakee River south of Joliet, Illinois, to Grafton, Illinois, where it joins the
Mississippi River and flows south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Illinois River Basin
(Figure 4) drains about 30,000 square miles (7.7. million acres) in three states,
Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois.
Ecologically, the Refuge Complex is located in the Central Tallgrass Prairie
Ecoregion (ecoregion), which encompasses 110,468 square miles extending from
Figure 4: Illinois River Basin Location
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
21
eastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas east to northwestern Indiana. It
comprises the eastern lobe of the Prairie Parkland Province and two ecoregion
sections (Central Dissected Till Plains and Central Till Plains) as delineated by
Bailey et al. (1994). The ecoregion is characterized by flat, gently rolling topogra-phy
with steep bluffs bordering major river valleys, three of which traverse the
region: the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois. During the Pleistocene Epoch,
glaciers advanced and retreated at least four times across all or portions of the
ecoregion, depositing large areas of glacial drift and loess and creating the
characteristic rolling topography seen today. The ecoregion is influenced to some
degree by the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains that create habitat favoring
grasses.
3.1.2 Surface Hydrology
Water supplied to Refuge Complex land comes from four primary sources: the
Illinois River, Quiver Creek, Crow Creek, and the Spoon River (Figure 5). The
single most important event impacting the surface hydrology of the Illinois River
system (and Refuge Complex) was the opening of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship
Canal in 1900. This one event introduced major changes to Illinois River surface
hydrology, namely it created a major navigation corridor, became the recipient of
Chicago’s wastewater, and dramatically changing the river’s flow pattern, raising
the river’s average water level by 1.5 to 4 feet, increasing both average flows and
the frequency and severity of floods. Water levels for navigation are managed
with a series of locks and dams that were constructed in the 1930s to maintain a
navigation corridor 300 feet wide and 9 feet deep. Diverted water from Lake
Michigan and the locks and dams along the river has increased the mean summer
minimum water levels and significantly expanded the open water surface area.
Streamflow in the Illinois River is representative of climatic events and human
influences covering the upper Illinois River watershed. Several recent studies
have shown that annual peak flows on the Illinois River for the period 1941-1985
have increased about by 50 percent. Higher flows, it was found, were caused by
concurrent increases in precipitation in the river’s watershed. Northeastern
Illinois, in particular, has experienced significant increases in the magnitude and
frequency of heavy precipitation (Kunkel et al., 1997). Average flows and low
flows have been noticeably greater since 1970 compared to previous periods
throughout the mid-1900s, and appear to be related to average annual precipita-tion.
However, average river streamflows vary greatly from year to year, and
can also show sizable variation between decades.
1.1.3 Floodplain Structure and Function
Water quality, quantity, velocity, timing, frequency, and duration are the primary
determinants of the Illinois Rivers floodplain structure and function. When the
Illinois River flooded under natural conditions, it typically altered its shape by
scouring new channels and inundating riverside lands, depositing sediments, and
building new banks and beaches. These functions, called reset mechanisms, are as
important to a healthy river systems as a fire is to a prairie. Just as a prairie is
sustained by natural fires, a river system and associated plants and animals
depend upon the periodic advance and recession of flood waters across their
floodplain. For instance, the federally-listed endangered plant decurrent false
aster (Boltonia decurrens) relies on the exposure of freshly-deposited mud flats
for regeneration (Schwegman and Nyboer 1985; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
Figure 5: Watersheds in the Area of the Illinois River NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
23
1990). The cottonwood, favored for perching by Bald Eagles and for nesting by
herons and egrets, seems to have similar requirements. The river-floodplain also
functions as a corridor for long-distance migrants, mostly birds (raptors,
neotropical songbirds, shorebirds, ducks, geese, swans and others) but also for one
species of migratory fish, the American eel, which spawns off the coast of Cuba in
the Sargasso Sea. Most aquatic animals, however, use the Illinois river-floodplain
system as a permanent home, undertaking short migrations within the system to
spawning, rearing or feeding areas in rapids, tributaries, backwaters, or on the
floodplain. Fish yields and production are strongly related to the extent of
accessible floodplain, whereas the river channel may serve as a migration route
for most fishes (Junk et al. 1989).
Flood cycles associated with the Illinois River are characterized by two peaks: a
major one in spring and a smaller one in fall. The construction of levees, chan-nels,
locks, and dams has altered the natural structure and function of the river-floodplain
relationship. The seasonal hydrologic fluctuations that normally
provide the vehicle for transfer between the floodplain and the river has been
modified. Vast floodplain areas have been virtually excluded from the river
system through dike and levee construction.
3.1.4 Climate
Wide temperature fluctuations and persistent winds characterize the climate of
this ecoregion, with an annual precipitation of 27 to 40 inches.
The climate patterns that support the Illinois River Refuge Complex is typical of
many continental locations in that there are wide temperature fluctuations. The
average high temperatures (Fahrenheit) in the summer are in the 80s with
average lows in the 60s. Winter highs are generally in the 30s with lows in the
teens. Temperature extremes range from the minus 20s to highs over 100
degrees.
The average annual rainfall for the Refuge Complex is 34.5 inches, with over 50
percent normally falling during the months of April through August. Snowfall
normally accounts for less than 10 percent of the total precipitation. There is an
average of 5 months without frost each year.
3.1.5 Archaeological and Cultural Values
Responding to the requirement that comprehensive conservation plans include
“the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit,” the Service con-tracted
for a cultural resources overview and management study. This short
section of the CCP derives mostly from the report, “Cultural Resources Over-view
Study of the Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuges: Cameron-
Billsbach, Chautauqua, Emiquon and Meredosia Wildlife Refuges, Mason, Cass,
Fulton, Marshall, and Morgan Counties, Illinois,” by William Gordon Howe (draft
2001).
Archeological evidence shows that people have lived in the American Midwest
for the past 12,500 years. The earliest culture, Paleoindian, was small groups of
highly mobile people subsisting on a hunting and gathering economy, heavily
dependent on the megafauna that died out during this period. Site 11-F-682 within
the Refuge is reported to have a Paleoindian component.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
The following Archaic period lasted from 9,500 to 2,750 years before present.
