Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

I

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

Williamson, Jackson, and Union Counties, Illinois

Proposed action: Adopt and implement a comprehensive conservation plan that will guide management for the next 15 years.

Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional

Director

For further information:

Refuge Manager

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

8588 Route 148

Marion, Illinois 62959

Tel: (618) 997-3344

Email: conwr-ccp@fws.gov

Abstract: The National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for all

national wildlife refuges. Five alternative

approaches to management, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action (Current

Management) Alternative, were considered for

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. The five

alternatives are described and evaluated in the

Draft EIS. All alternatives would achieve the

Refuge’s purposes of wildlife conservation, agriculture, recreation, and industry. Under all alternatives, group camps and most non-wildlife

dependent recreation would remain; technical

rock climbing would be prohibited; a modified

recreational fee structure would be implemented;

a 14-day camping limit would be instituted; management of sport fish populations would continue;

use of prescribed fire would increase; and the

agricultural acres would not change by more than

5 percent. All alternatives would maintain necessary food for a significant population of wintering

Canada geese. Alternative A would continue the

present course of management. Alternative B

would reduce habitat fragmentation and emphasize wildlife-dependent recreation. A land

exchange with Southern Illinois University would

be a significant part of this alternative. Alternative C would emphasize management of open

lands and consolidate and improve recreation

facilities. Alternative D would emphasize management of forest lands and consolidate and

improve recreation facilities. Alternative E, the

preferred alternative, would reduce habitat fragmentation and consolidate and improve recreation facilities. Conflicts among water users

would be addressed by increasing areas designated as no-wake zones and better enforcement

of current use zoning regulations. The quality of

campgrounds and marinas would be increased by

consolidating and improving them. The agricultural program would remain pretty much intact

and its economic effect continued. The industrial

program would continue to support the munitions

manufacturing industry. By encouraging other

industries to locate in nearby industrial parks,

the economic effect of the industry would remain

in the local economy, and the needs of the industry would be met more efficiently. With goal,

objective, and strategies formalized to better

improve communication between the Refuge and

the community, we would do a better job of talking with and listening to the community.

Comment deadline: January 17, 2006

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

III

Reader’s Guide

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to

prepare and then manage Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) consistent with a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP provides 15 years of guidance for Refuge management

and boundary modification. The CCP also provides

a framework for adaptive management through the

steps of implement, monitor, evaluate, and revise.

Step-down plans will be required to provide additional details as certain programs outlined in the

CCP are implemented.

This document combines both a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS). Following public review and comment, we will publish a Final EIS

followed by a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the alternative selected as the CCP. We will then

publish a stand-alone CCP made up of Chapter 1,

the selected alternative from Chapter 2, Chapters 3,

5, 6 and the appendices. The three most important

Appendices to review in this draft include Appendix

A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation, Appendix J: Compatibility Determinations,

and Appendix L: Land Protection Plan. Another key

section to review is Section 2.5.1.8 Operational Policies, which presents proposed changes in Refuge

operations. We have provided the following chapter

and appendix descriptions to assist you in locating

and understanding the various components of this

combined document.

Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action,

includes legal and policy guidelines, the regional and

ecosystem context of the Refuge, a brief history of

the Refuge, Refuge Goals, and a discussion of the

issues identified early in the planning process.

Chapter 2, Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies, describes five possible management alternatives. Each alternative represents a potential

comprehensive conservation plan for Crab Orchard

NWR. Alternative A describes the current management direction on the Refuge. Alternative E, the

Preferred Alternative, presents the objectives and

strategies of the proposed Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan. Some features are common to all

alternatives. The common features are described

before the detailed alternative descriptions.

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the

existing physical and biological environment, public

use, special management areas, industrial and agricultural use, cultural resources, and socioeconomic

conditions.

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences,

describes the potential impacts of each of the five

alternatives on the resources and conditions outlined in Chapter 3.

Chapter 5, List of Preparers, lists the persons

involved in writing this document.

Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination, presents a summary of public involvement and who is

receiving this Draft CCP/EIS.

Appendix A, Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and

Implementation, pulls together in one place the

objectives and strategies of the preferred alternative—the heart of the Draft CCP. Also included are

discussions of projects and personnel needed to

implement the Draft CCP.

Appendix B, Glossary, contains acronyms, abbreviations, and definitions of terms used in this document.

Appendix C, Laws and Orders, contains brief

descriptions of the more pertinent laws and executive orders applicable to management of the Refuge.
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

IV

Appendix D, Species Lists, contains lists of birds,

reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals, and vascular

plants of Crab Orchard NWR.

Appendix E, State-listed Species Potentially

Found at Crab Orchard NWR, contains species

listed by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection

Board as endangered or threatened.

Appendix F, Bibliography, contains the bibliographic references cited or consulted while preparing this document.

Appendix G, Public Law 80-361, contains a copy

of the law that established Crab Orchard NWR.

Appendix H, Summary of Public Comment, summarizes public reaction to four concepts that we

were considering as preliminary management alternatives in September 2001. We presented the concepts in a project update mailed to over 1,400

persons.

Appendix I, Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal, contains a copy of a letter from Southern Illinois University that outlines the use the University

would make of Fish and Wildlife Service property if

a proposed land exchange were to take place. The

proposed land exchange would be a major component of Alternative B.

Appendix J, Compatibility Determinations,

describes proposed uses, availability of resources

for management, anticipated impacts, and stipulations necessary for a use to be compatible on the

Refuge. The Service is required to prepare these

Compatibility Determinations and make them available for public review.

Appendix K, Refuge Operating Needs System

(RONS) and Maintenance Management System

(MMS) lists, describes the larger projects that

would be pursued if the preferred alternative is

developed into a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

RONS refers to new initiatives and MMS describes

maintenance of existing facilities.

Appendix L, Land Protection Plan, describes a

proposal to adjust the authorized boundaries of the

Refuge, which would permit acquisition of land from

willing sellers and improve the efficiency of management in the long-term. The intent of the detailed

plan is to inform neighbors, landowners, and the

interested public of the Service’s proposal and protection priorities.

Appendix M, Objectives and Strategies by Alternative, is a large table that displays the differences

and similarities of each alternative in the details

provided by objectives and strategies. We constructed this appendix so the reader could more easily compare the alternatives presented in Chapter 2

in detail.

Appendix N, Wildlife-Habitat Matrix, displays

the table of values that was used in estimating the

effects of habitat change on species that occur at

Crab Orchard NWR and are of particular management concern to the Service’s region. The values in

the table reflect how important a particular habitat

is to a species.
Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

V

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................................i

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose of Action .................................................................................................................................................1

1.4 Need for Action ...................................................................................................................................................1

1.5 Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................................................3

1.6 Overview of the Planning Process .......................................................................................................................4

1.7 Legal and Policy Guidelines .................................................................................................................................4

1.7.1 Wilderness Review .....................................................................................................................................4

1.8 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and Principles .......................................................................5

1.8.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................5

1.8.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ..........................................................................................5

1.8.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................................5

1.9 Ecosystem Goals ..................................................................................................................................................6

1.9.1 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem ................................................................................6

1.9.2 Goals and Objectives for Other Landscape Level Plans .............................................................................6

1.9.2.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..........................................................................................6

1.9.2.2 Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities (January 2002) ...............................8

1.10 Brief History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition, and Management ............................................................8

1.10.1 Recent Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................................9

1.10.1.1 Wildlife and Fish Habitat ..............................................................................................................9

1.10.1.2 Agriculture ...................................................................................................................................10

1.10.1.3 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................10

1.10.1.4 Industry ........................................................................................................................................10

1.10.1.5 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................10

1.10.1.6 Contaminants ..............................................................................................................................10

1.10.1.7 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................10

1.11 Refuge Purposes ..............................................................................................................................................11

1.12 Refuge Vision Statement .................................................................................................................................11

1.13 Refuge Goals ....................................................................................................................................................11

1.13.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals ...................................................................................................................11

1.13.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .................................................................................................................12

1.13.3 Agricultural Goal .....................................................................................................................................12

1.13.4 Industrial Goal .........................................................................................................................................12

1.13.5 Wilderness Goal ......................................................................................................................................12

1.13.6 Protection Goal ........................................................................................................................................12

1.13.7 Outreach Goal .........................................................................................................................................12

1.14 Planning Issues ...............................................................................................................................................12

1.14.1 Issue 1: Recreation ..................................................................................................................................13

1.14.2 Issue 2: Wildlife Conservation ................................................................................................................13

1.14.3 Issue 3: Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................13

1.14.4 Issue: Recreational Boating ....................................................................................................................13
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

VI

1.14.5 Issue 5: Role in Regional Economy .........................................................................................................14

1.14.6 Issue 6: Communication between Refuge and Community ....................................................................14

1.15 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................15

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................15

2.2 Formulation of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................15

2.3 Selecting the Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................................15

2.4 Summary of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................16

2.4.1 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action .......................................................................................16

2.4.1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................16

2.4.1.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................16

2.4.2 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis With 

Land Exchange .......................................................................................................................................17

2.4.2.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................17

2.4.2.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................17

2.4.3 Alternative C: Open Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation .......................................18

2.4.3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................18

2.4.3.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................18

2.4.4 Alternative D: Forest Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ....................................18

2.4.4.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................18

2.4.4.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................19

2.4.5 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Consolidate and Improve Recreation 

(Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................................................19

2.4.5.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................19

2.4.5.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................19

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................................................20

2.6 Detailed Description of Alternatives and Relationship to Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..........................21

2.6.1 Features Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................................21

2.6.1.1 Operational Policies ......................................................................................................................27

2.6.1.2 Fire .................................................................................................................................................30

2.6.2 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action .......................................................................................32

2.6.2.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................32

2.6.2.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................36

2.6.2.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................38

2.6.2.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................38

2.6.2.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................38

2.6.3 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis 

With Land Exchange ...............................................................................................................................39

2.6.3.1 Land Exchange ...............................................................................................................................39

2.6.3.2 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................39

2.6.3.3 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................45

2.6.3.4 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................53

2.6.3.5 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................54

2.6.3.6 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................54

2.6.4 Alternative C: Open Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation .......................................57

2.6.4.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................57

2.6.4.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................60

2.6.4.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................64
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

VII

2.6.4.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................64

2.6.4.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................65

2.6.5 Alternative D: Forest Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation .....................................65

2.6.5.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals .........................................................................................................65

2.6.5.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................68

2.6.5.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................68

2.6.5.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................68

2.6.5.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................68

2.6.6 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Consolidate and Improve Recreation 

(Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................................................69

2.6.6.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals ........................................................................................................69

2.6.6.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals .........................................................................................................69

2.6.6.3 Agricultural Goal ...........................................................................................................................70

2.6.6.4 Industrial Goal ...............................................................................................................................70

2.6.6.5 Boundary Modification ..................................................................................................................70

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................70

2.7.1 Comparison of Funding and Personnel Needs by Alternative ..................................................................70

2.7.1.1 Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) .........................................................................70

2.7.1.2 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/ Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Emphasis With Land Exchange ..................................................................................................70

2.7.1.3 Alternative C: Open Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation ...........................70

2.7.1.4 Alternative D: Forest Land Management/Consolidate and Improve Recreation ..........................71

2.7.1.5 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation (Preferred Alternative) ...............................................................................................71

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................79

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................79

3.2 Physical Environment .........................................................................................................................................79

3.2.1 Physiography .............................................................................................................................................79

3.2.2 Geology .....................................................................................................................................................79

3.2.3 Soils ...........................................................................................................................................................80

3.2.4 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................80

3.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................................80

3.2.5.1 Crab Orchard Lake .........................................................................................................................80

3.2.5.2 Little Grassy Lake ..........................................................................................................................81

3.2.5.3 Devils Kitchen Lake .......................................................................................................................81

3.2.6 Contaminants ............................................................................................................................................82

3.2.6.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) ................82

3.2.7 Administrative Facilities ...........................................................................................................................82

3.3 Habitat Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 83

3.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................83

3.3.2 Forests .......................................................................................................................................................84

3.3.3 Shrubland ..................................................................................................................................................84

3.3.4 Grassland ..................................................................................................................................................84

3.3.5 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................84

3.3.6 Open Water ...............................................................................................................................................84

3.3.7 Cropland ....................................................................................................................................................86

3.3.8 Developed Land ........................................................................................................................................86

3.3.9 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................................86
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

VIII

3.3.10 Natural and Current Role of Fire .............................................................................................................88

3.4 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................................88

3.4.1 Mammals ..................................................................................................................................................88

3.4.2 Birds ..........................................................................................................................................................89

3.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ..........................................................................................................................91

3.4.4 Fish ............................................................................................................................................................91

3.4.4.1 Crab Orchard Lake .........................................................................................................................91

3.4.4.2 Devils Kitchen Lake .......................................................................................................................93

3.4.4.3 Little Grassy Lake ..........................................................................................................................93

3.4.4.4 Small Impoundments .....................................................................................................................93

3.4.5 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................94

3.5 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................................................95

3.5.1 Mammals ..................................................................................................................................................95

3.5.2 Birds ..........................................................................................................................................................95

3.5.3 Plants .........................................................................................................................................................95

3.6 Public Use Resources and Trends ......................................................................................................................96

3.6.1 Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................96

3.6.2 Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................98

3.6.3 Camping ..................................................................................................................................................100

3.6.4 Wildlife Observation ...............................................................................................................................100

3.6.5 Hiking Trails ............................................................................................................................................101

3.6.6 Boating ...................................................................................................................................................103

3.6.6.1 Crab Orchard Lake .......................................................................................................................103

3.6.6.2 Devils Kitchen Lake .....................................................................................................................103

3.6.6.3 Little Grassy Lake ........................................................................................................................103

3.6.7 Swimming ...............................................................................................................................................105

3.6.8 Picnicking ................................................................................................................................................105

3.6.9 Horseback Riding ....................................................................................................................................105

3.6.10 Group Camps .........................................................................................................................................107

3.6.11 Environmental Education ......................................................................................................................107

3.6.12 Interpretation ........................................................................................................................................108

3.6.13 Visitor Center .......................................................................................................................................108

3.6.14 Existing Transportation Patterns and Visitor Facilities .........................................................................108

3.7 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................108

3.7.1 Wilderness ..............................................................................................................................................108

3.7.1.1 Inholdings and Lands Contiguous to the Crab Orchard Wilderness ...........................................109

3.7.2 Research Natural Areas ..........................................................................................................................109

3.7.3 Conservation Easements .........................................................................................................................111

3.8 Industrial Use Status and Trends .....................................................................................................................111

3.9 Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................112

3.10 Archaeological and Cultural Values ...............................................................................................................114

3.11 Law Enforcement ...........................................................................................................................................116

3.12 Socioeconomic Environment ..........................................................................................................................116

3.12.1 Economic Setting ..................................................................................................................................116

3.12.1.1 Population ..................................................................................................................................117

3.12.1.2 Employment ...............................................................................................................................117

3.12.1.3 Employment Earnings and Personal Income .............................................................................119

3.12.2 Impact of the Refuge Budget ................................................................................................................119

3.12.3 Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation ..............................................................................................121

3.12.4 Tax Impacts of Refuge Recreation Spending ........................................................................................123
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

IX

3.12.5 Economic Impacts of Refuge Agriculture, Grazing, Timber Harvesting and 

Commercial Use ....................................................................................................................................123

3.12.6 Comparison of Refuge-Related Economic Impacts to Study Area Economy ........................................124

3.12.7 Current Staff and Budget ......................................................................................................................126

3.12.7.1 Staff ...........................................................................................................................................126

3.12.8 Budget ...................................................................................................................................................126

3.13 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................................126

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................128

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................128

4.1.1 Quantifying Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species ........................................................................128

4.1.2 Effects on Archaeological and Cultural Values ......................................................................................129

4.2 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives .....................................................................................................131

4.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................................131

4.2.2 Cooperative Fishery Management ..........................................................................................................132

4.2.3 Canada Geese .........................................................................................................................................132

4.2.4 Communication and Community Support ...............................................................................................132

4.2.5 Wilderness ..............................................................................................................................................132

4.2.6 Climate Change Impacts .........................................................................................................................132

4.2.7 Prescribed Fire .........................................................................................................................................132

4.2.7.1 Social Implications ......................................................................................................................132

4.2.7.2 Cultural and Archaeological Resources ......................................................................................133

4.2.7.3 Flora .............................................................................................................................................133

4.2.7.4 Listed Species .............................................................................................................................133

4.2.7.5 Soils .............................................................................................................................................133

4.2.7.6 Escaped Fire ................................................................................................................................134

4.3 Alternative A: Current Management/No Action ..............................................................................................134

4.3.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................134

4.3.1.1 Land cover ...................................................................................................................................134

4.3.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................134

4.3.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................136

4.3.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................136

4.3.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................136

4.3.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................137

4.3.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................137

4.3.1.8 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................137

4.3.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................137

4.3.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................137

4.3.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................137

4.3.3 Volunteers and Support Groups ..............................................................................................................138

4.3.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................138

4.3.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................138

4.3.6 Impact on Archaeological and Cultural Values .......................................................................................138

4.3.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................138

4.4 Alternative B, Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis 

With Land Exchange ....................................................................................................................................138

4.4.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................138

4.4.1.1 Land Cover ...................................................................................................................................138

4.4.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................139
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

X

4.4.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................139

4.4.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................139

4.4.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................139

4.4.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................139

4.4.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................139

4.4.1.8 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................141

4.4.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................141

4.4.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................141

4.4.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................141

4.4.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................142

4.4.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................142

4.4.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................142

4.4.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................143

4.4.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................143

4.5 Alternative C: Open Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ..............................................144

4.5.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................144

4.5.1.1 Land Cover ...................................................................................................................................144

4.5.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................144

4.5.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................144

4.5.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................144

4.5.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................144

4.5.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................146

4.5.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................146

4.5.1.8 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................146

4.5.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................146

4.5.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................146

4.5.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................146

4.5.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................147

4.5.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................147

4.5.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................147

4.5.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................147

4.5.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................148

4.6 Alternative D: Forest Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation ............................................148

4.6.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................148

4.6.1.1 Land Cover ...................................................................................................................................148

4.6.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................148

4.6.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................148

4.6.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................148

4.6.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................148

4.6.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................148

4.6.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................150

4.6.1.8 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................150

4.6.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................150

4.6.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................150

4.6.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................150

4.6.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................151

4.6.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................151

4.6.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................151

4.6.6 Archaeological and Cultural Values ........................................................................................................151

4.6.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................151
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XI

4.7 Alternative E, Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Consolidate and Improve Recreation 

(Preferred Alternative) ..................................................................................................................................151

4.7.1 Impacts on Resources .............................................................................................................................151

4.7.1.1 Land Cover ...................................................................................................................................151

4.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................151

4.7.1.3 Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species .............................................................................................151

4.7.1.4 Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species ..................................................................................151

4.7.1.5 Grassland Birds ...........................................................................................................................152

4.7.1.6 Shrubland Birds ...........................................................................................................................152

4.7.1.7 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................152

4.7.1.8 Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................152

4.7.2 Impacts on Public Uses ...........................................................................................................................153

4.7.2.1 Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses .......................................................................................153

4.7.2.2 Other Land- and Water-based Recreation ..................................................................................153

4.7.3 Volunteer and Support Groups ................................................................................................................154

4.7.4 Impacts on Industrial Use .......................................................................................................................154

4.7.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use ....................................................................................................................154

4.7.6 Impacts on Archaeological and Cultural Values .....................................................................................154

4.7.7 Boundary Modification ............................................................................................................................154

4.8 Summary of Economic Effects of Alternatives ................................................................................................155

4.8.1 Economic Effects of Recreation ..............................................................................................................155

4.8.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................155

4.8.1.2 Hunting ........................................................................................................................................155

4.8.1.3 Fishing .........................................................................................................................................155

4.8.1.4 Wildlife Observation and Photography .......................................................................................155

4.8.1.5 Boating ........................................................................................................................................157

4.8.1.6 Facilities and Marina Slips ..........................................................................................................157

4.8.1.7 Camping / Day Use ......................................................................................................................157

4.8.1.8 Summary of Recreation Economic Effects ..................................................................................158

4.8.2 Economic Effects of Commercial Use .....................................................................................................158

4.8.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................158

4.8.2.2 Agriculture ...................................................................................................................................158

4.8.2.3 Grazing .........................................................................................................................................159

4.8.2.4 Timber Harvesting .......................................................................................................................159

4.8.2.5 Industry ........................................................................................................................................160

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................161

4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..............................................................................161