These people developed a more diverse subsistence economy and, as the climate
turned cooler and wetter, people became more sedentary, began limited plant
cultivation and created extensive trade networks. Within the Refuge, 24 sites
contain Archaic components.
Pottery, the bow and arrow, gardening, and religious activities associated with
mound building characterized the Woodland period 2,700 to 1,000 years ago.
Human populations increased substantially. Woodland cultural components are
found within 15 of the reported sites within the Refuge.
The final prehistoric culture in the Refuge area was the Mississippian tradition
from 1,000 to 500 years ago. Characteristics of this culture include a stratified
society, temple mounds, and farming. Within the Refuge areas, however, cultural
practices appear to have been more of a continuation of the late Woodland period.
Components of these late prehistoric cultures are found in 11 sites within the
Refuge.
The connection between late prehistoric cultures and historic period Indian
tribes is not clear. When the first Europeans arrived in the Illinois country,
native groups were in a state of flux. The historic period tribes have been
identified as the Illini, Miami, Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Potawatomi, all of which
lived in summer villages and farmed lands near streams and springs, with a
seasonal round of hunting and maple sugaring in winter camps. Tribes became
increasingly involved in the fur trade and otherwise adopted European crops and
practices.
The first recorded European expedition on the Illinois River was that of Jolliet
and Marquette in 1673 on their return from the Mississippi River. The French
subsequently built forts, churches, and houses along the Illinois River.
When Illinois entered the Union in 1818, nearly all American settlers lived in the
south of the state, but they soon moved into the Illinois River valley. The
General Cass and Simon Girty Indian council occurred in the vicinity of the south
end of Cameron NWR. The first steamboat ascended the Illinois River in 1828.
Settlements grew along the river at ferry crossings, then usually became steam-boat
landings. Through the 20th century, farming and related essential indus-tries
of grist, saw, and flour mills were the basis for economy. The Chautauqua
NWR area was a favorite area for hunters and trappers into the mid-20th century.
The Refuge has been subjected to 19 cultural resources studies. Most dealt with
the Liverpool Lake site, but intensive archeological surveys have covered 210
acres and reconnaissance surveys have covered 6,630 acres of the Refuge. These
studies and other sources have identified 58 sites on Refuge land and 149 sites on
identified expansion areas.
The Refuge Complex has no museum, but holds five items of artwork that are
covered under the Region-wide scope of collections statement.
A review of the National Register of Historic Places identified 58 properties
listed in Brown, Cass, Fulton, Marshall, Mason, and Morgan counties. Most of the
properties are houses, buildings, structures, and districts located in towns.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
25
Several bridges are listed, and two farms. Several archeological sites are listed
including three in the vicinity of Emiquon NWR. Although no National Register
properties are located within the four units of the Refuge, their presence in the
surrounding counties can be indicative of the kinds of properties to be found on
the Refuge.
The cultural resources management study includes a predictive model of archeo-logical
potential on the four units of the Refuge Complex:
■ The Cameron-Billsbach unit has high potential for containing prehistoric
sites. It has low potential for Paleoindian and for Early Archaic, moderate
potential for Middle Archaic, good potential for Late Archaic, moderate
potential for Early Woodland, good potential for Middle and Late Woodland,
and moderate potential for Mississippian sites.
■ Chautauqua NWR has many known prehistoric sites. It has low potential for
Paleoindian and low to moderate for Archaic sites. It has low potential for
Early Woodland, but good potential for Middle and Late Woodland sites; and
low potential for Mississippian sites. Twentieth century cabin sites along the
east shoreline are known and can be anticipated.
■ Emiquon NWR is in an area of many known important archeological sites.
Mastodon skeletons with butcher marks have been found in excavation for
drainage ditches in Thompson Lake, which indicates potential for late Pleis-tocene
human use. Thus the Refuge has moderate potential for Paleoindian
sites, as well as for Early and Middle Archaic sites and good potential for
Late Archaic sites. It has moderate potential for Early Woodland and good
potential for Middle and Late Woodland sites and for Mississippian sites.
■ The study area of Meredosia NWR has been subject to numerous archeologi-cal
investigations. Prehistoric sites are typically found on landforms that
were slightly higher than the surrounding floodplain. One Paleoindian site is
known within the study area and others, deeply buried, are anticipated.
Early, Middle, and Late Archaic sites are known and more are likely, some
not deeply buried. Likewise many Early, Middle, and Late Woodland sites
are known and more can be expected. Mississippian sites are also reported
within the study area.
Extensive turmoil among the Indian tribes occupying the Refuge areas in the
early period of European contact in North America continued for two centuries.
Thus the relationship of late prehistoric cultures represented in the archeological
record cannot be tied to historic period tribes, so recognized tribal interests are
confined to the historic period.
In the early historic period the Illini tribes had villages along the Illinois River.
Illini tribes included the Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Michigamea, Moingwena, Peoria,
Tamaroa, Korakoenitanon, Chinko, Tapouro, Omouahoas, and Chepoussa. These
tribes disappeared, some merged with related tribes, and the remaining modern
tribe is the Peoria.
The Miami tribes moved into the region including the Refuge area. Miami tribes
included the Wea, Piankashaw, Atchatchakangouen, Kilatika, Pepicokia, and
Menagakonkia. Of these tribes, the Wea and Piankashaw ultimately merged with
the Peoria and the Miami.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Throughout the 1680s the Kickapoo and Mascouten migrated into the Illinois
River valley. They may have retained permanent settlements in Wisconsin and
established only hunting camps in the Refuge area. The two tribes may have
merged; in any event, the Kickapoo remain as modern tribes.
The Potawatomi, originally located east of Lake Michigan, arrived in the Chicago
area in the 1740s and by the 1760s included the Illinois River in their hunting
grounds. A hunting band was reported in the Lake Chautauqua area in 1832. In
the Cameron-Billsbach are, the tribe had a village at Lacon. The Potawatomi
remain as modern tribes.
The Delaware Tribe has identified interests in the Illinois River valley as well as
other areas.
Although Indian tribes are generally considered to have concerns about tradi-tional
cultural properties, sacred sites, and cultural practices, other groups such
as church groups could also have similar concerns. But no groups other than
Indian tribes have been identified.
The Refuge archeological collections contain prehistoric artifacts currently not
associated with any modern tribe. Furthermore, the collections contain human
remains but no funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony
as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Although sites of historic period Indian occupation have not been identified on
the Refuge, they could be located and could contain cultural items.
3.1.6 Social and Economic Context
The Refuge Complex and associated Focus Areas presented in this CCP are
located in 10 counties–Brown, Morgan, Schuyler, Cass, Menard, Mason, Fulton,
Marshall, Putnam and Bureau. Compared to the entire State of Illinois, this 10-
county area has a smaller population growth rate and is less racially and ethni-cally
diverse. The area’s population has a lower average income and less college
education than the state’s population.
3.1.6.1 Population
The total population of the 10 counties that include the area of this plan was
185,993 in the 2000 Census. The population of the counties increased 1.86 percent
during the 1990s while the state’s population increased 8.6 percent. There was a
great variation in population change among the 10 counties: Brown County
increased 19.1 percent, Schulyer County decreased 4.1 percent. The population
for the 10-county area is projected to increase to 189,466 by 2015. The 10-county
population was 95.3 percent white in 2000; the state population was 73.5 percent
white. In Illinois, 19.2 percent of the people 5 years and older speak a language
other than English at home; in the 10-county area it is 3.75 percent.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
27
3.1.6.2 Employment
In 2000 there were a total of 85,516 full- and part-time jobs in the 10-county area.
Farm employment accounted for 10.4 percent of the jobs across the area.
Schuyler County had the highest proportion of farm employment, 19.1 percent.
Other sectors with sizable proportions of jobs are the services, retail, and manu-facturing
sectors.
3.1.6.3 Income and Education
Average per-capita income in the 10-county area was $18,258 in 1999; in Illinois it
was $23,104. The median household income in the 10–county area was $37,880 in
1999; in the state it was $46,590.
In the 10-county area, 14.75 percent of persons over 25 years of age hold a
bachelor’s degree or higher. The comparable figure in the state is 26.1 percent.
3.2 Refuge Resources And Public Uses
3.2.1 Refuge Resources
Early French explorers of the Illinois River described vast expanses of bottom-land
forests, clearwater lakes, sloughs and marshes and abundant fish and
wildlife populations associated with them. The Illinois River system supported
the life needs of native American tribes as evidenced by the numerous archeo-logical
sites identified up and down the river. Since those days of pristine habi-tats,
native American populations have been replaced by an agricultural and
industrial society of European descent. Human modifications to the Illinois
River watershed such as wetland drainage, conversion of prairie and bottomland
forests to croplands, construction of navigation locks and dams, diversion of Lake
Michigan water, stream channelization, agricultural levees, ditches, field tiles,
urbanization, and introduction of non-native species dramatically changed the
floodplain function and hydrology of the river. These modifications to the river
and floodplain have resulted in substantial changes in the distribution, abun-dance,
and general health of the plant and animal communities along the river.
3.2.1.1 Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge
The 4,488-acre refuge (Figure 6) includes roughly 3,250 acres of backwater lake,
930 acres of bottomland hardwoods, and 320 acres of woodlands and prairie
(Figure 7).
Habitat protected within Chautauqua NWR contributes to the goals of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. In addition, based on an evaluation of
the ecological resources in the State of Illinois, Chautauqua NWR includes the
“Roundtree Nature Preserve” and is located in the “Middle Illinois Resource
Rich Area.” Chautauqua NWR provides a haven for waterfowl, supporting
roughly 45 percent of the waterfowl using the Illinois segment of the Mississippi
River flyway and nearly 70 percent of the waterfowl that use the Illinois River
Corridor. The Refuge has been designated as an Illinois River Valley Partnership
“Model Project,” an “Important Bird Area” in the American Bird Conservancy’s
United States Important Bird Areas program, and is included in the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Chautauqua NWR is a popular desti-
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
nation for birders throughout the Midwest. Fishing and waterfowl hunting are
popular consumptive uses of Refuge resources.
The Cameron-Billsbach Division (a unit of Chautauqua NWR) is located in Mar-shal
County between Sparland, Illinois, and Henry, Illinois (Figure 8). The
Cameron unit includes 1,064 acres of backwater lake habitat, 634 acres of bottom-land
hardwood forest, and 10 acres of upland forest (Figure 9). The unit includes
the 177-acre Cameron Research Natural Area, which was established in 1972.
The unit supports a population of decurrent false aster plants and has a Bald
Eagle nest. Waterfowl peak numbers commonly exceeded 50,000 birds in the fall
but declined precipitously after 1973 because of habitat degradation.
The 1,072-acre Billsbach Unit is located along the east side of the Illinois River
and joins the center portion of Billsbach Lake. The Billsbach unit supports an
active Bald Eagle nest (probably the same pair that built a nest on the Cameron
Unit). Billsbach Lake is badly degraded because of excessive sedimentation and
continuous resuspension of silt by wind, tows, and exotic fish.
The three backwater lakes that make up Cameron-Billsbach Division exhibit
typical characteristics of most backwater lakes within the Illinois River System.
They are directly affected by the lock and dams with extreme variability in water
levels (as much as 10 to 12 feet in one month) and water is extremely laden with
silt.
3.2.1.2 Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge
The Refuge presently owns and manages 3,852 acres of land within the approved
5,255 acre boundary (Figure 10). Meredosia Lake is a meandered lake and,
therefore, is under the control of the Illinois Division of Water Resources. The
Illinois Department of Natural Resources manages waterfowl hunting and
fishing on Meredosia Lake.
Meredosia NWR is a backwater lake component of the Illinois River floodplain
(Figure 11). There are currently eight small impoundments with associated
levees, ditches, and water control structures on the Refuge. The impoundments
range in size from 4 to 20 acres and are primarily managed for moist soil vegeta-tion.