4.11 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................................161

4.12 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................................161

4.12.1 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Habitat Management Actions ......................................................161

4.12.1.1 Forest .........................................................................................................................................161

4.12.1.2 Grassland ...................................................................................................................................162

4.12.2 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Recreation Changes ......................................................................163

4.12.3 Cumulative Effects Resulting from Agricultural Management .............................................................163

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................................167

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................................168

6.1 Summary of Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................168

6.2 List of Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Receiving a Draft Document ...............................................168
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XII

6.2.1 Elected Officials ......................................................................................................................................168

6.2.2 Organizations ..........................................................................................................................................169

Appendix A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation ....................................................................173

Appendix B: Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................187

Appendix C: Laws and Orders ...............................................................................................................................193

Appendix D: Species List ........................................................................................................................................211

Appendix E: State-listed Species Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR ................................................265

Appendix F: Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................269

Appendix G: Public Law 80-361 .............................................................................................................................279

Appendix H: Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives .............................................................................283

Appendix I: Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal .......................................................................................289

Appendix J: Compatibility Determinations .........................................................................................................293

Appendix K: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System 

(MMS) Projects .................................................................................................................................345

Appendix L: Land Protection Plan ........................................................................................................................353

Appendix M: Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative .........................................................367

Appendix N: Wildlife and Habitat Matrix ............................................................................................................397

Index ...............................................................................................................................................................403
Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XIII

Table 1: Proposed Recreational Entrance Fees and Federal Passes That Will Permit Entry, 

Crab Orchard NWR .........................................................................................................................................29

Table 2: Area of Food-producing Canada Goose Habitat by Alternative ....................................................................41

Table 3: Millions of Potential Goose-use-days of Food by Habitat and Alternative ...................................................41

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives ........................................................................................................72

Table 5: Crab Orchard NWR Lake Details ...................................................................................................................81

Table 6: Area and Percent Cover of Habitats on Crab Orchard NWR, 1807 and 2000 ...............................................86

Table 7: Principal Invasive and Exotic Species, Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................................87

Table 8: Principal Weed Species in Agricultural Fields, Crab Orchard NWR .............................................................87

Table 9: Number of Wildlife Species Found in Illinois and at Crab Orchard NWR .....................................................89

Table 10: Nongame Species of Management Concern, Crab Orchard NWR ................................................................91

Table 11: Crab Orchard NWR Fish Species List ............................................................................................................92

Table 12: Small Fishing Ponds on Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................................................93

Table 13: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................111

Table 14: Most Frequently Cited Offences on Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001 ..........................................................116

Table 15: Williamson County and Jackson County, Illinois and the United States Population, 

Percentage Change 1980, 1990, 2000 .........................................................................................................117

Table 16: Demographic Profile of Jackson County, Williamson County, Illinois and the United States ....................117

Table 17: Employment by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000 ............................................118

Table 18: Employment by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000 .................................................118

Table 19: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000 .............................119

Table 20: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000 ..................................120

Table 21: Williamson County and Jackson County Per Capita Income, 1980, 1990 and 2000 ...................................120

Table 22: Annual Economic Impact of Refuge Budget Expenditures ..........................................................................120

Table 23: Annual Tax Impacts of Refuge Expenditures ...............................................................................................121

Table 24: Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation in Two-county Study Area ..........................................................122

Table 25: Recreation Expenditures and Economic Impacts for Non-resident Visitors to the Refuge .........................123

Table 26: Federal, State and Local Tax Revenue Derived From Refuge-related Recreational Spending by 

Residents and Non-residents .......................................................................................................................123

Table 27: Tax Revenue Generated by Non-resident Refuge Recreation Spending ....................................................124

Table 28: Annual Concession Revenue and Fees Paid for Crab Orchard NWR Recreational Facilities .....................124

Table 29: Recreation and Refuge Budget Expenditures Compared with Study Area .................................................125

Table 30: Annual Number of Refuge Acres Farmed and Production Value Compared with the Study Area .............125

Table 31: Annual Refuge Grazing and Value Compared with the Study Area ............................................................125

Table 32: Annual Amount of Timber Harvest on the Refuge Compared with the Study Area ...................................125

Table 33: Resource Conservation Priority Species Used to Assess the Broad Impacts of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..............................................................................................................130
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XIV

Table 34: Potential Species Occurrence Scores for Threatened and Endangered Species or Groups 

for the Year 2000 and For Each Alternative in 2015 and 2100 ...................................................................131

Table 35: Areas of Land Cover at Crab Orchard NWR in 2000 and Acres Projected for 2015 and 2100 

Under Each Alternative, With Change from 2000 Shown in Parentheses (Land Cover for 

Alternative E is the Same as Alternative B) ................................................................................................135

Table 36: Predicted Difference in Land Cover by Alternative for 2000, 2015 and 2100 .............................................136

Table 37: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting in the Study Area ............................156

Table 38: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing in the Study Area .............................156

Table 39: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation ....................................156

Table 40: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Boating .........................................................157

Table 41: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Camping and Picnicking ...............................157

Table 42: Summary of Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use .....................................................................158

Table 43: Comparison of Annual Average Crop Values in Study Area .......................................................................159

Table 44: Comparison of Economic Effects of Grazing at Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................160

Table 45: Impacts of Each Alternative on Timber Harvesting and Pine and Hardwood Forest Cover ........................160

Table 46: Impacts of the Alternatives on Industry ......................................................................................................161

Table 47: Summary of Effects of Alternatives Described in Chapter 4 .......................................................................164

Table 48: Step-down Management Plans ...................................................................................................................185
Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XV

Figure 1: Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge ...........................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Location of Crab Orchard NWR .......................................................................................................................3

Figure 3: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecosystem Units .................................................................................................6

Figure 4: Protected Lands in Southern Illinois ................................................................................................................9

Figure 5: Results of Crab Orchard NWR Wilderness Inventory ....................................................................................26

Figure 6: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No Action) 

Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................................................................................................34

Figure 7: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No Action), 

Projected Conditions, 2100 ............................................................................................................................35

Figure 8: Lands Proposed for Exchange Between Crab Orchard NWR and Southern Illinois University .....................40

Figure 9: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected Conditions 2015 ................................42

Figure 10: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected Conditions 2100 ................................43

Figure 11: Crab Orchard Lake Watercraft Zoning Proposed Under Alternatives B, C, D and E .....................................51

Figure 12: Devils Kitchen Lake Zoning, Crab Orchard NWR ...........................................................................................52

Figure 13: Proposed Horseback Riding Trails on Crab Orchard NWR Under Alternatives B, C and E ...........................53

Figure 14: Crab Orchard NWR Inholdings, Boundary Modification, and Adjacent Protected Lands .............................56

Figure 15: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................58

Figure 16: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 2100 .............................................59

Figure 17: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 2015 .............................................66

Figure 18: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 2100 .............................................67

Figure 19: Streams and Watersheds of Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................81

Figure 20: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR .................................................................................................................83

Figure 21: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, 2000 .......................................................................................................85

Figure 22: Peak Counts of Wintering Canada Geese on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947 to 2001 .........................................90

Figure 23: Canada Goose-use Days on Crab Orchard NWR, 1952 to 1999 ....................................................................90

Figure 24: Bald Eagle Survey Counts on Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2002 ......................................................................95

Figure 25: Bald Eagle Fledgling Counts on Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2000 ..................................................................96

Figure 26: 1948 Area Designations, Crab Orchard NWR ...............................................................................................97

Figure 27: Bank Fishing Sites on Crab Orchard NWR .....................................................................................................99

Figure 28: Crab Orchard NWR Campground Visits Per Year ........................................................................................101

Figure 29: Observation Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................................................102

Figure 30: Boat Launches on Crab Orchard NWR .........................................................................................................104
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

XVI

Figure 31: Picnic Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ............................................................................................................106

Figure 32: Annual Group Camp Attendance at Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001 ..........................................................107

Figure 33: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR ..........................................................................................110

Figure 34: Conservation Easements Administered by Crab Orchard NWR ..................................................................112

Figure 35: Number of Agricultural Cooperators at Crab Orchard NWR, 1953, 1979, and 2001 ..................................113

Figure 36: Total Area of Agricultural Fields on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947-2001 .........................................................114

Figure 37: Area of Row Crop Fields, Pastures and Hay Fields in 1953, 1979, and 2001 .............................................114

Figure 38: Crab Orchard NWR Current Staffing Chart ..................................................................................................127

Figure 39: Differences in Land Cover, Crab Orchard NWR (Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative B 

and Alternative E (Preferred Alternative), 2015 ..........................................................................................140

Figure 40: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative C 

(Open Land Management), 2015 ..................................................................................................................145

Figure 41: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative D 

(Forest Land Management), 2015 ................................................................................................................149
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

i

Executive 

Summary 

Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to

prepare and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for each unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System. We developed this document as

part of preparing a plan for Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge.

Located in southern Illinois, Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in

1947 for wildlife, agriculture, recreation and industry. The Refuge consists of 43,888 acres. Figure 1

shows the location of the Refuge.

We are preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) as part of the comprehensive conservation planning process. Preparation of the EIS

establishes scientific data on which we can base our

selection of a management direction and it provides

an opportunity for residents, communities, state

agencies and governments, and non-government

organizations to express their ideas on Refuge management. The EIS will establish a management

direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years, and it

will assure that this direction best achieves the Refuge’s purposes, vision and goals; contributes to the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; is

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife

management; and addresses relevant mandates and

major issues developed during scoping. 

For Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,

there is a need to resolve the inconsistencies

between the purposes of the Refuge as stated in its

establishing legislation and the mission of the Refuge System. There is a need to specify the priority

species of management concern and allocate habitat

components among them. There is a need to recognize the recreational demands of the public and the

Refuge’s role in fulfilling those demands. Also, there

is a need to improve the relations between the community and the Refuge.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have

thoughtfully considered how we should manage the

Crab Orchard NWR. We have drafted a recommended management plan for the next 15 years.

The highlights of our proposed plan are: 

# Provide for wintering Canada geese at

approximately current levels.

# Continue current management of resident fish

and wildlife.

# Recommend an additional 120 acres for

Wilderness designation.

# Propose the acquisition of lands that are

surrounded by the Refuge and some land along

the boundary from willing sellers.

# Reduce forest and grassland fragmentation to

benefit certain birds.

# Improve the quality of recreation through

consolidation and improvement of facilities,

# Eliminate area designations.

# Maintain the existing group camps.

# Limit camping stays to 14 days.

# Simplify the recreational fee structure.

# Officially designate a trail through the

Wilderness for hiking and equestrian use.

In the rest of this summary we describe the steps

that led us to our recommended approach and a further discussion about our approach. The details of

our process and results are in the body of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

ii

Steps in Formulating 

Our Plan

Our planning process began in 1999 when we discussed what issues we thought needed to be

addressed and how the planning process should be

organized. Our planning team consists of refuge

staff, regional office planning staff, representatives

from other programs within the Fish and Wildlife

Service, and representatives from the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources. Sometimes we

asked other experts to help us address a particular

topic. 

In late 2000 we asked citizens for their ideas on

what the plan should include and the issues that

should be addressed. We gave citizens the opportunity to comment at open houses and through written

comments. In three meetings early in 2001, we

asked a diverse group of stakeholders to identify

and prioritize issues facing the Refuge. Then, we

formed special work groups made up of the planning

Figure 1: Location of Crab Orchard NWR
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

iii

team and subject area experts. We asked the groups

to review the past vision and goals and to draft new

goals for the next 15 years.

In April 2001, we considered the issues that had

been raised, the new goals, rules and regulations,

and what we thought could reasonably be accomplished in 15 years, and we developed four alternative management concepts. We described the

management concepts in a newsletter that we sent

to everyone on the planning mailing list in September 2000. We invited citizens and stakeholders to

comment on the concepts. 

Using the comments that we received, land cover

data analysis, and other data, we modified and

refined the concepts—which became the alternatives described in Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. After we had the

alternatives well defined, we estimated the consequences of implementing each alternative. That

analysis is described in Chapter 4 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. After comparing the

consequences of each alternative, we chose one

alternative to develop into a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which is presented in Appendix A of

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We

wrote the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and Comprehensive Conservation Plan during 2002-

04.

In preparing our document, members of the planning team prepared an initial draft that was

reviewed by regional office subject experts and

administrators who suggested changes. The refined

draft was given to staff in the Washington office of

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources for review. The

draft document is now available for review and comment by the public. The public will have the opportunity to comment in a public meeting and through

written comments. We will consider the comments

we receive as we prepare the Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Issues Addressed in Our 

Plan

Citizens brought up many of the issues and we

identified some others. We organized the issues into

major topics – wildlife conservation, recreation, refuge purposes, recreational boating, role in regional

economy, communication between refuge and community, and Wilderness. 

Wildlife Conservation

From comments submitted by the public and the

State of Illinois, we knew that we had to address

how we intended to provide for wintering Canada

geese. In the past we considered reducing the

amount of croplands that we provide for geese.

Local citizens, particularly waterfowl hunters, and

the Illinois Department of Natural Resources were

critical of a reduction of croplands. Early in the

planning process we decided that we would continue

to provide close to the current amount of cropland

for wintering geese. We think that more food will be

available for geese than they will use in most years.

In our proposed plan we provide for ‘worst case scenario’ conditions of poor crop years and large migrations of geese. In the plan we propose to provide

approximately 1,760 acres of corn, 880 acres of winter wheat, and 1,760 acres of clover each year for the

geese on the average. We also plan to actively manage 500 acres of moist-soil habitat for geese, ducks,

shorebirds, and other waterbirds.

As the primary federal agency providing for

migratory birds, we want to identify and manage for

those birds that are particularly important. Within

our eight-state region we have identified the species

that are the priority species for us. There are also

collaborative efforts among several groups to provide a coordinated approach toward bird conservation across the North and South American

continents. We looked at how Crab Orchard NWR

might contribute toward these efforts and concluded that the Refuge would contribute by providU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

iv

ing unfragmented forest and grassland to benefit

species that need these kinds of habitat. In our planning process we looked at three alternative ways to

provide unfragmented habitats. In one of our alternatives we looked at maximizing the unfragmented

forest habitat. In another alternative we looked at

maximizing the unfragmented grassland habitat. In

the third alternative we looked at making small

changes in the current habitat cover to gain larger,

unfragmented blocks of both forest and grassland

habitats. We chose this third alternative as our proposed course of action.

In comparing our different approaches to habitat,

we were surprised by how little difference there was

in land cover among alternatives. The difference in

core acres (the acres that are particularly beneficial

to area-sensitive birds) of mixed hardwood upland

forest between an alternative where we emphasized

grasslands and where we emphasized forests was

only 476 acres, which is a very small percentage of

the Refuge. We expect that natural succession will

greatly contribute to changes in land cover over

time. Our role may be only to speed up that succession in some cases.

The management activities that we propose in

our plan to benefit forest and grassland birds

include, among other things: reforestation of

selected areas, accelerated succession of pine plantations to native hardwoods, removal of woody

fencerows and roadside vegetation, control of invasive species, and conversion of fescue pastures to

native, warm-season grasses and more desirable

cool-season grasses.

The Bald Eagle is the only federally designated

threatened species known to occur on the Refuge.

The Indiana bat, which is federally classified as

endangered, is known to occur in proximity to the

Refuge. We constructed a goal, objective, and strategies for the protection of these species in our plan.

We will follow established management guidelines

for the bald eagle, and we will coordinate with the

Ecological Services staff of the Fish and Wildlife

Service to avoid possible impacts to Indiana bats

from our management activities.

Our planning requirements and past land transactions caused us to look at the desirability and need

for acquiring interests in lands adjacent to the Refuge. In the past we have had neighbors who wanted

to sell their land to the Service and a purchase had

biological benefits to the Refuge. We analyzed each

purchase individually. But, this tract-by-tract analysis is inefficient and does not provide for an overall,

cumulative analysis of possible land transactions.

We propose in our plan to acquire interests, from

willing sellers only, in approximately 4,242 acres of

land either completely surrounded by or adjacent to

the Refuge as part of a boundary modification. The

boundary modification would allow the acquisition of

inholdings from willing sellers and move segments

of the boundary to coincide with roads that would

better define the limits of the Refuge (see Figure 2).

The boundary modification would increase the efficiency of management, reduce incompatible land

uses, and enhance public use opportunities. 

Recreation

The recreation issue was made up of several

parts and elicited the most comments from the public. Citizens were concerned about the loss of recreational opportunities and lack of support for

recreation by the Refuge. At Crab Orchard NWR,

we have had a difficult time meeting people’s expectations and providing for certain kinds of recreation

that are not traditionally a part of Service activities.

Also, we are obligated by a 1997 law to facilitate

wildlife-dependent recreation on national wildlife

refuges, if possible. We examined two alternatives

to doing a better job of providing recreation. One

alternative calls for what we consider a major

change at Crab Orchard – exchanging part of the

Refuge with developed recreation facilities to

Southern Illinois University for undeveloped land

that the University owns adjacent to the Refuge. In

the other alternative we considered how we could do

a better job of providing recreation without the land

exchange. In this second alternative we thought that

it would be necessary to consolidate the facilities

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

v

Figure 2: Crab Orchard NWR Proposed Boundary Modification and Other Assorted 

Public Lands
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

vi

that we have and improve them. We do not think

that it is likely that we could support high quality

facilities at all of the sites that currently exist.

During our initial analysis, we considered the

alternative with the land exchange as our “working”

preferred alternative. We thought that the University would be able to offer better swimming, camping, boating, and picnicking facilities than we have

been able to. We also thought that the University

would be able to develop a hotel and resort complex

that is beyond the capabilities of the Refuge. By

having the University provide the majority of the

non-wildlife oriented recreation, we thought that we

would be able to provide better quality wildlifedependent recreation – hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

We abandoned the alternative with the land

exchange, however, when we confronted the difficulties of implementing the exchange. If we exchange

land, Federal regulations require that the land

involved in the exchange be of approximately the

same value. Our preliminary appraisal estimates

indicated that the Federal property in the proposed

exchange would exceed the value of the Southern

Illinois University property by as much as $20 million. The proposed exchange could only be accomplished with Congressional action, which we did not

want to pursue. We thought that the exchange

would be politically sensitive and that the likelihood

for its resolution in the political process would be

lengthy and out of our control. Rather than pursue a

course with an uncertain timetable and outcome, we

chose the alternative to consolidate and improve our

recreational facilities, which we can implement

within our current authority.

We plan to make visitors feel more welcome by

improving our signs, kiosks, and facilities. We propose to work with the administrators of the group

camps on the Refuge to emphasize the mission of

the National Wildlife Refuge System in their programs. We expect to close the campground at Devils

Kitchen Lake, because the current site is too steep

and there are no better alternatives at the lake. In

order to reduce conflicts among recreational boaters, we propose to expand no-wake zones on Crab

Orchard Lake. (See Figure 3.)

We also propose changing the classification of

areas on the Refuge. When the Refuge was established we published a classification of lands indicating where wildlife would be emphasized and where

recreation would take place. We propose to do away

with the past classification of areas and treat the

entire Refuge as one unit, which will allow more balanced management responsibilities across all portions of the Refuge. Only the industrial area will be

designated as “restricted access.”

During the planning process we examined our

current way of doing business and saw a need for

revision and additional explicitness for some topics.

We propose to restrict length of camping stays to 14

days. This is a change from the unlimited length

stays that are now permitted. We think limiting the

length of stays is more equitable and will lead to

higher quality camping experiences. We also propose to implement a new recreational fee system

that will be more convenient for visitors. We propose to charge only one fee rather than multiple fees

for cars and boats. We have not explicitly addressed

rock climbing in past regulations, and some visitors

who engage in this activity have been unsure of its

legality. Because rock climbing is available in

nearby Giant City State Park, we propose to prohibit it on the Refuge.

The Haven and the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht

Club are available only to a limited segment of the

general population. The facilities and activities at

these clubs amount to private use of public land. Our

long-term goal is to make these areas available to a

broader portion of the public. During the length of

the planning period established for this Refuge CCP

(next 15 years), the Refuge Staff will work collaboratively with the Egyptian Past Commanders Club

to evaluate the effectiveness of this facility in achieving the purpose of Haven’s establishment, and to

make recommendations for its future use.

Glenn Smart
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

vii

Figure 3: Recreational Use Zoning, Crab Orchard Lake
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

viii

We will extend the lease of the Crab Orchard

Boat & Yacht Club for two years after the approval

of the Refuge CCP. After the lease expires, we will

convert the operation of the club facilities to a concession contract. This would end what amounts to

private use of public land and make the facilities

available to a wider portion of the public. Horseback

use has been occurring on the Refuge without official recognition by our regulations. 