Controlled flooding of impoundments is conducted by pumping from the river
or Meredosia Lake. There are roughly 5.2 miles of river bank habitat.
Meredosia Lake is a meandered backwater of the Illinois River. The lake is
nearly 5 miles long and three-quarters of a mile wide at its widest bay. Water
elevations on the lake fluctuate according to Illinois River water levels. A rip-rap
dam with a fixed elevation of 423.2 MSL is located in the lake inlet. A survey
in 1978 revealed the average depth to be 2 feet with a maximum depth of roughly
4.5 feet. Much of the lake edge is only inches deep and gently sloping to the
middle. Sediment deposition from 1903-56 averaged 1.3 cm annually. Average
total sediment in the lake during this period was 68.9 cm. The lake is mostly void
of aquatic vegetation.
The Refuge has fertile sand soils classified as mixed loam, ranging from clay to
loamy sand. Most of the Refuge is poorly drained. Vegetation includes burr
reed, rice cutgrass, smartweed, pigweed, horseweed, buttonbush, foxtail, Walter’s
millet, and nutgrass. Timber stands includes mature bottomland species including
cottonwood, willow, maple, oak, and ash.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
29
Figure 6: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
Figure 7: Land Cover, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
31
Figure 8: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Figure 9: Land Cover, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
33
Figure 10: Ownership and Authorized Boundaries, Meredosia NWR
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
Figure 11: Land Cover, Meredosia NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
35
3.2.1.3 Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge
As of April 2002, the Service owned and managed 2,114 acres of land within the
11,122-acre authorized boundary for the purpose of benefitting listed species,
waterfowl and other migratory birds, native biological diversity, and native fish
and mussels.
Historically two backwater lakes (Thompson Lake with 1,800 acres and Flag
Lake with 1,000 acres) provided excellent habitat for migratory birds, fish, and
resident wildlife. Most of the land within the acquisition boundary was ditched,
cleared, leveed, tiled, and pumped in the early 1900s to facilitate row crop agricul-ture.
Because of the levees, Thompson Lake and Flag Lake basins have not been
subjected to heavy annual sedimentation and contaminants as most other backwa-ter
lakes along the Illinois River.
3.2.1.4 Conservation Focus Areas Within the Illinois River Basin
Several federal agencies have worked with the Service to identify five focus
areas for conservation efforts within the Illinois River Basin (Figures 12-17). The
focus areas include conservation areas managed by others. Within these focus
areas, the agencies will consider the potential for restoration, preservation, and
protection of hydrology, water quality, wetlands and aquatic ecosystems. Devel-opment
of focus areas provides a focus for federal, state, and local conservation
efforts.
The cooperating agencies include the Service, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Federal Highway Administration.
3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources
3.2.2.1 Listed Species
There are eight federally listed and 80 state-listed threatened and endangered
species that historically have been identified on or near the Refuge Complex.
These include three threatened plants (decurrent false aster, Mead’s milkweed,
and Prairie white-fringed orchid); one endangered mollusk (Higgin’s eye
pearlymussel); one endangered bird (Least Tern), one threatened bird (Bald
Eagle); and one endangered mammal (Indiana bat). Only the Bald Eagle and
decurrent false aster have been documented on the Refuge Complex. The Indiana
bat may occur on habitat associated with Meredosia NWR.
Protecting endangered and threatened species and restoring them to secure
status in the wild is a primary purpose of the Service and the Refuge. No
creature exists in isolation. All living organisms are part of a complex, delicately
balanced network called the biosphere. It is composed of many ecosystems, each
with its own complement of plants and animals and their biological, chemical, and
geological processes and the interrelationships that characterize them. When a
species becomes endangered, it indicates that something is wrong with the
ecosystems we all depend on. Like the canaries used in coal mines whose deaths
warned miners of bad air, the increasing numbers of endangered species warn us
that the health of our environment has declined. The removal of a single species
can catalyze a chain reaction affecting many others. The full significance of an
extinction of a species is seldom apparent; much remains to be learned, and the
long-term impacts are difficult to predict.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Figure 12: Conservation Focus Areas, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
37
Figure 13: Conservation Focus Areas, Meredosia NWR
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
Figure 14: Focus Area Boundaries, Cameron-Billsbach Unit of Chautauqua NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
39
Figure 15: Focus Area Boundaries, Lower Sangamon
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
40
Figure 16: Conservation Boundaries Within Focus Areas, Chautauqua NWR and Emiquon NWR
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
41
Figure 17: Conservation Boundaries Within Focus Areas, Meredosia NWR
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
42
Management guidance for listed species within the Refuge Complex is currently
limited. In general, management actions are aimed at protecting all federally
listed threatened and endangered species on Refuge Complex land. Current
management guidance (goal) for listed species includes protecting and enhancing
Refuge habitats to maintain or increase use by endangered or threatened species
(the Refuge Complex has an objective level of 3,415 use-days for Bald Eagle and
Osprey). However, currently the only efforts being made in this regard is to
provide maintenance habitat for Bald Eagles on Refuge Complex land. Bald
Eagles use the Refuge Complex from October through March, with peak num-bers
occurring between November and January. A record 176 eagles were
observed on Chautauqua NWR on February 4, 1999, when late winter flood
waters topped the north spillway in the South Pool. The most important habitat
component provided by the Refuge Complex is sanctuary in the form of mature
roost trees protected from human disturbance (primarily Melz Slough and, to a
lesser extent, Liverpool Lake). The Refuge Complex also contributes food for
eagles in the form of fish and waterfowl. Management actions contributing to
Bald Eagle maintenance include assuring an abundance of roost trees for migrat-ing
eagles, and providing fish and waterfowl as food sources. Mid-winter Bald
Eagle surveys are conducted in January and generally cover all refuges within
the Complex. Meredosia NWR and Chautauqua NWR have both supported
active Bald Eagle nests in the past. Bald Eagle nests are protected during the
nesting season by minimizing all activity around them. For these actions, the
Refuge Complex currently follows guidance contained in the Northern States
Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.