Horseback riders want to ride through the Refuge as part of the River-to-River Trail, but a trail

through the Refuge has not been officially designated or recognized. We have been concerned about

trail erosion caused by horses. In the plan we propose to officially designate a horse trail through the

Crab Orchard Wilderness and take measures to

actively control erosion. We would prohibit horseback riding elsewhere on the Refuge.

Recreational Boating

When we distributed our initial thoughts about

draft conceptual alternatives, we proposed to prohibit gas motors on Devils Kitchen Lake. Our intent

was to further reduce the sounds of motors on the

lake. We received a number of comments stating

that this would unnecessarily reduce anglers’ access

to the lake. In order to accommodate this view, we

propose to prohibit gas motors on the lake south of

the southernmost boat ramp. We think this compromise allows anglers with gas motors access to most

of the lake and still reduce the sound of motors on a

portion of the lake.

Refuge Purposes

An issue that has been a challenge to us and was

mentioned by some citizens was the lack of support

for the four original purposes of the Refuge and the

concern that the purposes might be seen as incompatible with the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System due to recent legislation and changing policies. Conflicts between the Refuge purposes

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System are dealt with in the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997. In the case of

conflict between the purposes of a refuge and the

mission of the System, the conflict is to be resolved

in a manner that protects the purposes of the refuge, and, to the extent practicable, that also

achieves the mission of the System. We think that,

overall, we are meeting the intent of the law.

We think that the activities associated with the

original purposes of the Refuge are compatible. The

compatibility determinations found in Appendix J of

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement formalize our thoughts regarding these activities and their

compatibility. We determined that all existing activities are compatible. 

We considered how we should manage for the

agricultural and industrial purposes of the Refuge

for the next 15 years. The agricultural program is

closely tied to providing food for wintering geese

and other wildlife. As we thought about how the

agricultural program might be improved, we investigated possible ways to make it more beneficial to

wildlife and ways to use better management practices. We learned that in fitting the agricultural program with our wildlife conservation goals, our

alternatives varied by small percentages in how

many acres were devoted to row crops, pasture, and

hayfields. Currently about 4,500 acres are farmed as

row crops. We looked at alternatives that ranged

from 4,300 to 4,800 acres of row crops. Our proposed

plan would maintain about 4,400 acres in row crops.

Currently about 1,000 acres of pasture are grazed.

All the alternatives we looked at would maintain

those acres. Currently about 700 acres are hayed.

We looked at alternatives that ranged from 500 to

700 acres of hayfields. Our proposed plan would

maintain about 600 acres in hay fields. 

We do not plan to make large changes in the

number of acres that are a part of the agricultural

program. Rather, we propose to place greater

emphasis on conservation practices that would provide more benefits to wildlife and improve water

quality. We plan to address erosion with buffer

strips and discontinue farming in wetlands. We plan

to permit cooperator farmers to harvest corn

remaining in the field in the spring. To better protect nesting birds, we plan to limit mowing of clover

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

ix

and hayfields until after August 1. We propose to

change pastures from fescue grass to other cool-season and native warm-season grasses with higher

wildlife value. We will divide existing pastures into

three or four paddocks and cattle will be rotated

among the paddocks during the season. We will ask

for technical oversight from the Natural Resource

Conservation Service and the University of Illinois

Extension for our agricultural program.

Industry on the Refuge was identified by the

public as an issue only in the context of its contribution to the regional economy. We were concerned

about how to manage industry because of past contamination and the aging infrastructure of buildings, roads, water, and sewer lines. Most of the

manufacturing and storage buildings are reaching

the limits of their expected lifetime. The buildings

require a lot of maintenance and refurbishing to

meet today’s standards. Recently, several industrial

parks have been developed nearby that offer amenities not available on the Refuge.

Of the industries on the Refuge, the munitions

industry is in a unique position of requiring widely

spaced facilities for safety reasons. By providing a

safe area for munitions manufacture, the Refuge is

able to contribute to and support the national

defense. We plan to continue to provide an area for

defense munitions manufacture. We will encourage

new industrial expansion in the neighboring industrial parks with newer facilities. We plan to maintain

water and sewer infrastructure sufficient for current industrial tenants. We will expect industrial

tenants to bring their facilities up to prescribed

safety, health, environmental and maintenance standards under all new leases. Our intent is to consolidate the areas occupied by industry. We considered

discontinuing the use of facilities as they were

vacated, which would hasten the move of non-munitions industry off the Refuge. However, we did not

think this would be an efficient use of resources. So,

if tenants do not renew leases, we plan to seek suitable tenants for facilities that meet standards of

occupancy.

Refuge’s Role in the Local 

Economy

In the early stages of planning we learned that

several citizens perceive recreation, agriculture, and

industry on the Refuge as important to the economy

of Southern Illinois. We asked a technical expert to

help us determine the role of the Refuge in the local

economy and the possible effects the alternatives

that we were considering might have on the local

economy. The general finding is that the Refuge

contributes millions of dollars to the economy of

Jackson and Williamson Counties, but the contribution is a small percentage of the total economy. The

impacts of the Refuge operating budget and the recreation that occurs on the Refuge account for less

than 1 percent of the total economy and employment

in the two-county study area. The Refuge crop value

is more than 10 percent of the total Williamson

County crop value. Grazing value on the Refuge is

about 8 percent of the grazing value for Williamson

County. For commercial and industrial space, the

Refuge accounts for just over one percent of industrial/commercial site acreage in the Greater Marion

area.

Communication With the 

Community

As we began planning it was apparent to us that

the Refuge administration could do a better job of

communicating with the community. Our observation was confirmed by comments made by citizens

during open houses and focus groups. Because the

topic is important to us and the successful accomplishment of the Refuge mission, we established a

goal that addressed the understanding of the Refuge by the community and staff receptiveness to

concerns of the public. We plan to improve our communication with the public by regularly reviewing

USFWS
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

x

comments from the public, providing reports on the

“State of the Refuge,” and supporting selected community events.

Wilderness

Our refuge planning policy requires us to examine existing Wilderness and the potential for designating additional lands as Wilderness. We

recommend that the Wilderness Management Plan

that was approved in 1985 be reviewed for possible

revision. The plan will need to be revised if horseback use is to be officially recognized as an appropriate use in the Wilderness. We reviewed the

entire Refuge for possible additions to the Wilderness. We identified two tracts that total 120 acres

and are surrounded by Wilderness and meet the criteria for Wilderness Study Areas. We propose that

these tracts be recommended for Wilderness designation by the U.S. Congress.

Affected Environment

This section reviews the main points of the physical and social environment and current management

of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. For a

more complete and detailed description, see Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Physical Environment

Low relief, broad valleys, and relatively welldeveloped drainage systems characterize the northern portion of the Refuge. The southern portion consists of narrow ridges dissected by deep, narrow

valleys with steep slopes and numerous sandstone

outcrops. Water quality, drainage modification,

shoreline erosion and sedimentation remain ongoing

concerns for water bodies on the Refuge. Refuge

waters are impacted by agricultural runoff, wastewater treatment effluent, urban runoff, stream

channelization, and industrial contaminants.

Crab Orchard Lake, which was created in 1938, is

the oldest, largest, and most heavily used lake on

the Refuge. Created for water supply and recreation purposes, it is no longer used as a source for

industrial or drinking water. Little Grassy Lake was

impounded in 1950 as a recreation resource and

today is most commonly used for sport fishing. Devils Kitchen Lake was impounded in 1959 as a recreation resource and today is most commonly used for

sport fishing. Devils Kitchen is one of the deepest

and clearest lakes in Illinois.

Following World War II and the transfer of the

War Department's Illinois Ordnance Plant to the

Department of the Interior, explosives production

continued to be the principal industry on the property. New industries moved into buildings formerly

used by wartime companies. A number of locations

on the Refuge were contaminated with hazardous

substances as a result of handling and disposal

methods that were once considered acceptable.

Approximately $85 million has been spent so far for

investigation and clean up of contaminated sites.

Investigation and cleanup are continuing at several

sites in existing and former industrial areas. These

activities are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Habitat

The landcover of the Refuge area has changed

dramatically in the last 200 years. The area that is

now the Refuge was 90-95 percent forest prior to

European settlement. During the late 1800s and the

first half of the 1900s, nearly all of the area was

either logged for timber or cleared and converted to

other uses, particularly agriculture. By the 1930s,

the soils in the area were depleted and eroding.

Starting in 1938, the Resettlement Administration

acquired 32,000 acres of the land along Crab

Orchard Creek in an effort to prevent further degradation. Additional clearing and development

occurred with the establishment of the Illinois Ordnance Plant during World War II. The changes in

Refuge landcover since 1807 can be summarized as

follows: the original hardwood forest was converted

to open habitats of agricultural fields and open

water by the 1930s. The forests that exist today are

pine plantations or hardwood forest in an earlier

USFWS seral stage than the forests of the past. Savannah (7
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xi

percent of original area) and native prairie (1 percent of original area) have been completely converted to other habitats. The overall result has been

the fragmentation of the hardwood forest and an

increase in aquatic habitats with the construction of

the lakes. The current land cover for the Refuge is

displayed in Figure 4. .

 About 56 percent of the Refuge is covered by forest. Examples of wildlife that use Refuge forests are

deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls, and a variety

of forest bird species. A Refuge goal has been to

manage for productive oak-hickory forest dominated by native species. Management activities have

included tree planting, prescribed burning, thinning, and control of exotic and invasive plants.

About 2 percent of the Refuge is covered by shrubland. Examples of wildlife that use shrubland are

deer, rabbit, loggerhead shrike, Bell's vireo, and

field sparrow. Most Refuge shrubland is the result

of abandoning farm and industrial areas.

About 4 percent of the Refuge is covered by

grassland. Examples of wildlife that use grassland

are deer, rabbit, northern bobwhite, grasshopper

sparrow, loggerhead shrike, dickcissel, and eastern

meadowlark. The majority of Refuge grassland is

managed pasture (55 percent) and hay (35 percent)

with the remainder (10 percent) represented by

planted, native warm-season grasses. Management

activities have included planting agricultural land to

native grasses, prescribed fire, mowing, control of

exotic and invasive plants, and fertilizing

Before European settlement, there was little wetland habitat in the area. Most wetland habitat on the

Refuge consists of man-made ponds and lakes. Wetlands cover about 6 percent of the Refuge. Examples of wildlife that use wetlands are Canada geese,

other waterfowl, herons, raccoons, turtles, frogs,

and other amphibians and reptiles. The majority of

the wetlands are bottomland hardwood forests

(1,900 acres) and moist-soil units (450 acres). 

About 20 percent of the Refuge is covered by

open water, almost all of it in man-made reservoirs.

Open water serves as habitat for warm-water sport

fish, waterfowl and other waterbirds. Management

activities include maintenance of dams, levees, and

water control structures, and manipulation of water

levels.

About 10 percent of the Refuge is covered by

cropland. Examples of wildlife that use cropland are

deer, Canada goose, northern bobwhite, and turkey.

Management activities include mowing, disking,

planting, herbicide and fertilizer application, and

harvesting. 

Invasive, exotic and noxious weed species are relatively abundant on the Refuge. These species are

quite diverse and are found in most Refuge habitats,

including agricultural fields, lakes and ponds.

Current Role of Fire

We use prescribed fire to manipulate vegetation

in a safe and cost-effective manner. Our principal

purpose is to improve the wildlife habitat conditions

in the southern pine plantations. Prescribed burning

also reduces hazardous fuels, encourages oak and

hickory and discourages sugar maple. Burning

improves the condition of the understory. And,

although burning is not undertaken for these purposes, burning enhances the aesthetics of the forest

by making the understory more open and improves

access for both habitat management and recreation.

Areas identified as “fallow herbaceous fields” are

old fields that have been invaded by low, woody vegetation and vines and are in an early seral stage. We

use fire to maintain the openings and habitat diversity of these lands.

Tallgrass prairie has been established on several

areas on the Refuge. Prescribed fire stimulates

growth of the grasses, increases seed germination

and growth of forbs, creates open ground for wildlife, retards encroachment of woody vegetation, and

reduces the fuel load.

Wildlife

Forty-three species of mammals have been

recorded in or near the Refuge. Whitetailed deer,

USFWS
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xii

Virginia opossum, raccoon, rabbits, squirrels, bea- ver, and coyote are commonly seen on the Refuge.

Figure 4: Current Land Cover Type, Crab Orchard NWR
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xiii

Two-hundred sixty-nine species of birds have

been recorded in or near the Refuge. Herons, Canada geese and other waterfowl, raptors, wild turkey,

and songbirds are commonly seen on the Refuge.

Refuge records indicate that there were only

about 2,200 Canada geese on the Refuge in 1947.

Establishing a large, wintering population was a priority of early Refuge management. Refuge staff

kept pinioned or penned geese as a decoy flock to

attract migrating geese and emphasized production

of corn and other grains in the Refuge farm program to provide food for wintering geese. Canada

geese quickly responded; in 1948 the peak count on

the Refuge was 24,000. The average peak count

from 1947 to 2001 was 82,000.

Twenty species of amphibians and 28 species of

reptiles have been recorded on the Refuge. Cricket

frog, Fowler's toad, bullfrog, painted turtle, eastern

box turtle, racer, and diamondback water snake are

commonly seen on the Refuge. Prior to dam construction, fish habitat in the area consisted primarily of the larger, named streams. Over the last halfcentury, most fish habitat has been provided by the

three large lakes and eight smaller manmade

impoundments. Fish management on the Refuge

has emphasized mixed-species, warm-water sport

fish. Since 1995, the fisheries on the Refuge have

been managed cooperatively by Illinois Department

of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Refuge.

Monitoring

We, along with staff from the IDNR and volunteers, survey wildlife use. We use the survey information in Refuge management. Others use the

information to support state and national conservation efforts.

Public Use Resources and Trends

Swimming, boating, picnicking, dog trials, camping, hunting and fishing were a part of the Crab

Orchard Creek Project before the establishment of

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. A wide

spectrum of recreational activities continue to occur

on and around Crab Orchard, Devils Kitchen and

Little Grassy lakes. The activities include boating,

water skiing, swimming, camping, picnicking, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, environmental

education, environmental interpretation, horseback

riding, and photography. Public use facilities include

campgrounds, marinas, boat ramps, fishing piers,

beaches, picnic areas, hiking trails, auto tour, visitor

center, environmental education complex, observation decks, and photo blinds.

Small game, big game, and migratory waterfowl

are hunted on the Refuge. Most hunting occurs

within approximately 23,000 acres open to all hunting activities in accordance with State hunting seasons. Hunting includes muzzle loader, archery,

shotgun and pistol deer hunting, waterfowl hunting,

archery and shotgun wild turkey hunting, small

game hunting, game bird hunting and furbearer

hunting.

Fishing is one of the more popular visitor pastimes on the Refuge. People fish in Crab Orchard,

Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen Lakes. The main

species of fish sought by the anglers are largemouth

bass, crappie, bluegill and channel catfish. Five fishing tournaments are held annually on the Refuge's

three lakes under special use permit. The three

major lakes receive a lot of visits from fishing clubs

hosting club events called “fish-offs” – an organized

club fishing event of 20 boats or fewer. The Refuge

registered over 130 fish-offs in 2001 and more occur

without being registered.

At one time camping was allowed throughout

open areas of the Refuge. Because of litter and trash

problems, we restricted camping to a concessionoperated campground on each of the three major

lakes. Crab Orchard Campground began operation

in 1964 as a concession. Little Grassy and Devils

Kitchen Campgrounds are concession-operated

campgrounds and marinas. Crab Orchard Boat &

Yacht Club, a private organization, operates a

marina and a campground. 

Wildlife observation is the most popular activity

occurring on the Refuge, and there are many good

observation areas on the Refuge. Points of interest,

trails, auto tours and viewing blinds have been

developed in an effort to encourage and enhance

wildlife viewing. Refuge volunteers maintain seven

trails that are open to the general public and one

trail that is provided for educational purposes only.

Numerous fire trails have served as hiking trails on

the Refuge.

Boating has long been a popular activity on the

Refuge. When Crab Orchard Lake was completed in

1938, it was the largest man-made lake in Illinois.

The Refuge offers boating on Crab Orchard, Devils

Kitchen, and Little Grassy lakes. Crab Orchard

Lake has 14 public boat launching facilities; three

ramps are provided on Devils Kitchen Lake; four

are provided at Little Grassy Lake.
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xiv

At one time the Refuge supported six public

beaches -- four on Crab Orchard Lake and one each

on Devils Kitchen Lake and Little Grassy Lake.

Today swimming is allowed in Crab Orchard and

Little Grassy lakes and prohibited in Devils Kitchen

Lake.

From the late 1940s through the 1960s, picnicking was a very popular activity on the Refuge.

Today picnicking is encouraged in four locations on

the Refuge. The areas vary in size, character and

type of use.

Four group camps are located on Little Grassy

Lake. The camps operate under a cooperative

agreement with the Refuge. About 20,000 campers

participate in group camping activities on the Refuge each year. The Refuge provides educational

assistance to area teachers, educators, and Refuge

group camps.

Refuge staff, interns, and volunteers present

both on-site and off-site environmental educational

programs to area school groups. Educational materials (books, posters, videos, and other supplies) are

maintained by the Refuge and are available for loan

to area educators. 

Interpretive programs are given by Refuge staff

and volunteers to school, civic and other groups. The

programs are presented through automobile tours,

talks and walks. Some of the better attended programs include Bald Eagle tours, wildflower walks

and owl prowls. The Refuge also presents its interpretive message through bulletin boards, signs and

wayside exhibits. The Visitor Center consists of an

information and exhibit area, conference room, book

store and office space for visitor services staff. The

Williamson County Tourism Bureau also occupies

office space in the building.

The Refuge maintains an extensive system of

roads within its boundaries. According to a 2001 survey of Refuge roads completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Refuge maintains 38

miles of paved surface roads and 17 miles of gravel

roadway for a total of 56 roadway miles.

Wilderness

Congress designated the Crab Orchard Wilderness as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System in 1976. The 4,050-acre wilderness was

the first in the State of Illinois. The Crab Orchard

Wilderness is located in the extreme southern portion of the Refuge bordering the shores of Devils

Kitchen and Little Grassy lakes.

Industry

When the War Department and Soil Conservation Service lands were transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1947, approximately 1.6

million square feet of space suitable for industrial

leasing were included in the transfer. The industrial

complex currently consists of about 1.2 million

square feet. The Refuge collects about $500,000 in

rental receipts each year. Rental receipts are

returned to the Refuge and are used as part of its

operation and maintenance budget.

Agriculture

The Refuge began farm management in 1948.

The original focus of management was to: 1) reclaim

farmland that had been fallow during ordnance

plant operations, 2) improve soil fertility, 3) improve

farm practices, 4) emphasize establishment of pasture, and 5) use crops to help establish a wintering

flock of Canada geese. Current row crop management emphasizes soil protection and integrated pest

management. Management consists of crop rotation, no-till planting, higher weed tolerance,

restricted use of herbicides, and no insecticide use.

The current grazing program consists exclusively of

cattle grazing on fescue pastures. The current hay

program consists of improved timothy fields and

unimproved fields that are mostly old fescue pastures.
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xv

Archaeological and Cultural 

Values

About 1,000 acres of the Refuge have been subjected to controlled and reported archeological survey and investigation. One hundred and thirty-six

prehistoric sites have been reported on the Refuge.

In the 1930s farmsteads and small towns covered

the Refuge area. Documents indicate at least 28

farmsteads and habitations, 34 cemeteries, three

churches, 12 schools, and two towns existed within

the Refuge boundaries.

Socioeconomic Environment

Williamson County population grew at a faster

rate than the state but substantially less than the

U.S. from 1980 to 2000. Jackson County lost population during this period.

We defined a study area for estimating the economic effects of the recreational, agricultural and

commercial use of the Refuge as Williamson and

Jackson counties. Most visitors to the Refuge (about

89 percent) come from within a 50-mile radius of the

Refuge, and about 90 percent of these visitors come

from Williamson and Jackson counties. We estimated the economic impacts of refuge uses and

expenditures on the economy and taxes. The

impacts are large dollar figures, but a small portion

of the total economy.