A small population of decurrent false aster (Boltonia decurrens), a federally-listed
threatened species, has existed on Meredosia NWR since the 1980s. It is a
disturbance-dependent species found only at a few sites along the floodplain of
the Illinois River. Botanical surveys are currently conducted annually by Dr.
Marian Smith of Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville on the Sandy Point
population. Small populations are also found on Chautauqua NWR. No protec-tion
is currently afforded this plant species on Refuge Complex land.
3.2.2.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds
The Illinois River Corridor serves as a temporary home to hundreds of thou-sands
of waterfowl that feed and rest on their annual spring and fall migrations.
The middle Illinois River valley, stretching from about Hennepin, Illinois, to
Beardstown, Illinois, was historically one of the most important areas for migrat-ing
waterfowl in all of North America. Although many of the most significant
areas have been greatly altered over the years by drainage and cropping of
wetlands within the flood plain, shallow bottom land lakes, sloughs, marshes and
side channels remain but most are in a degraded state. The Illinois River and
associated wetlands provide some of the most significant areas of Wood Duck
production and mid-migration mallard habitat in the Mississippi Flyway. The
breeding Wood Duck population in the valley is estimated at over 20,000 (North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, 1998). Peak Mallard populations have
been known to exceed one million ducks.
Twenty-eight species of waterfowl are known to use the Refuge Complex, includ-ing
Trumpeter and Tundra swans. Two hundred and sixty four species of birds
have been documented on Refuge Complex land. The north and south pools of
Lake Chautauqua provide a mix of prime habitat for diving ducks and dabbling
ducks. Chautauqua NWR in particular provides a haven for more than 40 percent
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
43
of the waterfowl that use the Illinois River segment of the Mississippi River
Flyway. Table 1 shows monthly duck use days from the period 1989-1999.
In addition to waterfowl, wetlands along the Illinois River provide habitat for
over 30 species of shorebirds and 10 species of gulls and terns. The dense
wetland vegetation on Chautauqua NWR provides ideal shelter and feeding
habitat for marsh birds such as Sora Rail and Yellow Rail, Great Blue Herons, and
Great Egrets. Although they are secretive and seldom seen, American Bitterns
and Green Herons feed among the more than 70 plant species found in Lake
Chautauqua. The low water of summer and the resulting mud flats produce an
abundance of shorebirds, especially sandpipers. August is the time to see the
many shorebird species found on the Refuges.
Management guidance for waterfowl and other migratory bird management for
the Refuge Complex is aimed at providing high quality resting, nesting, and
feeding habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Current management
actions are directed toward duck maintenance, goose maintenance, and Wood
Duck production.
The Mallard is considered to be the most important of several species of dabbling
ducks that use the Refuge Complex in the fall (September through December).
The Refuge Complex is generally thought to be less important to waterfowl in
the spring, when sheet water is common throughout the area and there is no
hunting pressure. In the fall, management is directed to provide shallowly
flooded moist soil plants for feeding and open water areas for roosting and
sanctuary. Submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation would also be desirable,
but these vegetation types are practically non-existent at the present time. Most
waterfowl and other migratory bird management occurring on the Refuge Com-
Table 1: Annual Waterfowl Use Days 1989-1999
Year Chautauqua NWR Emiquon NWR Meredosia NWR Cameron-Billsbach
Ducks Geese Ducks Geese Ducks Geese Ducks Geese
1989 1,152,806 227,483 604,682 44,755 148,225 22,670
1990 1,265,049 479,525 1,717,415 105,858 147,237 36,630
1991 1,670,239 87,236 641,214 7,013 110,571 12,198
1992 3,162,339 73,325 669,645 4,470 152,045 6,215
1993 790,817 233,365 N/S N/S 467,084 21,578 103,845 10,222
1994 13,411,544 1,400,647 N/S N/S 579,113 3,000 92,625 8,610
1995 6,756,325 1,948,498 N/S N/S 584,266 21,189 267,616 1,364
1996* 1,559,586 196,020 34,480 1,750 176,330 3,360 15,770 5,510
1997 2,006,910 545,990 2,957,100 16,850 781,000 2,360 22,095 2,970
1998 9,176,961 348,704 649,602 2,600 956,370 1,675 54,787 4,010
1999 7,057,289 210,230 945,720 2,100 1,752,525 1,435 164,575 3,660
* January 1-September 30 only.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
44
plex is accomplished through habitat management. Criteria used to evaluate duck
and goose maintenance success include the number of acres available for moist
soil management and to a lesser degree, the number of acres of submergent or
emergent aquatic vegetation.
In the past, the Refuge Complex had an extensive Wood Duck nest box program.
During this time, approximately 50 nest boxes for Wood Ducks are maintained on
the Refuge Complex. Success of the nest box program is monitored by Refuge
volunteers.
Current management for Wood Ducks consists primarily of attempting to pro-vide
both nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Nesting occurs in both natural
cavities and artificial nest boxes. Brood habitat consists of relatively shallow
open water interspersed with emergent vegetation, which provides both food and
cover. Proximity of brood habitat to nesting habitat is also an important consid-eration.
Criteria used to evaluate Wood Duck success include the number of
acres of permanent water with emergent vegetation, proximity of emergent
vegetation to main nesting habitats, and availability of trees with natural cavities,
primarily in Melz Slough and along South Dike. Due to 1993 and 1995 flooding of
the Illinois River and the high tree mortality associated with it, there is an
abundance of dead trees with natural cavities but these trees are rapidly disap-pearing.
Floating goose nesting structures that were placed in Lake Chautauqua by the
Quiver Creek hunt clubs in the 1990s have fallen apart and have been removed
from the lake. There was no known nesting in any of the structures and because of
the litter problem and no identified need to produce local Canada Geese, struc-tures
will not be placed in the lake in the future.
The Refuge’s prescribed burning program is designed to directly benefit nesting
grassland birds in open and semi-open landscapes. These programs also help to
increase the amount of suitable waterfowl nesting habitat. The Refuge also
attempts to attract waterfowl, shorebirds, and other marsh birds by managing
water levels on most of its pools. The purpose of water level manipulation on
these pools is to grow food plants and to increase the availability of aquatic
invertebrates that are favored by migrating water birds. Wetland restoration and
prescribed burning activities have been used to restore and maintain sedge
meadows on the Refuge Complex. This provides nesting habitat for birds includ-ing
Sedge Wrens, sparrows, rails, and warblers.