Current Staff and Budget

The Refuge has a staff of about 30 people. Based

on the annual average Refuge budget between 1996

and 2000, the Refuge budget includes $1.4 million in

salaries and $770,937 in non-salary expenditures.

Partnerships

The Refuge has many partnerships with local,

state, and national organizations. These partnerships benefit the Refuge in many ways, including

fostering good community relations and enhancing

Refuge habitats and wildlife populations. In addition, the Refuge has many dedicated friends and

volunteers that assist with a wide variety of tasks.

The Refuge needs the help and support of partners,

friends, and volunteers to accomplish its mission.

Alternatives Considered

The five alternative approaches to management

that we considered are summarized in the following

paragraphs and table. For a more extended and

detailed discussion of the alternatives, see Chapter

2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Our Preferred Alternative

In selecting a preferred alternative, we considered environmental, economic, and social factors

and our ability to accomplish the alternatives. We

based our decision on how well the goals of the Refuge were met by each alternative and the environmental consequences of each alternative. We

selected Alternative E as our preferred alternative.

Alternative E will fulfil our statutory mission and

responsibilities, and we have adequate authority to

implement it.

By focussing on relatively small alterations in

land cover, we can gain benefits for both forest and

grassland area-sensitive bird species at a reasonable cost. In our preferred alternative, as in all

alternatives, we intend to provide food to support a

significant population of wintering Canada geese. 

The conflicts experienced among water users is

addressed by increasing areas that are no-wake

zones and a recognition that we need to do better

enforcement of current use zoning regulations. 

The agricultural program on the Refuge and its

economic effect will remain pretty much intact. The

industrial program will continue to support the

munitions manufacturing industry and current tenants. By encouraging other industries to locate in

nearby industrial parks, the economic effect of the

Glenn Smart
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xvi

industry will remain in the local economy, and the

needs of the industry will be met more efficiently.

Finally, with a goal, an objective, and strategies formalized to better improve communication between

the Refuge and the community, we think we will be

able to do a better job of informing and listening to

the community.

Alternative A: Current 

Management (No Action)

Under this alternative the current management

activities at the Refuge would continue. The Refuge

would continue to provide sufficient habitat for the

needs of wintering geese. All current recreation

uses and patterns on the Refuge would continue.

Current industrial policies would remain in place

and the Refuge would provide facilities for the existing tenants at fair market value rental rates. The

amount of agricultural land would remain fairly constant. However some loss may occur through installing buffer strips needed for soil and water

protection.

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: Wildlifedependent Recreation Emphasis 

With Land Exchange

Through the years the Refuge has been criticized

for its lack of support of the recreational purpose of

the Refuge. Recreation on the Refuge drew the

greatest number of comments during the scoping of

issues. When the Refuge was established, the Director of the Service assured Congress that the Service

would be able to manage for the four purposes of the

Refuge. In 50 years of management, the Service has

not been able consistently to provide facilities and

management for quality non-wildlife-dependent recreational experiences. Providing for swimming, picnicking, and power boating does not fit well with the

capabilities and resources of the Service. Under this

alternative the non-wildlife-dependent recreation

that would remain the responsibility of the Refuge

would be guided by the philosophy of “consolidate

and improve.” Over the last decade habitat fragmentation has been identified as a significant result

of changing land use. Habitat fragmentation is

known to have negative effects on biological diversity. 

Under this alternative, management emphasis

would be on reducing habitat fragmentation and

reconciling conflicts between the Refuge’s recreation purpose and the Refuge System mission by

focusing on wildlife-dependent recreation on the

Refuge while still providing a full spectrum of recreational activities in the area.

Some of the current management activities at the

Refuge would be modified to provide greater benefits to wildlife. The main point of this alternative is

to offer increased recreational opportunities by

exchanging land in the developed northwestern portion of the Refuge for undeveloped land at another

location. 

The Refuge would update the industrial use policy with the intent of not promoting expansion and

consolidating the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would seek not to compete with

neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant

were to leave the Refuge and their facilities were

suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make

them available for new tenants. The amount of row

crops would decrease slightly. Current acreage of

hay fields and pastures would remain about the

same. All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover

fields would take place after August 1 to protect

nesting birds. The Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other cool-season and native warm-season

grasses over a period of 15 years and modify grazing

regimes to benefit grassland birds. 

Alternative C: Open Land 

Management: Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation 

Both grassland and forest species are negatively

affected by habitat fragmentation. Under this alternative the Refuge would take advantage of the lands

that are already open and increase the size of existing large blocks of open land for grassland dependent species, especially birds. The Refuge

recognizes that improvements in the recreation program are needed. Under this alternative the Refuge

would satisfy the Refuge’s recreation purpose as

much as possible within Service budget priorities

and expanding emphasis on wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Under this alternative cropland and grassland

would increase slightly. Pasture and hayfield management would change to provide more emphasis on

habitat quality for grassland birds. The Refuge

would manage one large forest block to benefit area-
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xvii

sensitive forest birds. To enhance non-wildlifedependent recreational activities, the Refuge would

consolidate marinas and picnic areas, upgrade existing boat ramps and designate times and places for

the various types of boating activities. Camping

capacity would be reduced, the quality of camping

facilities would be upgraded and a 2-week maximum

stay policy would be implemented. A spectrum of

recreational opportunities ranging from more developed recreation at Crab Orchard Lake to less developed opportunities at Devils Kitchen Lake would be

provided. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the

Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the vacant

facility. The amount of row crops would increase

slightly.

Alternative D: Forest Land 

Management: Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Under this alternative the Refuge would take

advantage of the natural tendency and historical

prevalence of forests in the area and increase the

size of large blocks of forests for forest interior species, especially birds. The Refuge would manage two

large forest blocks to benefit area sensitive forest

birds. The Refuge would maintain some early successional habitat. Pasture and hayfield management

would change to provide more emphasis on habitat

quality for grassland birds, along with an emphasis

on cattle production on pastures. To enhance nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities, the Refuge would consolidate marinas and picnic areas,

upgrade existing boat ramps and designate times

and places for the various types of boating activities.

Camping capacity would be reduced, the quality of

camping facilities would be upgraded and a 2-week

maximum stay policy would be implemented. If an

industrial tenant left the Refuge, the Refuge would

not seek a new tenant for the vacant facility. The

amount of row crops and hay fields would decrease

slightly. The Refuge would increase forage diversity

and use rotational grazing in pastures to increase

cattle production. 

Alternative E: Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation (Preferred 

Alternative)

This alternative has the same habitat, industrial,

and agricultural programs as Alternative B and the

same recreation management program as Alternative C.

Under this alternative, management emphasis

would be on reducing habitat fragmentation by

making small changes in the current habitat cover

to gain larger, unfragmented blocks of both forest

and grassland habitats (see Figure 4). Some of the

current management activities at the Refuge would

be modified to provide greater benefits to wildlife.

The Refuge would update the industrial use policy with the intent of not promoting expansion and

consolidating the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would seek not to compete with

neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant

were to leave the Refuge and their facilities were

suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make

them available for new tenants. The amount of row

crops would decrease slightly. Current acreage of

hay fields and pastures would remain about the

same. All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover

fields would take place after August 1 to protect

nesting birds. The Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other cool-season and native warm-season

grasses over a period of 15 years and modify grazing

regimes to benefit grassland birds. 

The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge’s recreation

purpose as much as possible within Service budget

priorities and expanding emphasis on wildlifedependent recreation. To enhance non-wildlifedependent recreational activities, the Refuge would

consolidate marinas and picnic areas, upgrade existing boat ramps and designate times and places for

the various types of boating activities. Camping

capacity would be reduced, the quality of camping

facilities would be upgraded and a 2-week maximum

stay policy would be implemented. A spectrum of

Glenn Smart recreational opportunities ranging from more devel-
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xviii

oped recreation at Crab Orchard Lake to less developed opportunities at Devils Kitchen Lake would be

provided.

Environmental 

Consequences 

Associated with Each 

Alternative

We estimated the consequences of each alternative in detail. For a full discussion of the analysis,

please see Chapter 4 of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement. We have summarized the effects

of each alternative in the following table and have

described the effects in short phrases to ease comparison among alternatives. The recreational effects

under Alternative B include the combined effects of

lands managed by the Service and former Refuge

lands that would be managed by SIU under a land

exchange. Thus, the effects for increased developed

recreation reflect increases that would occur on SIU

lands under Alternative B.

Where you Can Find the 

Draft EIS/CCP

You can see the complete Draft Environmental

Impact Statement in a number of places. If you have

access to the Internet, you can find a link to the document at the following address: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/craborchard/index.html.

Paper copies of the document are also available in

a limited supply. Please call the Refuge at 618-997-

3344 to request a copy. Copies are also available at

local libraries:

# Carbondale Public Library in Carbondale,

Illinois

# Carterville Public Library in Carterville,

Illinois

# Chester Public Library in Chester, Illinois

# Du Quoin Public Library in Du Quoin, Illinois

# Herrin City Library in Herrin, Illinois

# Johnston City Public Library in Johnston City,

Illinois

# Jonesboro Public Library in Jonesboro, Illinois

# Marion Carnegie Library in Marion, Illinois

# Mitchell Carnegie Library in Harrisburg,

Illinois

# Sallie Logan Public Library in Murphysboro,

Illinois

# Stinson Memorial Library in Anna, Illinois

# Vienna Public Library in Vienna, Illinois

# West Frankfort Public Library in West

Frankfort, Illinois

Tell Us What You Think

Public participation is the cornerstone of comprehensive conservation planning. by letting us know

what you think of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, you can help the Refuge develop a plan

that accomplishes the purposes of the Refuge as

well as the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. 

We want to know if you feel we have addressed

the key issues facing the Refuge. In reviewing the

alternatives, do you agree with our selection of the

preferred alternative? A public review period follows the release of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. You are invited to submit comments

electronically through our web site (http://

www.fws.gov/planning/craborchard/index.html) or

in writing.

In order for us to consider your comments as we

prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Comprehensive Conservation Plan, we need to

hear from you by January 17, 2006. 

Correspondence should be mailed to:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

Attention: Draft EIS Comment

8588 Route 148

Marion, IL 62959 
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xix

Key Elements of Alternatives Considered Described in Terms of Change from Current Conditions: 

Issues Raised 

During Scoping:

How Were the Issues Addressed?

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred Alternative)

Recreation

Loss of nonwildlife dependent 

recreation 

opportunities. 

Poor condition of 

existing facilities. 

Desire for more 

nature walks and 

environmental 

education.

Non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation 

opportunities 

would gradually 

decrease and 

quality would 

gradually improve. 

Wildlifedependent 

recreation 

opportunities on 

the Refuge would 

remain the same. 

Campers would 

have increased 

opportunity 

because of 14-day 

stay limit.

A portion of 

Refuge with 

concentration of 

recreation 

facilities would be 

exchanged for 

undeveloped land 

of Southern 

Illinois University. 

Increased 

opportunities for 

higher quality, 

non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation in the 

area. Number and 

quality of wildlifedependent 

recreation 

opportunities on 

the Refuge would 

increase.

Campers would 

have increased 

opportunity 

because of 14 day 

stay limit.

Non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation 

opportunities 

would decrease 

and quality would 

improve as 

facilities are 

consolidated. 

Wildlifedependent 

recreation 

opportunities on 

the Refuge would 

gradually improve. 

Campers would 

have increased 

opportunity 

because of 14-day 

stay limit. The 

Boat & Yacht Club 

would be operated 

under a concession 

contract after 2 

years.

Same as 

Alternative C.

Same as 

Alternative C.
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xx

Wildlife 

Conservation

Protect game, nongame, threatened, 

and endangered 

species, preserve 

and restore 

habitat. Maintain 

adequate habitat 

for wintering 

Canada geese.

T&E species, 

geese, and 

resident fish and 

game managed the 

same in all 

alternatives.

Management 

activities would 

protect the Bald 

Eagles and 

Indiana bat.

Provide food for 

6.4 million gooseuse-days annually.

Manage mixedspecies, warmwater sport fish 

population. 

Manage resident 

wildlife species at 

levels that allow 

hunting 

opportunities.

T&E species, 

geese, and 

resident fish and 

game managed the 

same in all 

alternatives.

T&E species, 

geese, and 

resident fish and 

game managed the 

same in all 

alternatives.

T&E species, 

geese, and 

resident fish and 

game managed the 

same in all 

alternatives.

Reforest 240 

acres. Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

3,300 acres pine 

plantations.

Reforest 490 

acres. Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

3,300 acres pine 

plantations.

Reforest 52 acres. 

Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

650 acres pine 

plantations

Reforest same as 

Alternative B

Reforest same as 

Alternative B.

All early 

successional 

habitat matures.

Maintain about 

300 acres of early 

successional 

habitat.

Successional 

habitat same as 

Alternative B.

Successional 

habitat same as 

Alternative B.

Successional 

habitat same as 

Alternative B.

Key Elements of Alternatives Considered Described in Terms of Change from Current Conditions: 

Issues Raised 

During Scoping:

How Were the Issues Addressed?

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred Alternative)
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxi

Maintain 240 acres 

of native warm 

season prairie. 

Maintain 3,300 

acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1.

Maintain 260 acres 

of native warm 

season prairie. 

Maintain 3,300 

acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1. Remove 

124 acres of linear 

forest habitat and 

8 miles of hedge 

row. Convert 

fescue grasses in 

pastures to more 

desirable wildlife 

grasses.

Manage 

grasslands same 

as Alternative B.

Maintain 260 acres 

of native warm 

season prairie. 

Maintain 3,000 

acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1. Remove 

15 acres of linear 

forest habitat and 

2 miles of hedge 

row.

Manage 

grasslands same 

as Alternative B.

Manage 450 acres 

of moist soil units.

Manage 500 acres 

of moist soil units 

by constructing 50 

to 70 acres of new 

units.

Manage moist soil 

units same as 

Alternative B.

Manage moist soil 

units same as 

Alternative B.

Manage moist soil 

units same as 

Alternative B.

Refuge Purposes

Management has 

not properly 

emphasized or 

supported the four 

original purposes; 

concern that the 

refuge purposes 

may now be 

considered 

incompatible with 

mission of the 

Refuge System

Non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation 

facilities gradually 

improved.

Portion of Refuge 

with major nonwildlife dependent 

recreational 

facilities 

exchanged to 

Southern Illinois 

University who 

intend to develop 

the facilities and 

better meet the 

demand. Refuge 

would devote more 

of its resources to 

wildlife-dependent 

recreation.

Non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation 

facilities 

consolidated and 

improved faster 

than in Alternative 

A.

For non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation, same 

as Alternative C.

For non-wildlife 

dependent 

recreation, same 

as Alternative C.

Key Elements of Alternatives Considered Described in Terms of Change from Current Conditions: 

Issues Raised 

During Scoping:

How Were the Issues Addressed?

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred Alternative)
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxii

For industry, 

accommodate 

tenants as long as 

facilities meet 

health and safety 

standards. Special 

recognition to 

munitions 

manufacturing

For industry, 

accommodate 

tenants as long as 

facilities meet 

health and safety 

standards. Special 

recognition to 

munitions 

manufacturing.

For industry, nonmunitions tenants 

would not be 

replaced as they 

leave the Refuge. 

Emphasis on 

munitions 

manufacturing.

For industry, 

same as 

Alternative C.

For industry, 

same as 

Alternative B.

For agriculture, 

slight loss in 

acreage from 

buffer strips.

For agriculture, 

maintain the 

approximate level 

that exists on the 

Refuge. Reduce 

row crop acreage 

about 2 percent; 

hayfield acreage 

about 14 percent

For agriculture, 

increase row crop 

acreage about 7 

percent; no change 

in hayfield 

acreage.

For agriculture, 

reduce row crop 

acreage 4 percent; 

hayfield acreage 

about 29 percent.

For agriculture, 

same as 

Alternative B.

Recreational 

Boating

Support for 

continuation and 

encouragement of 

boating, 

recognition of 

conflicts among 

boaters and 

between boaters 

and other 

recreationists, 

opposition to 

personal 

watercraft and the 

need for more 

restrictive 

regulations

Minimal changes Minor restrictions 

in use (zoning) to 

motor boats. 

Restrictions in use 

(zoning) to motor 

boats. 

Minimal changes. Same as 

Alternative C.

Key Elements of Alternatives Considered Described in Terms of Change from Current Conditions: 

Issues Raised 

During Scoping:

How Were the Issues Addressed?

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred Alternative)
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxiii

Role in Regional 

Economy

Refuge benefits 

local economy 

through tourism, 

agriculture, and 

industry and 

concern that 

reduction in 

Refuge programs 

will have negative 

impact on 

economy

Annual Change in Economic Effect compared to Alt. A:

Recreational Use 

Economic Effect:

Econ output $24.7 

M

Employment 495 

jobs

Recreational Use

Employment +29 

jobs

Economic 

output+$1.44 M

Recreational Use

Employment +3 

jobs

Econ 

output+$0.16 M

Recreational Use

Employment +3 

jobs

Econ 

output+$0.16 M

Recreational Use

Employment +3 

jobs

Econ 

output+$0.16 M

Annual value of 

Ag. Products:

$1.12 M

Annual change in 

value of Ag. 

products: -$.047 M

Annual change in 

value of Ag. 

products:

+$.048 M

Annual change in 

value of Ag. 

products:

-$.083 M

Annual change in 

value of Ag. 

products: -$.047 M

Communication 

between Refuge 

and Community

Refuge is not 

informing the 

local community 

about current 

issues, need for 

better 

communication

Develop a positive 

attitude toward 

the Refuge 

through increased 

outreach activities.

Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A Same as Alt. A

Key Elements of Alternatives Considered Described in Terms of Change from Current Conditions: 

Issues Raised 

During Scoping:

How Were the Issues Addressed?

Alternative A

Current Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred Alternative)
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxiv

Summary of the Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Each Alternative 

Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Threatened & Endangered Species

Bald Eagle: Minor increase in 

nesting habitat

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat, 

alternative with 

highest habitat 

values

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat

Indiana bat: Minor increase in 

potential habitat

Minor increase in 

potential habitat

Minor increase in 

potential habitat, 

alternative with 

lowest habitat 

values

Minor increase in 

potential habitat, 

alternative with 

highest habitat 

values 

Minor increase in 

potential habitat

Resident Fish & 

Wildlife

Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal

impacts

Canada Geese Minor decrease in 

habitat, 

alternative with 

highest production 

of potential goose 

food

Minor decrease in 

habitat, along with 

Alternative E, 

lowest production 

of potential goose 

food

Minor decrease in 

habitat

Minor decrease in 

habitat, higher 

production of 

potential goose 

food than 

Alternative C

Minor decrease in 

habitat, along with 

alternative B, 

lowest production 

of potential goose 

food

Waterbirds Minimal impacts Minor increase in 

habitat

Minor increase in 

habitat

Minimal impacts Minor increase in 

habitat

Grassland Birds Decrease in 

habitat (36%), 

improved nesting 

conditions 

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

much improved 

nesting conditions 

Decrease in 

habitat (36%), 

much improved 

nesting conditions 

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

improved nesting 

conditions 

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

much improved 

nesting conditions 

Area-Sensitive Forest 

Birds

Increase in habitat 

(8%) 

Increase in habitat 

(9%), improved 

nesting conditions 

Increase in habitat 

(7%) 

Increase in habitat 

(9%), improved 

nesting conditions 

Increase in habitat 

(9%), improved 

nesting conditions

Shrub Land Birds Decrease in 

habitat (26%) 

Decrease in 

habitat (26%) 

Decrease in 

habitat (26%) 

Decrease in 

habitat (26%) 

Decrease in 

habitat (26%)

Invasive Species Most species 

increase

Most species 

increase

Most species 

increase

Most species 

increase

Most species 

increase

Agricultural Uses No acreage 

change, minor 

restriction in 

agricultural 

practices 

Minor acreage 

decrease, changes 

in some 

agricultural 

practices 

Minor acreage 

increase, changes 

in some 

agricultural 

practices, 

alternative with 

largest amount of 

agricultural land

Minor acreage 

decrease, addition 

of practices 

beneficial to 

agriculture, 

alternative with 

least amount of 

agricultural land

Minor acreage 

decrease, changes 

in some 

agricultural 

practices

Wilderness Minor increase in 

wilderness 

designation 

Minor increase in 

wilderness 

designation 

Minor increase in 

wilderness 

designation 

Minor increase in 

wilderness 

designation 

Minor increase in 

wilderness 

designation
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxv

Industrial Uses Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minor decreases in 

facilities

Minor decreases in 

facilities

Minimal impacts

Hunting Minimal impacts Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality 

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Fishing Minimal impacts Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality 

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Wildlife Viewing & 

Photography

Minimal impacts Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality 

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Interpretation and 

Environmental 

Education

Minimal impacts Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality 

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality

Swimming No change Increased 

opportunities 

provided by SIU

Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts

Camping Minimal impacts Increased 

opportunities 

provided by SIU

Fewer campsites, 

improved facilities, 

14-day stay limit

Fewer campsites, 

improved facilities, 

14-day stay limit

Fewer campsites, 

improved facilities, 

14-day stay limit

Picnicking Minor 

improvements

Increased 

opportunities 

provided by SIU

Minor 

improvements

Minor 

improvements

Minor 

improvements

Motor boating / Sail 

boating

Minimal impacts Minor restrictions 

in use (zoning)

Restrictions in use 

(zoning)

Minimal impacts Minor restrictions 

in use (zoning)

Waterskiing Minimal impacts Reduction in area 

open

Reduction in area 

open

Reduction in area 

open

Reduction in area 

open

Marinas Minimal impacts Increases in 

facilities provided 

by SIU

Decreases in 

facilities

Decreases in 

facilities

Decreases in 

facilities

Group Camps Minimal impacts Increased costs to 

camps, limits on 

expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education

Increased costs to 

camps, limits on 

expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education

Increased costs to 

camps, limits on 

expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education

Increased costs to 

camps, limits on 

expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education

Summary of the Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Each Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Executive Summary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

xxvi

Private Clubs Minimal impacts SIU management Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 2 

years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of the 

public.

Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 2 

years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of the 

public.

Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 2 

years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of the 

public.

Horseback Riding Minimal impacts Fewer 

opportunities

Fewer 

opportunities

No horseback 

riding

Fewer 

opportunities

Water Quality Minimal impacts Minor 

improvements

Minor 

improvements

Minimal impacts Minor 

improvements

Communication Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

Volunteers Minimal impacts Improved Improved Improved Improved

Cultural Resources No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts

Economics No change in 

economic effect.

Small increase in 

economic effect.

Minor increase in 

economic effect.

Minor increase in 

economic effect.

Minor increase in 

economic effect.

Environmental Justice No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

Climate Change Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Air Quality Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts

Summary of the Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Each Alternative (Continued)

Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis 

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

Alternative E

Reduce Habitat 

Fragmentation: 

Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

1

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,

to prepare and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for each unit in the National

Wildlife Refuge System. This Environmental

Impact Statement provides environmental information to Service officials and the general public before

decisions are made and actions are taken as

required by the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, as amended.

1.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Figure 1 and Figure 2) that will guide management for the next 15

years. The action includes consolidating and improving the refuge's recreation facilities. The action also

includes management activities that will reduce the

fragmentation of forest and grassland habitats. The

proposed management direction is further defined

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Land

Protection Plan.

1.3 Purpose of Action

The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement is to select a management direction for Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15

years that best achieves the Refuge's purposes,

vision and goals, contributes to the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System, is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management,

and addresses relevant mandates and major issues

developed during scoping. An additional purpose is

to fully document the Refuge’s recent Fire Management Plan in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Through this

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), we are

presenting the Fire Management Plan to the public

and approving it.

1.4 Need for Action 

For Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,

there is a need to meet the Refuge purposes of recreation, industry and agriculture as much as possible within the National Wildlife Refuge System that

emphasizes its mission of wildlife conservation. This

need has proven difficult to meet in the past because

the purposes of the Refuge, which outrank the mission of the Refuge System, often conflict with wildlife conservation and compete unfavorably in the

budgeting process. There is a need to specify the

priority wildlife species of management concern

and, within budget constraints and other limitations,

reduce habitat fragmentation. There is a need to

recognize the recreational demands of the public,
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

2

Figure 1: Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

3

and within budget constraints and the Refuge mission, attempt to meet this demand. There is a need

to address the conflicting demands of wildlife- and

non-wildlife-dependent recreation. There is a need

to improve the relations between the community

and the Refuge. In addition, a plan is needed to satisfy the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which

requires the Service to develop and implement a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for all national

wildlife refuges.

1.5 Decision to be Made

The Regional Director for the Great Lakes/Big

Rivers Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

will select an alternative to implement as the Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive

Conservation Plan. The Regional Director's decision

will be made with an understanding of the environmental consequences of all alternatives considered.

Figure 2: Location of Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

4

1.6 Overview of the Planning 

Process

Our planning process follows eight basic steps

described in the Service's planning policy. The steps

are:

# Preplanning: Planning the Plan

# Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping

# Review Vision Statement and Goals and

Determine Significant Issues

# Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including

the Proposed Action

# Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document

# Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

# Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate

# Review and Revise Plan

The Refuge began pre-planning for the CCP in

1999. There were initial discussions among the staff

on issues to be addressed and data that would be

necessary during planning. A planning team was

formed that consisted of Refuge staff, regional

office planning staff, representatives from other

programs within the Fish and Wildlife Service, and

representatives from the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources. Geographic Information System

(GIS) data were assembled and organized.

In late 2000, the Refuge began collecting public

input through a series of open house and focus

group meetings. In October 2000, more than 300 citizens attended three open house meetings hosted by

the Refuge staff. In January 2001, the Refuge staff

invited 39 diverse stakeholders to attend three focus

group meetings to discuss and prioritize issues facing the Refuge. The Refuge began officially accepting written comments in January 2000. The public

represented by the comments include a variety of

interests and organizations, including on-Refuge

industrial and agricultural businesses; educational

institutions; recreational organizations (i.e. hunting,

fishing, and youth camps); environmental and conservation organizations; federal, state and local government entities and many private citizens.

In early 2001, the planning team formed special

topic work groups to deal with the Refuge purposes.

The groups included members of the planning team

and subject area experts from within the Service

and State. The groups reviewed the existing vision

and goals for the Refuge and drafted new goals for

the next 15 years.

In April 2001, using all of the comments received,

considering the goals and all of the rules and regulations that must be followed and considering the

given needs, the planning team developed four

alternative management concepts. The four concepts were: Existing Management; Land Exchange;

Open Land Management; and Forest Land Management. These management concepts were presented to the public in a project update, which was

mailed to everyone on the planning mailing list, and

people were invited to comment on the concepts.

Based on the comments received and land cover

data analysis, the alternatives were refined and

made more specific.

The alternatives and a more fully developed section of planned programs for the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan are contained in this

document.

1.7 Legal and Policy 

Guidelines

In addition to the Refuge's establishing legislation (Appendix G), several laws, executive orders,

and regulations govern its administration. See

Appendix C for a list and discussion of the guiding

laws and orders.

1.7.1 Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness

reviews be conducted through the comprehensive

conservation planning process (Fish and Wildlife

Service manual, 602 FW 3). The wilderness review

process consists of three phases: inventory, study,

and recommendation. In the inventory phase we

look at Service-owned lands and waters within the

Refuge that are not currently designated wilderness

and identify those areas that meet the criteria for

wilderness established by Congress. The criteria

are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or

primitive recreation, and supplemental values.

Areas that meet the criteria are called Wilderness

Study Areas (WSAs). In the study phase we develop

and evaluate a range of management alternatives

for the WSAs to determine if they are suitable for

recommendation for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. In the recommendation phase we forward the suitable

recommendations in a Wilderness Study Report

that moves from the Director through the Secretary

and the President to Congress.
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

5

1.8 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission, Goals and 

Principles

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System of more

than 540 national wildlife refuges, 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. The agency enforces Federal wildlife

laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,

manages migratory bird populations, restores

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and

restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps

foreign governments with their conservation efforts.

It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise

taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish

and wildlife agencies.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's mission is:

“working with others, to conserve, protect and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

1.8.1 Mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System

By law, 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.”

1.8.2 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.

1.8.3 Guiding Principles of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System

# We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's

teachings that land is a community of life and

that love and respect for the land is an extension

of ethics. 

# We seek to reflect that land ethic in our

stewardship and to instill it in others. 

# Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and

abundant wildlife are essential to the quality of

the American life. 

# We are public servants. We owe our employers,

the American people, hard work, integrity,

fairness, and a voice in the protection of their

trust resources. 

# Management, ranging from preservation to

active manipulation of habitats and populations,

is necessary to achieve Refuge System and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service missions. 

# Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation, photography,

interpretation, and education, when compatible,

are legitimate and appropriate uses of the

Refuge System. 

# Partnerships with those who want to help us

meet our mission are welcome and indeed

essential. 

# Employees are our most valuable resource.

They are respected and deserve an

empowering, mentoring, and caring work

environment. 

# We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of

our neighbors. 
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

6

1.9 Ecosystem Goals

1.9.1 Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass 

Prairie Ecosystem

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach

to conservation and designated 53 ecosystem units

(Figure 3). The ecosystem units delineate portions

of the landscape where the Service and its partners

can set ecosystem-wide resource goals and work

together to achieve these goals.

The Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi

River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem (Number 23), an

ecologically diverse area encompassing 186,133

square miles in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri

and Wisconsin. An ecosystem team has identified

the following goals in response to resource management challenges and opportunities: 

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.

1.9.2 Goals and Objectives for Other 

Landscape Level Plans

1.9.2.1. Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Over the last decade, bird conservation planning

has evolved from a largely local, site-based focus to

a more regional, landscape-oriented perspective.

Significant challenges include locating areas of highFigure 3: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecosystem Units
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

7

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. Collectively, they comprise a tremendous

resource as Crab Orchard NWR engages in comprehensive conservation planning and its translation

into effective on-the-ground management.

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 conservation 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 is in the Upper Mississippi RiverGreat Lakes Region Joint Venture. 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:

 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.

The breeding duck population objective for

Illinois is 20,000, which is a 365 percent

increase over the average breeding population of 4,300 birds.

 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.

The migration habitat objective (acres of

managed wetland habitat) for the Southern

Illinois Focus Area is 77,950 acres, which is a

34 percent increase over the 58,171 acres

available in 1998.

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. Reflecting the local physiography,

the northern portion of Crab Orchard NWR lies

within PIF Physiographic Area 31, the Prairie Peninsula Physiographic Area. The southern portion of

the Refuge lies within PIF Physiographic Area 14,

the Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic Area.

U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan

The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan are

plans that address the concerns for shorebird and

waterbirds. These plans have corresponding

regional plans that cover the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Region, which includes the Refuge.

These regional plans contain more specific information about the species priorities and habitat conservation needs of birds using the Refuge. These plans

are available at http://www.shorebirdplan.fws.gov

and http://www.nacwcp.org.
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

8

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

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 American Bird

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) (http://www.nabcius.org). 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

as its planning units. Bird Conservation Regions are

becoming increasingly common as the unit of choice

for regional bird conservation efforts; Crab Orchard

NWR lies within Bird Conservation Region 24, Central Hardwoods.

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 abundance, breeding and

wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, area

importance (at a particular scale, e.g. Physiographic

Areas or Bird Conservation Regions), 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 PIF, shorebird, and

waterbird status assessment scores.

1.9.2.2. Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Conservation Priorities (January 2002)

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 99 species or populations for the

Service's Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie

Ecosystem. Approximately 45 of the listed species

inhabit the Refuge or immediate vicinity. 

1.10 Brief History of Refuge 

Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the

Crab Orchard Creek Project in 1936 as a Works

Progress Administration (WPA) project. The

project was “proposed largely as a recreational and

conservation program for water, soil and forestry

conservation.” Several benefits were envisioned for

the project: “(1) it will materially aid in eliminating

economic and social distress, (2) create the largest

recreational area in the state of Illinois, (3) conserve

a large water supply and eliminate flooding of privately-owned lands, (4) conserve existing forests, (5)

control soil erosion.” (Preliminary Plan for Land

Acquisition, Crab Orchard Creek Project, 1936)

In late 1937, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Soil Conservation Service assumed administration

of the Project. From 1937 to 1942, the federal government purchased 32,000 acres within the Project

area from private landowners. Over 80 percent of

the acquired land had been cleared and used for

agricultural crops and grazing. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) workers planted more than 4.6

million trees in the area from 1938 to 1941. The Crab

Orchard Lake dam was completed in 1941. Crab

Orchard Lake was the largest lake in Illinois at that

time. In 1942 the Department of War appropriated

10,223 acres of the Crab Orchard Creek Project

land and purchased an additional 12,352 acres to

build the Illinois Ordnance Plant. Between 5,000

and 8,000 people worked at the plant, known as

Ordill, manufacturing bombs and anti-tank mines

during World War II.

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was

established on August 5, 1947, by Public Law 80-

361. This Act of Congress transferred 22,575 acres

from the Department of War (Illinois Ordnance

Plant) and 21,425 acres from the Soil Conservation

Service (Crab Orchard Creek Project) to the Secretary of the Interior.

The Crab Orchard Creek Project proposed dams

for Little Grassy Creek and Grassy Creek to store

water and prevent siltation of Crab Orchard Lake.
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

9

The dam that created Little Grassy Lake was completed in 1950. The dam that created Devils Kitchen

Lake was completed in 1959.

Congress designated a 4,050-acre portion of the

Refuge as the Crab Orchard Wilderness in 1976.

Since the Refuge was established, the Service has

acquired and divested several parcels of land. In

1959, the Refuge transferred 921 acres of land

located in its southeast corner to the U.S. Department of Justice for construction of a maximum security prison. In 1969, the Refuge acquired several

scattered tracts of land in exchange for 160 acres

that is now the site of the John A. Logan College. In

a 1974 exchange, the Refuge acquired 15 acres of

State of Illinois land in the vicinity of Little Grassy

Fish Hatchery. In a 1979 exchange, Southern Illinois University acquired the current site of Touch of

Nature Environmental Center and the Refuge

acquired land south of Little Grassy Lake. Through

the years the Refuge has purchased a few scattered

parcels. In 2000, the Refuge used Natural Resource

Damage Assessment funds to purchase 216 acres on

its western edge. Several small land exchanges are

pending.

In addition to Crab Orchard NWR, a variety of

other state and federal agencies manage land in the

vicinity of the Refuge. Figure 4 illustrates these

protected lands.

1.10.1 Recent Refuge Management 

Activities

1.10.1.1. Wildlife and Fish Habitat

Refuge biologists use various techniques to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat. They manipulate

water levels in moist soil management units and

seed tallgrass prairie species to reestablish native

Figure 4: Protected Lands in Southern Illinois
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

10

grasslands. Silvicultural treatments such as thinning, regeneration cutting, and improvement cutting are used in forest habitats to alter species

composition and increase growing space. Trees are

also planted to reduce forest fragmentation. Biologists use prescribed fire in pine and hardwood forests and grasslands. Biologists monitor wildlife

populations and, in cooperation with the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources staff, monitor

fish populations in the lakes and ponds, stock game

and prey fish, and enhance fishing opportunities by

placing discarded Christmas trees to increase

underwater structure. Trapping nuisance beavers in

the closed area is authorized by special use permit.

Biologists monitor and apply treatments for control

of invasive plants and animals.

1.10.1.2. Agriculture

The Refuge agriculture program includes about

4,500 acres of row crops (rotation of corn, soybeans,

clover) tended by cooperative farmers, about 800

acres of hay fields harvested under special use permits, and about 1,000 acres of pasture grazed under

special use permits. The principal goal of the agriculture program is to provide habitat for wintering

Canada geese.

1.10.1.3. Recreation

The Refuge receives an estimated 1.1 million recreational visits annually. To accommodate the wide

variety of recreational uses, the Refuge operates a

visitor information center, environmental education

sites, hiking trails, four campgrounds, five marinas,

boat launch ramps, picnic areas, swimming beaches,

auto tour route, and observation deck. The Refuge

offers many opportunities for fishing, hunting, environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife

observation and photography. In addition, the Refuge permits camps under cooperative agreements

to Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, United Methodist Church and Southeastern Illinois Presbytery.

Law enforcement officers provide safety and security for visitors and Refuge resources.

1.10.1.4. Industry

The Refuge leases 1.2 million square feet of facilities that are used for manufacturing, cold storage,

and explosives storage. In support of the industrial

operations, the Refuge also maintains extensive

transportation and utility infrastructure. The Refuge provides water and waste water services to an

adjacent college campus and water service to the

federal prison.

1.10.1.5. Wilderness

The Refuge staff disseminates wilderness use

information to visitors, controls vehicle access and

patrols and conducts informal monitoring to protect

the resources of the 4,050-acre Crab Orchard Wilderness.

1.10.1.6. Contaminants

The Service's Ecological Services branch has

Environmental Contaminants staff co-located at the

Refuge who manage the investigation, monitoring,

and remediation activities associated with sites contaminated with hazardous chemicals. The Refuge is

on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

National Priority List of hazardous waste sites. 

1.10.1.7. Archaeological and Cultural Resources

The Refuge Manager ensures historic properties

are identified and protected as much as possible

while achieving Refuge purposes and the Refuge

System mission. The manager is guided by several

historic preservation laws and regulations. Early in

the planning of all projects, the Refuge Manager

asks the Regional Historic Preservation Officer

(RHPO) to initiate the Section 106 process, which is

a set of procedures specified in the National Historic Preservation Act. Then the manager informs

the public about the project and its cultural issues

through presentations, meetings, and media notices.

The manager asks for comments from the public

and local officials. Any comments relevant to cultural issues are reported to the RHPO.

Archeological investigations and collecting on the

Refuge are performed only in the public interest.

Qualified archeologists perform the work under an

Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit

issued by the Regional Director. Refuge personnel

take steps to prevent unauthorized collecting. If
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

11

unauthorized collecting is detected, Refuge officers

cite violators or take other appropriate action and

report the violations to the RHPO.

Guided by a Scope of Collection Statement dated

November 1992, the Refuge manages museum collections that contain archeological artifacts, art

work, historical items and documents, and zoological

specimens. To date, twelve archeological investigations have produced in excess of 55,400 artifacts

from Refuge lands. The artifacts are stored at 7

repositories, although most are kept at the Center

for Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, under a cooperative

agreement.

1.11 Refuge Purposes

Public Law 80-361 mandated that the lands

transferred from the Department of War and Soil

Conservation Service be administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife

Service “for the conservation of wildlife, and for the

development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and related purposes specified in this Act.”

An additional purpose was acquired when Congress designated the 4,050-acre Crab Orchard Wilderness in 1976. The establishing legislation for the

Wilderness (Public Law 94-557) states that “wilderness areas designated by this Act shall be administered in accordance with the applicable provisions of

the Wilderness Act...”. The purposes of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) are additional purposes of that part of the Refuge that is within the

Crab Orchard Wilderness. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to secure an enduring resource of

wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness

character of areas within the National Wilderness

Preservation System (NWPS), and to administer

the NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

1.12 Refuge Vision Statement

The planning team considered the past vision

statement and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statement as the desired future state

of the Refuge:

The citizens of Southern Illinois recognize the

staff of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

as government employees who listen and care

and who meet significant management challenges

in a sensible way. Within the Fish and Wildlife

Service, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

is recognized not for its exceptions, but for its

exceptional management. The Refuge is held as

an example of an area once contaminated that is

now clean and safe for humans and wildlife. The

viewer of a satellite photograph can easily distinguish the Refuge with its large blocks of habitat

and its clean water lakes from the surrounding

fragmented and developed landscape. Wildlife

thrives. Farmers take pride in their operations on

the Refuge because they use model conservation

practices, benefit wildlife, and make money. The

Refuge and the community are proud to contribute to the Nation's defense through the industry

that is hosted on the Refuge. In Southern Illinois

where a spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities ranges from the highly developed to the

primitive, the Refuge is known for high quality

wildlife-dependent opportunities.

1.13 Refuge Goals

Based on the purposes of the Refuge, the mission

of the National Wildlife Refuge System and ecosystem considerations, the planning team established

the following Refuge goals for the next 15 years.

1.13.1 Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese:

# Provide enough food for wintering Canada

geese to support 6.4 million goose-use-days

annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley

Population Canada Goose Management Plan. 

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds:

# Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early

successional and grassland birds, with emphasis

on priority species, as identified in Partners in

Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation

Plans.

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds:

# Maintain or enhance populations of ducks,

shorebirds, and other waterbirds, with

emphasis on priority species, as identified in the

North American Waterfowl Management Plan,

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North

American Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Threatened and Endangered Species:

# Maintain or enhance populations of federal and,

where compatible, state threatened and
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

12

endangered species that occur at or near Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Water Quality:

# Maintain or enhance quality of water in streams

and lakes at Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge.