The annual drawdown of the South Pool of Lake Chautauqua provides excellent
foraging opportunities for wading birds, shorebirds and other wildlife. During
this drawdown period shorebird surveys are performed by Refuge volunteers.
The Refuge Complex also participates in annual Mourning Dove and Woodcock
surveys. Mourning Dove surveys are conducted in Fulton and Cass counties and
Woodcock surveys are conducted in Fulton and Mason counties. Results of the
nationwide surveys are pooled to determine populations trends for the two
species. The population trends are then used to set harvest limits for states
where these birds are hunted. Surveys are generally conducted in May or June.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
45
3.2.2.3 Native Fish and Mussels
The Service’s fisheries program focuses on a broad variety of federal trust species
and the aquatic habitats on which these species depend. For the fisheries pro-gram,
the term “federal trust species” refers to organisms targeted through the
Endangered Species Act, potentially impacted by federal actions under any
federal authority within which the Service has formal review or regulatory
responsibility; identified within federal mitigation responsibilities assigned to the
Service; inhabiting or migrating through interjurisdictional waters; considered
nationally significant, rare or declining in range or population size and lacking
protection from non-federal authorities; occurring on federal lands; subject to the
interests of Native American governments or otherwise aligned with the
Service’s tribal trust responsibilities; or covered directly or in potential under any
of the approximately 29 public laws, or treaties, interstate compacts, Executive
Orders, statutes, and agreements pertaining to the Service’s mission and natural
resource management responsibilities.
The Illinois River was once among the most biologically productive rivers in the
nation. As recently as the 1950s, the waters of the Illinois River and its associ-ated
tributaries were counted as among the great inland commercial and sport
fisheries. Although no longer the case, the state as a whole remains one of the
nation’s top producers of freshwater fish. The river is home to more than 100 fish
species, and its side channels and backwater lakes serve as important nursery
areas. Commercial fish yields experienced abrupt declines in the 1920s and by
the 1960s the commercial fishery was only 4 percent (1 million pounds) of what it
was prior to the establishment of the drainage and levee districts. Since the
1960s the commercial fishery has further eroded and generally remains at about
700,000 pounds per year, a mere 2 percent of the 1908 harvest. Common carp,
bighead carp, and silver carp are among the most abundant species, but other
species common to the river include gizzard shad, white bass, large mouth bass,
bluegill, and black crappie. Channel catfish, buffalo, bullhead, and sauger also
inhabit the river. There are approximately 102 species of fish, 37 species of
mollusks, and 10 species of crustaceans found in the vicinity of the Refuge Com-plex
(Appendix C).
Within the upper reaches of the river, fish species diversity is somewhat lower.
Because water quality is less than ideal and that stretch includes few backwaters
needed for breeding and rearing, only the hardiest species can be found. Thus
carp are most plentiful throughout the upper river, except around Starved Rock,
which offers more habitat diversity. As habitat conditions improve in this area,
other species are appearing in substantial numbers, including largemouth bass,
bullhead, walleye and white bass.
The middle river has historically been the most productive area of the river
because of the availability of habitat, namely backwaters, that support diverse
and productive populations. However, as lakes fill with sediment and aquatic
vegetation is killed off, native fish populations decline and other more hardy
species, such as carp, predominate.
The lower river from Beardstown, Illinois, to Grafton, Illinois, features roughly
the same mix of fish species as the middle river but population numbers are
smaller. Even though water quality tends to be better in this reach, fish popula-tions
suffer because the lower river is channelized, the floodplain is behind levees,
and few backwater areas exist.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
46
3.2.2.4 Mammals
The habitats of the Refuge Complex accommodate 45 species of mammals. Foxes
and raccoons are the most abundant predators while cottontails and fox squirrels
are the most common rodents. Whitetail deer often are seen along the Refuge
roads and dikes. Badgers are rarely seen, but their diggings are obvious along the
dike areas. Beavers, muskrats, opossums and woodchucks are common but
infrequently seen. The squeaking of southern flying squirrels is commonly heard
at night.
Small mammals typical of this area include the eastern mole, deer mouse, white-footed
mouse, meadow vole, pine vole, southern bog lemming, and plains pocket
gopher. Little brown myotis, big brown bat, and hoary bats use the Refuge
Complex.
3.2.2.5 Reptiles/Amphibians
Sixty-seven species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported on the Refuge
Complex, but little is known about their populations or their limiting factors.
Many of these, such as the snapping and painted turtles, are associated with
marsh and open waters while others, such as the common garter snake, occur in
grasslands and drier areas of the Refuge Complex.
3.2.3 Plant Communities
3.2.3.1 Wetland Resources
In Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines
wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circum-stances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-rated
soil conditions.” Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and
deepwater habitats where the water table is usually at or near the land surface or
the land surface is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands are
diverse systems that provide the biological interface between the aquatic and
terrestrial communities, which multiply their function and contribute to their
dynamics. Within wetlands, invertebrates, insects, gastropods, and other organ-isms
living among the vegetation provide an important food source for fish and
mammals. Waterbirds and other wildlife rely on wetlands for subsistence, nest
sites, and cover, while others utilize fish and invertebrates that inhabit the
vegetation. Where natural processes are still occurring, zonation and succession
in response to environmental conditions are among the important community
processes. Water level fluctuations and the resultant plant and animal response
are often the most significant driving force in most wetland communities.
The diverse wetlands of Illinois have resulted from geologic events, human
activities, and hydrologic conditions. Prior to European settlement, the Illinois
River Corridor was composed of shallow marshes, sloughs, meanders, small
ponds, and large backwater lakes that allowed dense stands of submergent
pondweeds, coontail, waterlilies and emergent duck potato, smartweed, and river
bulrush plants to flourish. Vast tracts of naturally flooded wetlands, bottomland
hardwoods, and backwater lake habitat provided resting, nesting, and feeding
habitat for migrating ducks, geese, and a variety of other migratory birds and
resident wildlife. Foods in the form of mast, natural seeds, and invertebrates
were available during the September through March migration. Large expanses
of open water and marshes also provided a rich source of other wildlife foods.
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
47
Today only the most hardy varieties are found, such as river bulrush, marsh
smartweed, pondweed, wild celery, coontail, and American lotus. These species
appear to tolerate the fluctuating water levels, pollution, and turbidity now
characteristic of the modern-day river. River bulrush, the most common emer-gent
aquatic plant found in the Illinois River Corridor, provides nesting habitat
for some duck species, as well as food and den material for muskrats. Marsh
smartweed, also an emergent variety, provides cover for migrating birds and
seeds to feed them. It is a preferred habitat for Wood Ducks and Mallards and
provides some food and shelter material for muskrats. Sago pondweed, once
considered the most important waterfowl food on the continent, is now relatively
rare along the river. It was killed off almost entirely in the 1950s and 1960s,
although it has been found in isolated locations along the river. Curlyleaf pond-weed,
a submerged plant, was abundant in nearly all of the backwater lakes as
late as the 1950s. But like other varieties, it is currently found in isolated loca-tions.
Wild celery, the preferred food of Canvasback and Ring-neck Ducks, also
nearly disappeared from the river valley in the 1950s and 1960’s.
Moist-soil vegetation grows on mudflats that occur naturally around the shores of
backwater areas. The plants, now the most abundant form of vegetation in the
Illinois River Corridor, are an essential food source to 35 different species of
waterfowl. The seeds most favored are produced by arrowleaf, several species of
millet and smartweed, nutgrasses, rice cutgrass, Spanish needles, teal grass, and
water hemp. The health and seed productivity of these plants depend on a year-round
cycle of specific water levels. The cycle begins in the spring when water-fowl
eat the seeds left on the mudflats around backwater areas. With spring rain,
the river overflows and the lakes rise and cover their muddy banks. Light sum-mer
rain and low water levels from July to October cause the lakes to recede. As
the mudflats dry in the sun, the seeds remaining in the mud germinate and grow.
With the coming of the early fall rains, the plants produce seeds once again, the
lakes rise, and the mudflats are immersed under a shallow cover of water. This is
the environment in which dabbling ducks feed during fall migrations.
Another ecologically important aquatic habitat found along the Illinois River are
side channels, which are defined as all departures from the main channel in which
there is current during normal river stage. These areas are characterized by low
current, soft bottom, and reduced turbidity. They provide important food sources
of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and benthic organisms for fish, waterfowl, and
migratory birds. Side channels often have a greater production and diversity of
benthic organisms, phytoplankton, and aquatic macrophytes than the main channel
due to their structural diversity, which ranges from fast flowing chutes with high
banks to sluggish streams moving through marshy areas.
3.2.3.2 Forest Resources
Bottomland or floodplain forests within the Illinois River Corridor occupy low-lying
areas along the river in relationship to their elevation and distance from
water. While once rich in forests, the river’s forests today consist of a little more
than narrow strips along the edges of the riverbanks. The most densely forested
bottomland areas today are located around LaSalle and Starved Rock and in the
Alton Pool, the river’s southernmost section. Floodplain forests are character-ized
by poor drainage and slow permeability. In general, flooding regimes,
including depth and duration, are major forces in determining species composition
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
48
and richness and in determining growth. Floodplain forests in Illinois include wet,
wet-mesic, and mesic floodplain forests. Vegetation diversity tends to increase
from wet to mesic floodplain forests.
Wet floodplain forests occur in the floodplain bordering the river and include the
riverbank. In general, trees and shrubs found in the wet floodplain forest zone
are those species most tolerant of flooding. Thus, compared with other floodplain
forests, wet floodplain forests contain fewer trees since flood frequency and
duration tend to be limiting factors for this community. Wet floodplain forests
are often seasonally flooded and/or have perched water tables during a portion of
the year, often in late winter and spring. Canopy species in this community
include silver maple, hackberry, green ash, honey locus, sycamore, and cotton-wood.
Sub-canopy species include box elder, Kentucky coffeetree, river birch,
and black willow. Shrubs and woody vines include elderberry, bristly catbrier,
trumpet creeper, poison ivy, and riverbank grape. Ground cover includes rag-weed,
panicled aster, a variety of nettles, blue lobelia, honewort, Virginia wild
rye, annual bedstraw, and an assortment of others.
Wet-mesic forests typically occur on low terraces along the river and tend to be
intermediate in flood duration. Typical canopy species include silver maple,
bitternut hickory, hackberry, honey locust, green ash, black walnut, pin oak, and
American elm. Sub-canopy species include box elder, sugarberry, red haw, red
mulberry, persimmon, Kentucky coffeetree, and slippery elm. Shrubs and vines
include paw paw, Missouri gooseberry, common blackberry, elderberry, bristly
catbrier, poison ivy, and riverbank grape. Groundcover species include ragweed,
false nettle, a variety of sedges, wild chervil, enchanter’s nightshade, honeywort,
Aunt Lucy, Virginia wild rye, annual bedstraw, white avens, cow parsnip, Vir-ginia
waterleaf, wood nettle, Virginia blue bells, woodland phlox, and others.
Very few, if any, high quality wet-mesic floodplain forests occur today within the
Illinois River Corridor.
Mesic floodplain forests typically occur along high terraces and have relatively
brief flooding duration and lower flooding frequency. Common canopy species
include sugar maple, black walnut, red oak, bur oak, chinquapin oak, basswood,
and American elm. Sub-canopy species include Ohio buckeye, red mulberry,
persimmon, and slippery elm. Shrubs and vines include paw paw, redbud,
Missouri gooseberry, bladdernut prickly ash, Virginia creeper, bristly greenbrier,
poison ivy, and riverbank grape. Ground cover species include many species
found in mesic upland forests: doll’s eye, wild ginger, Jack-in-the-pulput, spring
beauty, enchanter’s nightshade, leather flower, hairy and smooth sweet, and a
variety of others.