Resident Fish and Wildlife:

# Maintain or enhance resident fish and wildlife

populations consistent with management

activities for federal trust resources in

cooperation with the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources (DNR). Maintain a mixedspecies, warm-water sport fishery in

cooperation with the Illinois DNR.

1.13.2 Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and 

Photography, Interpretation and Environmental 

Education:

# Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of

wildlife, general visitors and students will enjoy

high quality experiences through a variety of

opportunities that promote an understanding

and appreciation of natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Customer Service:

# Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and

enjoy a safe visit to an area that they recognize

as a national wildlife refuge.

Volunteers and Support Groups:

# Volunteers and Refuge support groups will be

stewardship partners and strong advocates for

the Refuge.

Other Land and Water-based Recreation:

# Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and waterbased activities that fulfill the recreation

purpose of the Refuge.

1.13.3 Agricultural Goal

# Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on

Refuge lands that help attain wildlife

conservation goals.

1.13.4 Industrial Goal

# Provide an industrial complex and attendant

utility and transportation infrastructure, which

conform to prescribed safety, health,

environmental and maintenance standards.

1.13.5 Wilderness Goal

# Protect the ecological integrity, preserve the

wilderness character, restore natural conditions

to the extent practicable and provide

opportunities for solitude and primitive

recreation within the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

1.13.6 Protection Goal

# Protect the integrity of Refuge biological and

cultural resources and the health and safety of

visitors, industrial workers, farmers, and

Service staff.

1.13.7 Outreach Goal

# Visitors, cooperators, tenants, and local

residents will understand Refuge goals, issues

and activities. Service personnel will

understand the expectations and concerns of

the general public by being receptive to their

feedback.

1.14 Planning Issues 

The Service first began soliciting public comment

regarding the Comprehensive Conservation Plan in

October 2000. Three public meetings were held

using the “open house” format. The Service invited

people to drop in at their convenience to talk informally with Refuge staff, view exhibits, and fill out

comment forms. The dates, times and locations of

the meetings were announced in local papers and

special mailings. The first meeting was held Thursday, October 19, 2000, at Southwestern Illinois College, Redbud, Illinois. Twenty-two members of the

public and two news media representatives

attended. The second meeting was held Friday,

October 20, 2000, at the Marion Hotel & Conference

Center, Marion, Illinois. One-hundred and thirty

five members of the public plus seven members of

the media attended. The third meeting was held

Saturday, October 21, 2000, at the Crab Orchard

Refuge Visitor Center. One-hundred and fifty-nine

people attended.

At the open houses, on the Service's Region 3

website, and via the media, people were encouraged

to provide written comments on how they wanted

the Refuge to be managed. Hundreds of letters and

comments were received. Some letters covered one

specific interest, others spoke to several interests

(Mangi Environmental Group, 2001). 
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

13

Three focus group meetings were held at the Refuge Visitor Center on January 24 and 25, 2001. Invitations were extended to about 60 stakeholders that

had demonstrated a long-standing interest in the

Refuge. Additionally, some people were contacted

by the invited participants and attended the meetings. In all, 39 people attended the focus group

meetings. Each focus group generated and prioritized a list of issues (Mangi Environmental Group,

2001). 

During scoping, many issues or concerns were

identified by the public. The issues and concerns

ranged from general concerns, the economic effect

of the Refuge on the community, for example, to

very specific concerns, such as ruts in a gravel road

leading to a particular boat ramp. The issues and

concerns were classified under major headings. The

following paragraphs summarize the issues that are

addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement

and Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

1.14.1 Issue 1: Recreation

Recreation was the most frequently mentioned

issue by the public. The public was concerned with

all facets of recreation, such as concern for loss of

recreation; desire to maintain existing recreational

facilities; support/maintain/enhance all forms of recreation; and to expand, improve, re-open and/or add

new facilities or activities to the Refuge. Comments

were made about the poor or inadequate conditions

of some of the facilities, including marinas, boat

ramps, restrooms, and campgrounds. Comments

made to expand, improve, re-open and/or add new

facilities or activities to the Refuge covered a wide

range of topics. Some people would like to see the

Refuge expand and improve by adding restaurants,

marinas, hotels, restrooms, bike trails, hiking trails,

disposal containers, roads, shooting range, dog

training areas, horse trails, or gas stations. Many

others would like to see the Refuge re-open swimming areas, picnic areas, and sailing facilities. Others would like to see additional nature walks,

environmental education programs, and water quality monitoring. 

1.14.2 Issue 2: Wildlife Conservation

Another issue identified by the public was wildlife

conservation. The public recognizes the need to conserve and protect wildlife populations as well as

their habitat. People feel that game and non-game

species should be protected, threatened and endangered species should be protected, habitats should

be preserved, and restoration efforts should be

properly employed. The public feels that this is a

very important aspect to maintaining the Refuge

environment which reflects on how the public uses

the Refuge. 

1.14.3 Issue 3: Refuge Purposes

A third issue, support for the intended purposes

for Refuge management/concern for compatibility

of Refuge purposes, was identified as critical to the

Refuge. People who wrote or spoke to this concern

tended to feel that for some years Refuge management has not properly emphasized or supported the

four original purposes for which the Refuge was

established. Indeed, some expressed concern that

these very purposes may now be considered incompatible with the overall mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System, due to recent legislation

and changing policies of the Service.

1.14.4 Issue: Recreational Boating

A fourth issue, support for boating and its proper

regulation, was also addressed. There was broad,

strong support for the continuation and encouragement of boating at the Refuge. At the same time, the

commenting public recognized actual and potential

conflicts among boaters and between boaters and

other recreational users of the lakes. Comments on

regulation of boating include installing speed limits,

removing “no wake” signs, and restricting motorized vessels. Many people expressed opposition to

jet-skis, or at least expressed the need for more

restrictive regulations for their use.

Bob Etzel
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

14

1.14.5 Issue 5: Role in Regional 

Economy

One issue identified as important in the focus

group meetings but not in the letters was the benefits the Refuge provides to the local economy. Focus

group participants recognized that the Refuge not

only provides tourism dollars, but also agricultural

and industrial dollars to the local economy.

1.14.6 Issue 6: Communication between 

Refuge and Community

Another issue identified as important in the focus

group meetings, but not in the letters, was the need

for better communication between the Refuge and

the community. Some focus group attendees felt

that the Refuge could do a better job of informing

the local community of current issues facing the

Refuge.

1.15 Issues Eliminated from 

Detailed Study

The public identified some additional issues and

concerns during scoping. The Service has determined that the following issues do not merit detailed

study in this document.

ATV Use on the Refuge

Some people were opposed to the use of ATVs on

the Refuge.

Rationale: The Refuge is not proposing to

expand the public's use of ATVs. The Refuge currently issues a very limited number of special use

permits to people with disabilities authorizing them

to use specific roads for specific activities.

Oil and Gas Production, Mining, Road Building, and 

Quarries

Some people were opposed to these activities.

Rationale: The Refuge is not proposing to

engage in any of these activities, except for possibly

building a minor amount of new road (Heron Flats

overlook). In fact, the amount of roads likely will

decrease as some industrial facilities become obsolete. The federal government owns and controls all

but a very small fraction of the mineral rights on

Refuge lands. Furthermore, the economics of

extracting any minerals appear to be extremely prohibitive for the foreseeable future.

Need for a CCP

Some people were opposed to the preparation of a

CCP.

Rationale: Service policy, which is based on federal law, requires every national wildlife refuge to

have a CCP.

Privatization of Refuge Management

Some people supported a privately run Refuge.

Rationale: Public Law 80-361, the legislation that

established the Refuge, states: “...all lands herein

transferred shall be administered by the Secretary

of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service..” As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service is mandated to administer the

Refuge.

Concession Operations

Some people oppose any concessions on the Refuge.

Rationale: Concession contracts are functional

tools the Refuge has used for many years to provide

certain services to the public that it otherwise could

not offer because of budget and personnel constraints.

Changing the Name of the Refuge

Some people would like to see the Refuge name

changed from “Refuge” to “Federal Wildlife Management Area.”

Rationale: As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the name “Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge” is appropriate.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

15

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Objectives, and 

Strategies

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the alternatives developed

in response to the issues and concerns discussed in

Chapter 1. The preferred alternative, or proposed

action, is also identified. Objectives and management strategies are used to describe what the Service would do over the next 15 years to implement

each of these alternatives. A summary table of the

alternatives is at the end of the chapter (Table 4 on

page 72).

2.2 Formulation of Alternatives

The planning team and additional staff from the

Refuge, Regional Office, and Illinois DNR met at a

workshop from April 23 to 27, 2001, to develop alternative management concepts. Four concepts were

developed and labeled: “Existing Management;

Recreational Land Exchange; Open Land Management; and Forest Land Management.” The management concepts were described in a project update

that was distributed at the Refuge and mailed to

1,400 people on the planning mailing list in September 2001. People were asked to comment on the concepts by November. We received approximately 39

messages through e-mail, 62 individual letters and

79 form letters, with approximately half of those letters including individual comments. We also

received a petition with 485 names. Some people

wrote in support of an alternative. Each alternative

had some supporters. Some people commented on a

particular aspect of an alternative. Some people suggested variations of the concept alternatives. A summary of the comments received is presented in

Appendix H. Based on the comments received and

land cover data analysis, the alternatives were

amended and made more specific and an additional

alternative was added by the planning team and

Refuge staff. The alternatives were also given titles

that better describe their content.

2.3 Selecting the Preferred 

Alternative

In selecting a preferred alternative, we considered environmental, economic, and social factors

and our ability to implement the actions necessary

to accomplish the alternatives. We based our decision on how well the goals of the Refuge were met

by each alternative and the environmental consequences of each alternative (See Chapter 4). We

selected Alternative E as our preferred alternative.

Alternative E will fulfill our statutory mission and

responsibilities, and we have adequate authority to

implement it.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

16

During our initial analysis, we considered Alternative B as our “working” preferred alternative.

However, Alternative B was abandoned as our preferred alternative when we confronted the difficulties of implementing the land exchange, which

would be an important part of Alternative B. If we

exchange land, Federal regulations require that the

land involved in the exchange be of approximately

the same value. Our preliminary appraisal estimates

indicated that the Federal property in the proposed

exchange exceeds the value of the Southern Illinois

University property by as much as $20 million. We

evaluated the possibility of putting restrictive covenants on the exchanged property to reduce its value

and reducing the amount of property that might be

exchanged, but we were unable to reach equal values for the two properties. The exchange proposed

in Alternative B could only be accomplished with

Congressional action, which we did not want to pursue. We thought that the exchange would be politically sensitive and that its resolution in the

legislative process would be lengthy and out of our

control. Rather than pursue a course with an uncertain timetable and outcome, we chose an alternative

that is within our current authority to implement. 

2.4 Summary of Alternatives

2.4.1 Alternative A: Current 

Management/No Action

2.4.1.1. Background

The Council of Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR §1502.14(d)) for implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act require that all

environmental impact statements include the alternative of taking no action. In addition, some public

comments favored the Refuge continuing on its

present course. This alternative is being analyzed in

response to the views of some of the public and to

satisfy the Council's regulations.

2.4.1.2. Summary

Wildlife: Under this alternative the current management activities at the Refuge would continue.

The Refuge would continue to provide sufficient

habitat for the needs of wintering geese. Current

moist-soil management would continue. The Refuge

would continue efforts to protect water quality by

focusing within the Refuge boundaries. These

efforts would include using best management practices on agricultural lands (including haying and

grazing) and stabilizing lakeshores. The Refuge

would continue to avoid impacts to nesting bald

eagles and Indiana bat habitat, continue current wilderness management, grassland management,

reforestation, and proceed with conversion of all

non-native pine plantations to native hardwood forests.

Recreation: All current recreation uses and patterns on the Refuge would continue. There would be

continued decline in support for swimming, power

boating and water-skiing. There would be a gradual

increase in the quality of other recreational facilities. However, at current levels of improvement, it

would take many years to bring the quality of the

campgrounds to standards comparable to others in

the area. Camping would be limited to a 2-week

stay. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation would continue at the current level with gradual

improvement. Management of public use in the wilderness would continue at its current level.

Industry: Current industrial policies would

remain in place and the Refuge would provide facilities for the existing tenants at fair market value

rental rates.

Agriculture: The amount of agricultural land

would remain fairly constant. However some loss

may occur through installing buffer strips needed

for soil and water protection. Current acreage of

hay fields and pastures would remain about the

same. All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover

fields would take place after August 1.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

17

2.4.2 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation, Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis With Land 

Exchange 

2.4.2.1. Background

Through the years the Refuge has been criticized

for its lack of support of the recreational purpose of

the Refuge. Recreation on the Refuge drew the

greatest number of comments during the scoping of

issues. When the Refuge was established, the Director of the Service assured Congress that the Service

would be able to manage for the four purposes of the

Refuge. In 50 years of management, the Service has

not been able consistently to provide facilities and

management for quality non-wildlife-dependent recreational experiences. Providing for swimming, picnicking, and power boating does not fit well with the

capabilities and resources of the Service. Under this

alternative the non-wildlife-dependent recreation

that would remain the responsibility of the Refuge

would be guided by the philosophy of “consolidate

and improve.” 

Over the last decade habitat fragmentation has

been identified as a significant result of changing

land use. Habitat fragmentation is known to have

negative effects on biological diversity. The number

of species that can live within a fragment is related

to the size of the fragment. This effect has been

shown in both forest and grasslands (Turner et al.

1998). Habitat fragmentation has been identified as

a primary threat to area-sensitive songbirds in the

Midwest (Robinson 1996). Many of the species

affected by habitat fragmentation are of concern to

the conservation community. 

Under this alternative, management emphasis

would be on reducing habitat fragmentation and

reconciling conflicts between the Refuge's recreation purpose and the Refuge System mission by

focusing on wildlife-dependent recreation on the

Refuge while still providing a full spectrum of recreational activities in the area.

2.4.2.2. Summary

Wildlife: Under this alternative some of the current management activities at the Refuge would be

modified to provide greater benefits to wildlife. The

Refuge would continue to provide sufficient habitat

for the needs of wintering geese. Acreage of moistsoil management units would increase. The Refuge

would continue efforts to protect water quality on

the Refuge, as well as start cooperative efforts with

landowners within the watershed. The Refuge

would continue to protect nesting bald eagles and

Indiana bat habitat. The Refuge would proceed with

conversion of all non-native pine plantations to

native hardwood forests. The Refuge would manage

two large forest blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds. The Refuge would maintain some early

successional habitat. Pasture and hayfield management would change to provide more emphasis on

habitat quality for grassland birds. Removal of linear forest habitat and hedgerows adjacent to agricultural fields would benefit Canada Geese and

grassland birds. 

Recreation: The main point of this alternative is to

offer increased recreational opportunities by

exchanging land in the developed northwestern portion of the Refuge for undeveloped land at another

location. The Service would try to reconcile conflicts

between the Refuge's recreation purpose and the

Refuge System mission through a land exchange

with Southern Illinois University or other interested parties. The recipient of the exchange would

have ownership and management responsibility for

the area and could offer non-wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities such as camping, boating, or

swimming at their discretion. Under this alternative

the Refuge would slightly increase use restrictions

on Crab Orchard Lake. Group camps would be managed to include the Refuge's environmental education program. The Refuge would focus on improving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation

(the Refuge System's priority wildlife-dependent

recreational opportunities). The Refuge and

exchanged lands would offer a spectrum of recreational opportunities ranging from developed, nonwildlife-dependent, recreation in the northwestern

corner of Crab Orchard Lake to wildlife-dependent

opportunities at Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen

lakes. Gas motors would be prohibited on the most

southern portion of Devils Kitchen Lake. The campground at Little Grassy Lake would be upgraded.

The campground at Devils Kitchen Lake would be

closed. Camping would be limited to a 2-week stay.

The Refuge would take a more active approach to

wilderness management. Horseback use would be

confined to designated trails.

Industry: Under this alternative, the Refuge

would update the industrial use policy with the

intent of not promoting expansion and consolidating

the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would maintain roads, water and sewer services

and tenants would be expected to maintain and
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

18

upgrade leased facilities as needed. The Service

would seek not to compete with neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant were to leave the

Refuge and their facilities were suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make them available for

new tenants.

Agriculture: The amount of row crops would

decrease slightly. Current acreage of hay fields and

pastures would remain about the same. All mowing

of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields would take

place after August 1 to protect nesting birds. The

Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other coolseason and native warm-season grasses over a

period of 15 years and modify grazing regimes to

benefit grassland birds.

2.4.3 Alternative C: Open Land 

Management, Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation

2.4.3.1. Background

Both grassland and forest species are negatively

affected by habitat fragmentation. Under this alternative the Refuge would take advantage of the lands

that are already open and increase the size of existing large blocks of open land for grassland dependent species, especially birds. Under this alternative

the Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation

purpose as much as possible within Service budget

priorities with increased emphasis on wildlifedependent recreation. 

2.4.3.2. Summary

Wildlife: Under this alternative cropland and

grassland would increase slightly. Pasture and hayfield management would change to provide more

emphasis on habitat quality for grassland birds.

Acres devoted to moist soil management would

increase. The Refuge would continue to provide sufficient habitat for the needs of wintering geese. The

Refuge would continue efforts to protect water quality by focusing within the Refuge boundaries. The

Refuge would continue to protect nesting Bald

Eagles and Indiana bat habitat. The Refuge would

manage one large forest block to benefit area-sensitive forest birds. The Refuge would convert nonnative pine plantations located south of Grassy Road

and outside the wilderness area to native hardwood

forests.

Recreation: To enhance non-wildlife-dependent

recreational activities, the Refuge would consolidate

marinas and picnic areas, upgrade existing boat

ramps and designate times and places for the various types of boating activities. Camping capacity

would be reduced, the quality of camping facilities

would be upgraded and a 2-week maximum stay policy would be implemented. A spectrum of recreational opportunities ranging from more developed

recreation at Crab Orchard Lake to less developed

opportunities at Devils Kitchen Lake would be provided. Camping at Devils Kitchen would be discontinued. Crab Orchard and Little Grassy

Campgrounds would be upgraded to standards comparable to others in the area. The Refuge would

study the possibility of adding primitive campsites

to Devils Kitchen Lake, where gas motors would be

permitted. Opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental

education, and interpretation would increase.

Horseback use would be confined to designated

trails.

Industry: Under this alternative, the Refuge

would update the industrial use policy with the

intent of not promoting expansion and consolidating

the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would maintain roads, water and sewer services

and tenants would be expected to maintain and

upgrade leased facilities as needed. The Service

would seek not to compete with neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge,

the Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the

vacant facility.

Agriculture: The amount of row crops would

increase slightly. Current acreage of hay fields and

pastures would remain about the same. All mowing

of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields would take

place after August 1 to protect nesting birds. The

Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other coolseason and native, warm-season grasses over a

period of 15 years and modify grazing regimes to

benefit grassland birds.

2.4.4 Alternative D: Forest Land 

Management, Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation 

2.4.4.1. Background

Both grassland and forest species are negatively

affected by habitat fragmentation. Under this alternative the Refuge would take advantage of the natural tendency and historical prevalence of forests in

the area and increase the size of large blocks of forests for forest interior species, especially birds.

Under this alternative the Refuge would satisfy the
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

19

Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible

within Service budget priorities with increased

emphasis on wildlife-dependent recreation.

2.4.4.2. Summary

Wildlife: Under this alternative some of the current management activities at the Refuge would be

modified to provide greater benefits to wildlife. The

Refuge would continue to provide sufficient habitat

for the needs of wintering geese. Acreage of moistsoil management units would remain the same. The

Refuge would continue efforts to protect water quality on the Refuge. The Refuge would continue to

protect nesting bald eagles and Indiana bat habitat.

The Refuge would proceed with conversion of all

non-native pine plantations to native hardwood forests. The Refuge would manage two large forest

blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds. The

Refuge would maintain some early successional

habitat. Pasture and hayfield management would

change to provide more emphasis on habitat quality

for grassland birds, along with an emphasis on cattle production on pastures. 

Recreation: To enhance non-wildlife-dependent

recreational activities, the Refuge would consolidate

marinas and picnic areas, upgrade existing boat

ramps and designate times and places for various

types of boating activities. Camping capacity would

be reduced, the quality of camping facilities would

be upgraded and a 2-week maximum stay policy

would be implemented. A spectrum of recreational

opportunities ranging from more developed recreation at Crab Orchard Lake to less developed

opportunities at Devils Kitchen Lake would be provided. The campground at Little Grassy Lake would

be upgraded. Use of gas motors on Devils Kitchen

Lake would be prohibited. The quality of hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities would improve without significant increases in

facilities. Group camps would be managed to include

the Refuge's environmental education program.

Horseback use would be prohibited.

Industry: Under this alternative, the Refuge

would update the industrial use policy with the

intent of not promoting expansion and consolidating

the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would seek not to compete with neighboring

industrial parks. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the

vacant facility.

Agriculture: The amount of row crops and hay

fields would decrease slightly. Current acreage of

pastures would remain about the same. All mowing

of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields would take

place after August 1 to protect nesting birds. The

Refuge would increase forage diversity and use

rotational grazing in pastures to increase cattle production.

2.4.5 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation, Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation (Preferred 

Alternative)

2.4.5.1. Background

Over the last decade habitat fragmentation has

been identified as a result of changing land use.

Habitat fragmentation is known to have significant

negative effects on biological diversity. The number

of species that can live within a fragment is related

to the size of the fragment. This effect has been

shown in both forest and grasslands (Turner et al.

1998). Habitat fragmentation has been identified as

a primary threat to area sensitive songbirds in the

Midwest (Robinson 1996). Many of the species

affected by habitat fragmentation are of concern to

the conservation community. 

The Refuge recognizes that improvements in the

recreation program are needed. Under this alternative the Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible within Service

budget priorities with increased emphasis on wildlife-dependent recreation.

2.4.5.2. Summary

Wildlife: Under this alternative some of the current management activities at the Refuge would be

modified to provide greater benefits to wildlife. The

Refuge would continue to provide sufficient habitat

for the needs of wintering geese. Acreage of moistsoil management units would increase. The Refuge

would continue efforts to protect water quality on

the Refuge, as well as start cooperative efforts with

landowners within the watershed. The Refuge

would continue to protect nesting bald eagles and

Indiana bat habitat. The Refuge would proceed with

conversion of all non-native pine plantations to

native hardwood forests. The Refuge would manage

two large forest blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds. The Refuge would maintain some early

successional habitat. Pasture and hayfield management would change to provide more emphasis on
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

20

habitat quality for grassland birds. Removal of linear forest habitat and hedgerows adjacent to agricultural fields would benefit Canada Geese and

grassland birds. 

Recreation: To enhance non-wildlife-dependent

recreational activities, the Refuge would consolidate

marinas and picnic areas, upgrade existing boat

ramps and designate times and places for the various types of boating activities. Under this alternative the Refuge would slightly increase use

restrictions on Crab Orchard Lake. Group camps

would be managed to include the Refuge's environmental education program. Camping capacity would

be reduced, the quality of camping facilities would

be upgraded and a 2-week maximum stay policy

would be implemented. A spectrum of recreational

opportunities ranging from more developed recreation at Crab Orchard Lake to less developed

opportunities at Devils Kitchen Lake would be provided. The campgrounds at Crab Orchard Lake and

Little Grassy Lake would be upgraded. The Refuge

would study the possibility of adding primitive

campsites to Devils Kitchen Lake, where gas

motors would be prohibited on the most southern

portion of Devils Kitchen Lake. Opportunities for

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation

would increase. The Refuge would take a more

active approach to wilderness management. Horseback use would be confined to designated trails.

Industry: Under this alternative, the Refuge

would update the industrial use policy with the

intent of not promoting expansion and consolidating

the areas occupied by industrial tenants. The Service would maintain roads, water and sewer services

and tenants would be expected to maintain and

upgrade leased facilities as needed. The Service

would seek not to compete with neighboring industrial parks. If an industrial tenant were to leave the

Refuge and their facilities were suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make them available for

new tenants.

Agriculture: The amount of row crops would

decrease slightly. Current acreage of hay fields and

pastures would remain about the same. All mowing

of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields would take

place after August 1 to protect nesting birds. The

Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other coolseason and native warm-season grasses over a

period of 15 years and modify grazing regimes to

benefit grassland birds.

2.5 Alternatives Considered 

but Not Analyzed in Detail 

Reestablish pre-settlement habitat conditions: eliminate lakes, remove sediment, restore vegetation to

pre-settlement conditions, eliminate non-native

invasive species.

This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because reestablishing pre-settlement conditions is

not practical. The elimination of the lakes and

removal of sediment contained in lake bottoms

would not only be cost prohibitive but would be seen

by most Refuge users as inappropriate. The lakes

provide for a majority of Refuge visits, both wildliferelated and non-wildlife related. The elimination of

non-native species is a worthy goal but not practical.

The Refuge has been heavily infested by many nonnative species, such as autumn-olive, Japanese honeysuckle, fescue and others. If they could be eliminated, it would take many years and require a costprohibitive investment in removal and treatment of

these species. In addition, the Refuge purposes preclude complete reestablishment of pre-settlement

conditions.

Eliminate all non-wildlife-dependent recreational

activities

This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because of the long history of non-wildlife-dependent recreation on the land prior to and after the

establishment of the Refuge. To attempt to eliminate this type of recreation through this planning

Glenn Smart
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

21

process would not be practical. The political turmoil

that would be created by such an alternative would

stop the planning process.

Eliminate all picnicking

This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because of the long established tradition of maintaining picnicking sites on the Refuge. Additionally,

these sites are associated with other recreational

activities such as bank fishing and/or wildlife observation.

Have the industrial purpose removed from the Refuge purposes

This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because suitable industrial infrastructure still exists

on the Refuge to support the munitions industry.

The removal of industry as a purpose would be seen

as a threat to the local economy and jobs.

Expand group camps

This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because the Service is trying to reduce the number

of sites and facilities on national wildlife refuges that

are operated for limited use by individuals and organizations.

Immediately close Crab Orchard Boat &Yacht Club

The Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club has a long

history on the Refuge. It has constructed and maintained the facilities that are on the site occupied by

the Club. This alternative was not analyzed in detail

because the immediate closure of the facility would

not allow members to amortize their recent investments in a reasonable amount of time.

2.6 Detailed Description of 

Alternatives and Relationship 

to Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies 

In addition to setting goals as part of the CCP

process, objectives and strategies that will help

specify and achieve the goals were developed. Goals

are broad statements of the desired future condition. Objectives are specific statements of what will

be accomplished to help achieve a goal. Strategies

specify the activities that would be pursued to realize an objective.

Some of the alternatives emphasize one goal over

another, thus objectives and strategies differ among

some alternatives. This section describes the objectives and strategies for each of the alternatives

(Alternatives A, B, C, D and E) under the goals of

the Refuge. Note that Alternative A represents the

anticipated conditions if the current management

and trends continued.

Two land cover maps are included for each alternative. One map depicts the expected land cover in

2100, the other in 2015. The 2100 map depicts the

long-range landscape plan for an alternative.

Because succession and restoration are slow processes, we have included the map for 2015 to depict

what we think is reasonable to expect in the next 15

years – the time horizon for the CCP – under each

alternative.

2.6.1 Features Common to All 

Alternatives

Canada Geese Goal

Provide enough food for wintering Canada Geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Background: When established, the Refuge was

recognized as being important to providing habitat

for wintering Canada Geese. The Refuge was also

established with an agricultural purpose. The agricultural purpose and supporting wintering Canada

Geese are interrelated. 

Objective 1

Provide enough food for wintering Canada

geese to support 6.4 million goose-use-days

annually.

Strategies:

1. Maintain at least 4,000 acres in Refuge row

crop program, actively manage moist-soil

units, and continue fall mowing around

selected ponds.

2. Continue managing the Refuge agriculture

program with methods that benefit Canada

Geese, such as: leave 25 percent of the corn

crop unharvested, plant winter wheat in

soybean fields each fall, use low tillage

planting techniques, keep fields in clover 2

years out of the 5-year rotation. 

3. Continue seasonal closure of east end of

Crab Orchard Lake.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

22

Threatened and Endangered Species Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of federal and, where compatible, state threatened and endangered species that occur

at or near Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Background: The Bald Eagle is the only federally

designated threatened species known to occur on

the Refuge. The Indiana bat, which is federally classified as endangered, is known to occur in proximity

to the Refuge. Thirty-one state-listed threatened

and endangered species inhabit, or have inhabited,

the Refuge (see Appendix E). Chapter 3 describes

the threatened and endangered species on the Refuge. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act outlines a mechanism for ensuring that actions taken

by federal agencies do not jeopardize the existence

of any listed species. We are conducting a “Section

7” review concurrent with the review of the draft

EIS.

Objective 1

Assure that federally listed species, state-listed

species and federally proposed species and their

habitats are protected.

Strategies:

1. No disturbance of bald eagles will take

place during critical periods within protective zones as described in the Northern

States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS,

1983). Areas are designated closed through

signing and brochures.

2. Forest management activities, such as thinning and prescribed burning, would require

close coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services personnel.

These activities may require standard surveys to determine whether Indiana bats are

present in a given forest unit or the activities may be scheduled outside of the season

when Indiana bats are likely to use Refuge

forests.

Resident Fish and Wildlife Goal 

Maintain or enhance resident fish and wildlife populations

consistent with management activities for federal trust

resources in cooperation with the Illinois DNR.

Background: There is a long history of public fishing, public hunting, and management of resident

fish and wildlife species on the Refuge.

Objective 1

Manage Refuge fisheries with emphasis on

mixed-species, warm-water sport fishing. 

Strategy

1. Continue cooperative management of Refuge fisheries with Illinois DNR. Continue

managing fish populations and habitat

through activities such as: setting length

and creel limits, seasonal closures of spawning bed areas, habitat enhancements,

annual surveys, and fish stocking.

Objective 2

Manage Refuge resident wildlife populations at

levels that allow opportunities for sport hunting

of game species.

Strategies

1. Continue managing the Refuge agriculture

program with methods that benefit resident

game species, such as: leave 25 percent of

the corn crop unharvested, plant winter

wheat in soybean fields each fall, use low

tillage planting techniques, keep fields in

clover 2 years out of the 5-year rotation,

delay mowing until after August 1, and use

no insecticides.

2. Incorporate beneficial practices such as

those suggested in the Northern Bobwhite

Conservation Initiative: convert cool-season

to warm-season grasses and burn and thin

pine plantations.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

23

3. Continue controlled hunting for turkey and

deer in the restricted use portion of the

Refuge.

Outreach Goal

Visitors, cooperators, tenants, and local residents will understand Refuge goals, issues and activities. Service personnel

will understand the expectations and concerns of the general

public by being receptive to their feedback.

Background: During the scoping process, residents of local communities reported they felt uninformed by the Refuge about activities occurring on

the Refuge and about the reasons for certain activities. To resolve this concern, the Refuge will communicate more effectively with local communities

and listen more attentively to community concerns.

In keeping with the history of public use on the

Refuge, many non-wildlife oriented special events

have been permitted on the Refuge. These special

events have included organized running, bicycling,

and swimming events, use of Refuge for “National

Hunting and Fishing Days” activities, and American

Red Cross Blood Drives.

The Refuge will continue to support special

events that foster good community relations and are

sponsored by nonprofit organizations. To be permitted, these events cannot damage Refuge habitats or

facilities, nor can they adversely impact fish and

wildlife populations. In addition these events cannot

interfere with Refuge visitors and wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, and environmental education. Permitted activities will be

limited to one-time and annual events.

Objective 1

The positive attitude toward Refuge management will increase among visitors, cooperators,

tenants, and local residents throughout the life

of the plan.

Strategies

1. Issue press releases, hold Refuge open

houses and hold regularly scheduled

forums.

2. Within 2 years of the Plan's approval, create and maintain a “listening log” of written

and verbal public input submitted to the

Refuge. Review this log quarterly and

address voiced community concerns.

3. Provide annual reports on the “State of the

Refuge.” Distribute these reports upon

request at the Visitor Center and by mail

and post the current year's report on the

Refuge website.

4. Continue to permit selected annual and special events that are sponsored by nonprofit

organizations, provided they are compatible

and do not damage Refuge resources or

interfere with wildlife-dependent recreation.

Protection Goal

Protect the integrity of Refuge biological and cultural

resources and the health and safety of visitors, industrial

workers, farmers, and Service staff.

Background: Past industrial practices at the Refuge contaminated some lands and waters. As a

result, in 1987 the Refuge was added to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List of contaminated sites. Studies have located

many sites of contamination within the former Illinois Ordnance Plant (IOP) resulting from military

activities that occurred during World War II or subsequent activities of private industrial tenants.

Lands no longer used by industry are converted to

habitat for fish and wildlife. Some of these lands

have been contaminated. These contaminants may

need to be removed so that they do not adversely

impact plants, fish, wildlife, or public health and welfare. Refuge visitors should be able to use these

habitats for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation

and other potential future uses without being

exposed to unacceptable levels of contaminants. The

Service is seeking remedy for past acts of contamination through the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund.” The Service

believes past acts of contamination should be remedied with the best and most cost effective technologies available. The Service also believes that the

Refuge should not be burdened with residual contamination that may impair the ability of the Service

to manage the Refuge for appropriate uses in the

future. 

The Refuge's law enforcement officers serve to

protect the natural and cultural resources, as well as

the health and safety of visitors, staff, and tenants.

The Refuge depends on cooperative relationships

with the Illinois DNR and several local sheriff

departments.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

24

The Refuge faces a significant challenge of controlling exotic and invasive plants to protect biological diversity, provide high quality habitats for fish

and wildlife, and facilitate agriculture, recreation,

and industry.

The Refuge contains many documented cultural

resources, and other undiscovered sites probably

exist.

Objective 1

Refuge lands and waters are safe for fish, wildlife, plants, and people.

Strategy

1. Work with USEPA, Illinois EPA, Departments of Interior and Justice, and responsible parties to remediate contaminated sites.

Where contamination is left in place, or

where there is potential for undiscovered

contamination that may pose a risk from

exposure, institutional controls may be formulated. An institutional control plan would

be written by the CERCLA staff and made

available to Refuge management for implementation.

Objective 2

Visitors will feel safe on the Refuge and illegal

harvest of fish and wildlife will be reduced.

Strategy

1. Maintain full-time law enforcement staff.

Objective 3

Manage or eliminate invasive species on the

Refuge.

Strategy

1. Write and implement an Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) Plan following guidance developed by the Service's “Promises

Invasive Species Team.” The IPM plan will

address target species control methods,

mapping and monitoring.

Objective 4

Protect the cultural, historic, and pre-historic

resources of federally-owned lands within the

Refuge.

Strategies

1. Implement the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Cultural Resources within

the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

(Godfrey and Stubbs 2001).

2. Ensure archeological and cultural values

are described, identified, and taken into

consideration prior to implementing undertakings. Notify the Regional Historic Preservation Officer early in project planning or

upon receipt of a request for permitted

activities.

3. Develop a step-down plan for surveying

lands to identify archeological resources

and for developing a preservation program.

4. Complete accessioning, cataloging, inventorying, and preserving the museum collection at the Refuge in accordance with

“Survey of Collections at Crab Orchard

NWR” by Mayda S. Jensen.

Wilderness Goal

Protect the ecological integrity, preserve the wilderness character, restore natural conditions to the extent practicable, and

provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation

within the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

Background: As long as they do not alter natural

processes, the Wilderness Act of 1964 permits certain activities within designated wilderness areas.

The Crab Orchard Wilderness is a popular area for

hunting, hiking, nature study, horseback riding, and
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

25

mushroom picking. Prohibited activities, such as

camping and off-road vehicle use, occasionally

occur. Horseback use and trails have developed

inconsistent with the existing Wilderness Management Plan. The Wilderness Management Plan,

which was approved in 1985, is dated and needs to

be revised.

Suitability

In accordance with Refuge planning policy, this

EIS includes a wilderness review to identify Service-owned lands and waters within the planning

unit that may qualify for inclusion in the National

Wilderness Preservation System. The Service has

identified two tracts of land within the planning unit

that meet the criteria for Wilderness Study Areas:

an 80-acre tract completely surrounded by the existing Crab Orchard Wilderness and a 40-acre tract

surrounded on three sides by the Crab Orchard Wilderness. Southern Illinois University owned both

tracts when the Crab Orchard Wilderness was designated in 1976. The Refuge subsequently acquired

the tracts through a land exchange in 1979. The two

tracts are roadless, contiguous to designated wilderness, appear natural, and offer opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Both tracts are

currently managed as a part of the Crab Orchard

Wilderness.

An additional 558-acre tract contiguous with the

southern boundary of Crab Orchard NWR was

acquired in the same land exchange. Rocky Comfort

Road runs north-south through this tract. The 424

acres west of the road are the site of a former Southern Illinois University environmental education

camp. The 134 acres east of the road are old fields

that are undergoing natural ecological succession.

Neither portion of the 558-acre tract currently

meets the criteria for naturalness.

There are no additional areas within the remainder of the Crab Orchard NWR planning unit that

meet the minimum criteria for a Wilderness Study

Area. The results of the wilderness inventory are

documented in Figure 5.

The two parcels within the Crab Orchard Wilderness that were acquired after the Wilderness was

designated have wilderness characteristics and

should be recommended for wilderness designation.

This will add consistency to the protection and management of the Wilderness. The Wilderness will be

managed in accordance with Service policy for Wilderness management (6 Refuge Manual 8). All activities in designated Wilderness will be carried out in

conformance with the mandates of the Wilderness

Act and the establishing legislation for the Crab

Orchard Wilderness, Public Law 95-557. The use of

motorized vehicles and mechanical transport is prohibited, except in emergency situations.

Objective 1

Recommend the designation of two parcels (120

acres) as Wilderness within 2 years of approval

of the CCP.

Strategy

1. Prepare and submit a Wilderness Study

Report according to policy in Part 610

Chapter 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Service

Manual.

Objective 2

Revise and implement the Crab Orchard Wilderness Management Plan within 5 years of

approval of the CCP.

Strategy

1. Prepare and implement a Wilderness Management Plan according to policy in Part

610 Chapter 6 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Objective 3

Restore native hardwood forest on 325 acres of

pine and pine-hardwood forest in the Crab

Orchard Wilderness within 15 years of approval

of the CCP.

Strategies

1. Thin the pine plantations (229 acres) and

pine-hardwood stands (96 acres) in the Wilderness to promote establishment and

growth of native hardwoods. Thinning

would be conducted in several phases over a

10- to 15-year period to mimic the natural

process of succession where pines are gradually replaced by hardwoods. Individual

pines would be killed by cutting, girdling or

injecting herbicide. No trees would be

removed from the site. Treatments would

be conducted so that the results would

appear natural as much as possible. However, trees along heavily used trails may

need to be felled to avoid personal injury to

visitors, in which case this zone may appear

unnatural for several years. Eventual

removal of all the non-native pines would

restore the natural vegetative cover of the

area and enhance wilderness characteristics.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

26

Figure 5: Results of Crab Orchard NWR Wilderness Inventory
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

27

2. Prescribed burn the pine and pine-hardwood stands during the dormant season

(November through March) on a 3- to 5-

year cycle to enhance habitat conditions

and promote desirable hardwood regeneration. Control lines would be established by

hand tools where necessary, using natural

firebreaks as much as possible.

Objective 4

Control or eradicate invasive species (especially

autumn-olive, multiflora rose, Amur honeysuckle, white poplar, and Oriental bittersweet)

over the 15-year life of the CCP.

Strategy

1. Prepare and implement an Integrated Pest

Management Plan following guidance

developed by the Service’s “Promises Invasive Species Team.”

Objective 5

Explore ways to increase cooperation with the

U.S. Forest Service on management of the Crab

Orchard Wilderness and the adjoining Panther

Den Wilderness within 2 years of approval of

the CCP (Figure 5).

Strategy

1. Contact the Forest Supervisor of the Shawnee National Forest and discuss ways our

agencies could work together in managing

the adjoining wildernesses.

Objective 6

Provide opportunities for primitive recreation,

such as hiking, hunting, nature study and wild

food collection, over the 15-year life of the CCP.

Strategies

1. Continue current primitive recreational

opportunities.

2. Strategy: Prepare and distribute a wilderness brochure and conduct interpretive programs to inform the public about primitive

recreational opportunities available.

Objective 7

Within 5 years of approval of the CCP, determine an appropriate level of opportunities to

offer equestrians based on an evaluation of the

current level and extent of horseback riding use

and its effects on the Wilderness.