Ecological concerns associated with floodplain forests include flooding, hydrologic
cycle maintenance, fire suppression, timber harvest, fragmentation, siltation, and
exotic and invasive species. For instance, considerable tree mortality occurred
along the Illinois River following the severe flooding in 1993. In general, trees
and shrubs found in wet floodplain forests fared much better in 1993 than those
found in mesic floodplain forests. Historically, floodplain forests within the
Illinois River Corridor were comprised of a diversity of tree species. However,
those communities that remain are often dominated by silt and flood-tolerant
species (e.g., silver maple).
Farther upland from the river the forest communities are dominated by mixed
softwoods, including silver maple, American elm, swamp privet, red mulberry,
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
49
box elder, green ash, sycamore, and river birch. Still higher up in elevation, the
forest community includes sugarberry, hackberry, hawthorn, honey locust, bur
oak, and dogwood. Grading into the blufftops and at some distance from the
river, the forest community is characteristic of a diverse mix of softwoods and
hardwoods, including oak and hickory, red and sugar maples, and black walnuts.
Upland forest communities can be classified by soil-moisture characteristics as
tree species tend to respond in predictable ways along soil-moisture gradients.
For the Illinois River Corridor, these would include dry, dry-mesic, mesic, and
wet-mesic upland forests.
Dry upland forests are found on ridge crests and slopes with south and south-western
exposures. Major canopy species include white oak and black oak.
Subcanopy species include shadbush, flowering dogwood, hop hornbeam, redbud,
and red cedar. Shrubs include roughleafed dogwood, aromatic sumac, smooth
sumac, pasture rose, nannyberry, and hazelnut. Woody vine include Virginia
creeper and poison ivy. Garlic mustard, an extremely invasive species, has
become locally abundant in many areas and has replaced many native species.
Ground cover species include pussy toes, sedges, poverty oats, soft agrimony, hog
peanut, tall anemone, shooting star, and a host of others. Several prairie species
are often found in forest openings including big bluestem, little bluestem, yellow
stargrass, and flowering spurge.
Dry-mesic upland forests, the most prevalent forest community type in Illinois,
are found along the upper to middle slopes and ridges of the dissected terrain
bordering the Illinois River and on the slopes and sides of ravines. Major canopy
species include white oak, black oak, shagbark hickory, and white ash.
Subcanopy species include sugar maple, sassafras, shadbush, blue beech, hop
hornbeam, redbud, red mulberry, black cherry, and slippery elm. Typical shrubs
include rough-leafed dogwood, hazelnut, Iowa crabapple, Missouri gooseberry,
black raspberry, aromatic sumac, black haw, and nannyberry. Woody vines
include Virginia creeper, poison ivy, bittersweet, bristly greenbrier, riverbank
grape, and summer grape. Groundcover includes pussy toes, Virginia snaketoes,
whorled milkweed, ebony spleenwort, blue aster, rattlesnake fern, soft agrimony,
sicklepod, sedges, and others.
Mesic upland forests occur on sites where available soil moisture is greater than
that in dry-mesic sites. These forests are found on the lower-to-middle slopes of
the dissected terrain associated with major streams and tributaries. They are
characteristic of dense canopies, an understory of shade tolerant woody species,
and a variety of woodland wildflowers. Canopy cover includes sugar maple, red
oak, bur oak, and basswood. Subcanopy species include Ohio buckeye, shadbush,
red mulberry, paw paw, blue beech, and hop hornbeam. Typical shrubs include
elderberry, redbud, alternate-leafed dogwood, wahoo, black haw, bladdernut,
wild hydrangea, buckbrush, prickly-ash, wafer-ash, common chokeberry, black
current, and gooseberry. Woody vines include poison ivy, Virginia creeper, grape
honeysuckle, and riverbank grape. Groundcover includes spikenard, yellow
bellwort, black snakeroot, bloodroot, blue cohosh, broadleaf goldenrod, fern, and
a rich assortment of others.
Wet-mesic upland forest occur where drainage is limited, either by soil character-istics
or where depressions occur within the upland forest. While such conditions
exist within the Illinois River Corridor, few examples of this community exist.
Illinois River NW&FR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan
50
Typical canopy species would include swamp white oak. Subcanopy is often
absent. Groundcover species probably include wetland sedges and shrub species.
Ecological concerns with upland forests include loss and degradation from
agricultural development and urban sprawl, timber harvest, grazing, exotic and
invasive species, over-browsing by deer, fire suppression, and habitat fragmenta-tion.
For instance, over grazing often produces major changes to a forest’s
structure and composition. As such, many grazing-sensitive species have prob-ably
been eliminated from many forest remnants along the Illinois River, while
those more tolerant (e.g., thorn-bearing taxa such as red haw, honey locust,
gooseberry, blackberry) have probably become more abundant. Non-native
species also tend to increase from over-grazing, such as garlic mustard,
buckbrush, and poison ivy. Fire suppression typically results in compositional
changes in mesic forests (an increase in sugar maples) and primarily structural
changes in drier sites (such as an increase in stem density of woody plants and
shade). The result is often a reduction in cover and diversity of the ground flora,
often the most diverse stratum in Illinois woodlands (Taft et al. 1995).
3.2.3.4 Grassland Resources
The Great Plains, once the continent’s largest biome, has become functionally
non-existent over the last 150 years. The original tallgrass prairie, which
extended from western Indiana to the eastern part of Kansas, Nebraska, and
North and South Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has been virtually
eliminated throughout its historic range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to
99.9 percent declines in the acreage of tallgrass prairie have occurred in 12 states
and one Canadian province since European settlement. Prior to human-induced
alteration, the lower Illinois River floodplain was roughly 40 percent prairie.
Today few remain. Loss and fragmentation of prairie landscapes combined with
changes in natural processes have had negative consequences for many grassland
plants and associated animals
Historically, prairies were an important component of Illinois River ecosystem
structure and function. Prairies are plant communities dominated by herbaceous
plant species (mainly grasses) and wher