Strategy

1. Map the existing network of trails in the

Wilderness; assess the condition of trails;

determine whether trails meet design standards; evaluate the proposed River to River

Trail route; cooperate with partners to plan,

construct and maintain a sustainable trail

system.

Volunteers and Support Groups Goal

Volunteers and Refuge support groups will be stewardship

partners and strong advocates for the Refuge.

Background: Volunteers, support groups, and

other partnerships strengthen Refuge activities and

contribute to making the Refuge an integral part of

the community.

Objective 1

Improve Refuge support for volunteer and

Friends of Crab Orchard NWR activities to a

point where at least 95 percent of volunteers

and Friends members feel like valued contributors to the success of Refuge programs and

endeavors.

Strategies

1. Continue to manage volunteer and support

programs in accordance with Service guidelines detailed in “A Guidebook for Working

with Volunteers.” Maintain an active liaison

with support groups and partners.

2. Provide in-depth initial training to Refuge

volunteers that will enable them to effectively and efficiently complete projects and

responsibilities. Encourage involvement in

diverse volunteer activities that match volunteer interests.

3. Continue demonstrating Refuge appreciation for volunteer contributions and

Friends support annually through a Volunteer Appreciation Banquet and other

appropriate means. Present awards for service hours in accordance with Service

guidelines.

2.6.1.1. Operational Policies

Area Designations

Background: Twice since the establishment of the

Refuge, the Service has published its land use policy

in the Federal Register. These documents used the

concept of dividing the Refuge into three areas and

describing the types of use that would be considered

within a particular area. This policy was last pub-
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

28

lished in the Federal Register on September 6,

1961. It called for using Area I for “various forms of

recreation, including public hunting and fishing in

accordance with State laws, picnicking, boating,

swimming, and similar activities;” Area II for

“industrial purposes;” and Area III “for use and

administration as a public recreation area on which

group recreation, group camps and private cabin or

cottage site developments on lands zoned for those

purposes.”

Since the publication of the policy described

above, Congress has passed several laws governing

the management of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. The most recent, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Act) sets

forth guiding principles for management of all

national wildlife refuges, such as wildlife-dependent

recreation having priority over non-wildlife-dependent recreation. It challenges the managers of Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge to balance Refuge purposes, which are “...conservation of wildlife

and for the development of agriculture, recreation,

industrial and related purposes...,” with the Refuge

System mission of “administering a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish,

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats...”

The Act states that: “... if a conflict exists between

the purposes of a refuge and the mission of the System, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner that

first protects the purposes of the refuge, and, to the

extent practicable, that also achieves the mission of

the System.”

Proposed Policy: With this comprehensive conservation plan, the Service is attempting to balance its

management responsibilities across all portions of

the Refuge. Under all alternatives described in

Chapter 2 of this plan, the concept of classifying

uses of the Refuge into Areas I, II and III would be

dropped. Only the industrial area of the Refuge, formerly known as either Area II or the Closed Area,

would retain the designation of “restricted use area”

because of safety and security concerns. 

The safety and security concerns are associated

with property protection, contaminants and the

storage of explosive materials. Under all alternatives described in Chapter 2 of this plan, the warehouse area on the east end of Ogden Road (Area 7)

would be closed to the general public, thereby precluding access to Blue Heron Pond for recreational

fishing.

Wildlife management is a major focus for all

lands encompassed by the boundaries of Crab

Orchard NWR.

Camping Length of Stay

Background: People camped near Crab Orchard

Lake before the Refuge was established. In the

early days of the Refuge, camping was allowed

throughout the open areas of the Refuge. However,

the dispersed camping caused unacceptable litter

and resource damage. In order to minimize the

problems, four concession-operated campgrounds

were constructed and camping was permitted only

in the campgrounds. Crab Orchard Lake Campground began operation in 1964. Since then, the Refuge campgrounds have been operated by both

concessionaires and the Service at different times.

Refuge regulations have not limited the length of

stay for campers. By not limiting the length of stay,

campers have been able to occupy a site for an

entire season. The result is that sometimes families

on a short vacation or a weekend visit have limited

opportunity to camp in the most desirable sites near

the water. Some people who have occupied sites for

the entire season have brought in equipment and

material that have created an atmosphere more typical of a permanent trailer park than a campground.

The lack of a length of stay regulation is unusual in

public campgrounds. In order to provide a more

equitable opportunity to stay in desirable camping

sites, we would establish a maximum length of stay

at all Refuge campgrounds.

Proposed Policy: We would limit the length of stay

at Refuge campgrounds to 14 nights comparable

with other Federal and State campgrounds in the

area. As Refuge campsites are upgraded, we would

institute a regulation that limits the length of stay to

14 consecutive nights. We would require persons to

remove all camping equipment from the campground for 48 hours at the end of any consecutive

14-day stay. Storage of equipment such as recreational vehicles and trailers would be prohibited. 

Group Camps

Background: Refuge policy that immediately followed establishment of the Refuge had provisions

that permitted group recreation, group camps and

private cabin or cottage site development on lands

zoned for that purpose. The areas chosen for group

camps were along the shoreline of the proposed Little Grassy Lake. Interest from organizations on how

to establish a group camp in this area was shown as

early as December 1947. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

29

The Service prioritized the availability of this

opportunity for planned group camping with the

policy of first serving strictly youth camping groups,

second youth/adult church camp educational programs and last fraternal organizations. In 1950, the

Refuge began reviewing applications for group

camping from a number of organizations. The Service issued several group camping leases to organizations such as: The Boy Scouts of America, the Girl

Scouts, the Educational Council of 100 Inc., Pioneer

Communications Club, Independent Order of Odd

Fellows, The United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church and others. Many of these organizations began using the area in 1952. Today there

are four group camps still operating on the Refuge:

Pine Ridge Camp (Boy Scouts), Camp Cedar Point

(Girl Scouts), Camp Carew (Presbyterian Church),

and the United Methodist Church Camp. 

Proposed Policy: Group camps would continue with

the requirement that they provide environmental

education as specified in current agreements. The

infrastructure associated with the existing camps

would not expand beyond current square footage

occupied by the camps. The camps would be

assessed a fee for use of federal lands. Because the

use authorized under the agreements includes environmental education with no profit gained by the

camps, the fees will be minimal administrative and

use fees. If an organization decides to no longer

operate their camp, the Refuge would determine if

the site should be closed or leased to another organization based on Refuge's environmental education

goals, the purpose and mission of the organization

wishing to occupy the camp, the condition of the

facilities and existing National Wildlife Refuge System policies.

Recreational Fees

Background: Entrance fees were implemented in

1988 under the authorization of the Emergency

Wetland Resource Act of 1986. The entrance fee

program admitted anyone holding a permit and

accompanying passengers in their vehicle to the

Refuge. In 1997, under authorization of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations

Table 1: Proposed Recreational Entrance Fees and Federal Passes That Will Permit Entry, Crab

Orchard NWR

Fee Option Cost Eligibility Allows Entry to... Validation Period

Daily Fee $2/vehicle Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 1 day

Weekly Fee $5/vehicle Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 7 consecutive days

Commercial bus $20 For buses up to 20 

passengers

Crab Orchard NWR 1 day

Refuge Annua1

l $15/vehicle Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 1 year (July 1 - June 30)

Duck Stamp $15 Anyone Any national wildlife refuge 1 year (July 1 - June 30)

Golden Eagle $65 Anyone Any federal fee area 1 year from month of 

purchase

Golden Age $10 Persons 62 years or older Any federal fee area Lifetime

Golden Access Free Anyone who is 

permanently disabled

Any federal fee area Lifetime

Hologram2 $15 Anyone holding a 

National Park Pass

Any federal fee area 1 year from month of 

purchase

Daily boat 

launch fee

$2/boat Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 1 day

Weekly boat 

launch fee

$5/boat Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 7 consecutive days

Refuge annual 

boat launch3

$10/boat Anyone Crab Orchard NWR 1 year (July 1 to June 30)

1. Additional passes for vehicles and boats may be purchased for $5.

2. The National Park Pass ($50) can be upgraded through the purchase of a $15 Golden Eagle hologram. The Golden Eagle hologram can be affixed to the Park pass to allow for entrance into all federal fee areas. The National Park pass will not be available

at the Refuge, but the hologram can be made available.

3. Additional passes for vehicles and boats may be purchased for $5.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

30

Act of 1996, the entrance fee program was modified

to a recreation use fee program. The user fee program requires all vehicles and boats using the Refuge to have a valid fee decal. In evaluating the use

fee program as part of the comprehensive conservation planning process, we recognized that the current program does not fairly implement the intent of

the Federal Demonstration Fee Program. Rather

than charge multiple fees, our intent will be to

charge only one entrance fee.

Proposed Policy: We would implement a recreational fee program that is comparable to other fee

programs within the Service. These changes would

be consistent with the new Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and increase convenience

for the visiting public. The refuge would have an

entrance fee as well as an expanded amenity recreation fee. Federal Duck Stamps, America the Beautiful Passes, and Crab Orchard Refuge annual,

weekly and daily passes would permit entry to the

Refuge. An expanded amenity recreation fee would

be charged in addition to the entrance fee for using

boat launching facilities and participating in quota

hunts. Table 1 summarizes proposed recreational

fees.

Fishing Tournaments

Background: Five fishing tournaments are held

each year on the Refuge's three lakes under special

use permits. Devils Kitchen Lake and Little Grassy

Lake each host one tournament. Crab Orchard

Lake hosts three tournaments. The tournaments

are well established and require minimal assistance

from Refuge staff, although Refuge and Illinois

Department of Natural Resources officers do conduct spot checks for violations during the tournaments. Anglers and biologists have expressed

concern over reduced fish populations because of

post-release mortality and the lack of vegetation for

spawning bass.

Proposed Policy: The five current fishing tournaments would continue on the Refuge's three lakes.

However, if any of these five organizations decide to

discontinue a tournament, the event would be eliminated and not replaced in the future. We will continue to work with tournament organizers to reduce

post-release mortality.

Fish-offs

Background: The three lakes receive many visits

from fishing clubs hosting club events called “fishoffs.” A fish-off is defined as an organized club fishing event having 20 boats or fewer.

Proposed Policy: Organizers of fishing events must

obtain a fish-off use permit. The permit allows the

organizer to have one fish-off per lake, per year.

There is a $35 charge for the permit and the organizer must follow terms and conditions of the permit.

Recreational and Technical Rock Climbing:

Background: Crab Orchard NWR is not typically

considered a climber's destination, but some

demanding and varied rock climbs can be found in

the southern portions of the Refuge. Over the years

Refuge visitors have inquired about climbing, but

climbing has never been officially permitted. Rock

climbing has occurred in the Devils Kitchen and Little Grassy areas. The Refuge has in the past discouraged rock climbing activities such as jumping

and diving from the rocks of Devils Kitchen Lake by

not permitting swimming in the lake and by closing

the area below the Crab Orchard Dam spillway to

public access. Climbing opportunities can be found

at nearby Giant City State Park. 

Proposed policy: Recreational and technical rock

climbing would not be permitted on the Refuge.

This includes free-style rock climbing, rappelling

and technical rock climbing. 

2.6.1.2. Fire

The following section contains detail about the

prescribed fire and wildlife suppression procedures

used on the Refuge. We have included detail here to

fully document the Refuge’s recent Fire Management Plan in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is used regularly on the Refuge as

a habitat management tool. Periodic burning of

grasslands reduces encroaching woody vegetation

such as autumn-olive. Fire also encourages the

growth of desirable species such as native, warmseason grasses.

Trained and qualified personnel perform all prescribed burns under precise plans. A burn is conducted only if it meets specified criteria for air

temperature, fuel moisture, wind direction and

velocity, soil moisture, relative humidity, and several other environmental factors. The specified criteria (prescription) minimize the chance that the fire

will escape and increase the likelihood that the fire

will have the desired effect on the plant community. 

How often we burn established grassland and

forest units depends on management objectives, historic fire frequency, and funding. The interval
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

31

between burns may be 2 to 5 years or longer. As

part of the prescribed fire program, we will conduct

a literature search to determine the effects of fire on

various plant and animal species, and we will begin a

monitoring program to verify that objectives are

being achieved.

We cannot and will not start a prescribed fire

without the approval of the Regional Fire Management Coordinator when the area is at an extreme

fire danger level or the National Preparedness level

is V. In addition, we will not start a prescribed fire

without first getting applicable concurrence when

local fire protection districts or the State of Illinois

have instituted burning bans.

Spot fires and escapes may occur on any prescribed fire. The spot fires and escapes may result

from factors that cannot be anticipated during planning. A few small spot fires and escapes on a prescribed burn can usually be controlled by the burn

crew. If so, they do not constitute a wildland fire.

The burn boss is responsible for evaluating the frequency and severity of spot fires and escapes and, if

necessary, slowing down or stopping the burn operation, getting additional help from the Refuge staff,

or extinguishing the prescribed burn. If the existing

crew cannot control an escaped fire and it is necessary to get help from the Shawnee National Forest

or Lake Egypt Fire Protection District, the escape

will be classified as a wildland fire and controlled

accordingly. Once controlled, we will stop the prescribed burning for the burning period.

 We may conduct prescribed burns at any time of

year. However, the normal prescribed fire season

begins November 15 and ends March 31.

We will use existing firebreaks, which we may

improve through mowing or tilling. By policy, if we

contemplate any new firebreaks or below surface

improvements to existing firebreaks, the Regional

Historic Preservation Officer will be consulted

before the work begins.

Burn plans written by the Refuge staff document

the treatment objectives, the prescription, and the

plan of action for carrying out a burn. A burn plan

includes all the elements specified in the Service's

Fire Management Handbook. Details regarding fire

resources and procedures can be found in the Refuge's Fire Management Plan.

 Fire Prevention and Detection

In any fire management activity, firefighter and

public safety will always take precedence over property and resource protection.

Historically, fire influenced the vegetation on the

Refuge. Now, fires burning without a prescription

are likely to cause unwanted damage. In order to

minimize this damage, we will seek to prevent and

quickly detect fires by:

# Discussing fire prevention at safety meetings

prior to the fire season and during periods of

high fire danger and periodically training staff

in fire prevention.

# Posting warnings at visitor information stations

during periods of extreme fire danger. 

# Notifying the public via press releases and

personal contacts during periods of extreme fire

danger.

# Investigating all fires suspected of having been

set illegally and taking appropriate action.

# Depending on neighbors, visitors, cooperators,

and staff to detect and report fires. 

# Requesting additional resources from the

Illinois Interagency Fire Dispatcher in

Murphysboro, Illinois (618-687-1731), if

adequate resources are not available locally. 

Fire Suppression 

We are required by Service Policy to use the Incident Command System (ICS) and firefighters meeting National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)

qualifications for fires occurring on Refuge property. Our suppression efforts will be directed

towards safeguarding life while protecting Refuge

resources and property from harm. Mutual aid

resources responding from Cooperating Agencies

must meet the qualification standards of their

Agency.

 All wildland fires occurring on the Refuge and

staffed with Service employees will be supervised by

a qualified Incident Commander (IC). The IC will be

responsible for all management aspects of the fire.

The IC will obtain the general suppression strategy

from the Fire Management Plan, but it will be up to

the IC to implement the appropriate tactics. Minimum impact suppression tactics will be used whenever possible. As a guide, on low intensity fires

(generally flame lengths less than 4 feet) the primary suppression strategy will be direct attack with

hand crews and engines. On higher intensity fires

(those with flame lengths greater than 4 feet) we

may use indirect strategies of back fires or burning

out from natural and human-made fire barriers. The

barriers will be selected based on their ability to

safely suppress the fire, minimize resource degradation, and be cost effective.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

32

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

During periods of drought we may use severity

funding under guidelines of the Service Fire Management Handbook to provide adequate fire protection for the Refuge.

In suppressing a fire, we will:

# Use existing roads and trails, bodies of water,

areas of sparse or non-continuous fuels as

primary control lines, anchor points, escape

routes, and safety zones. 

# Conduct backfiring operations from existing

roads and natural barriers to halt the spread of

fire when appropriate.

# Use burnouts to stabilize and strengthen the

primary control lines.

# Use either direct or indirect attack methods,

depending upon the situation. Using backfire in

combination with allowing the wildland fire to

burn to a road or natural firebreak would be

least damaging to the environment. However,

direct attack by constructing control lines as

close to the fire as possible may be the

preferred method to establish quicker control.

# Use retardants on upland areas when

appropriate.

# Not use earth moving equipment (dozers,

graders, plows) for suppression activities on the

Refuge without the approval of the Refuge

Manager or his/her designated representative.

# Evaluate all areas where wildland fires occur on

Refuge administered lands prior to the aerial or

ground application of foams and/or retardants.

Only approved chemical foams and retardants

will be used (or not used) in sensitive areas such

as those with riparian vegetation.

# Not use wildland fire for resource benefits.

# Keep engines on roads and trails to the fullest

extent possible. 

# Ensure additional resources are ordered

whenever it appears a fire will escape initial

attack efforts, leave Service lands, or when the

fire complexity exceeds the capabilities of the

existing command or operations.

# Monitor Refuge fires until declared out.

# Conduct rehabilitation prior to firefighters

leaving the fire. All trash will be removed. Fire

lines will be refilled and water bars will be

added, if needed. Hazardous trees and snags

will be cut and all stumps will be cut as low as

practicable to the ground. Damage to

improvements caused by suppression efforts

will be repaired, and a rehabilitation plan will be

completed if necessary. If re-seeding is

necessary, it will be accomplished according to

Service policy and regulations.

2.6.2 Alternative A: Current 

Management/No Action

2.6.2.1. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese Goal

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Background: When established, the Refuge was

recognized as being important to providing habitat

for wintering Canada Geese. The Refuge was also

established with an agricultural purpose. The agricultural purpose and supporting wintering Canada

Geese are interrelated. The importance of wintering

refuge habitat to the Mississippi Valley population

of Canada geese has been recognized in population

management plans. The Refuge has about 4,500

acres of cropland, 1,000 acres of pasture, 700 acres

of hay fields, and 450 acres of moist-soil units commonly used by geese (see “Land Cover of Crab

Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No Action) Projected Conditions 2015” on

page 40). Other goose management activities

include seasonal closure to boating on the east end

of Crab Orchard Lake and fall mowing around

selected ponds.

Objective 1

Provide enough food for wintering Canada

geese to support 6.4 million goose-use-days.

Strategy

1. Maintain 4,500 acres of cropland in agricultural production (Figure 6). Manage 1,000

acres of pasture and 700 acres of hay fields.

Manage 450 acres of moist-soil units. Continue fall mowing around selected ponds.

Maintain seasonal closure to boating on the

east end of Crab Orchard Lake.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

33

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Background: The Refuge has about 25,000 acres of

forest habitat. Studies have shown that forest fragmentation reduces nesting success of migratory

birds because of increased nest predation and parasitism. The Refuge has carried out reforestation

activities in recent years to reduce fragmentation of

forested habitats and retire former agricultural

fields and pastures. 

The Refuge has about 3,300 acres of pine plantations. Most of the pine plantations were established

between 1938 and 1941 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service for the purpose of controlling soil erosion. Pines, which are not native to the Refuge,

generally provide lower quality wildlife habitat than

native hardwoods. The existing plans call for thinning and prescribed burning pine plantations to

encourage the growth of desirable, mast-producing

hardwoods.

The Refuge has about 2,500 acres of early successional habitat. Some migratory birds primarily use

early successional habitats, such as shrubland and

fallow herbaceous fields. Without active management, these habitat types will succeed to forest.

These habitat types are identified in Figure 6 on

page 34.

Refuge grasslands include pastures (1,000 acres),

hay fields (700 acres), and native grasslands (240

acres). Pastures and hay fields provide the majority

of the grassland habitat for migratory birds. However, the pastures are relatively poor quality habitat

for many migratory birds because they are dominated by fescue, a non-native grass. Refuge hay

fields are commonly mowed in spring and summer

when migratory birds are nesting, which reduces

nesting success. The presence of woody vegetation

along fence rows and roadsides tends to reduce the

value of grasslands for some birds.

The Refuge has 4,500 acres in the row crop program. The crop rotation is generally corn/soybeans/

corn/clover/clover. Grassland birds, such as the

dickcissel and eastern meadowlark, use clover fields

for nesting habitat. Cooperative farmers commonly

mow second year clover to make hay during the

nesting season of migratory birds, which reduces

nesting success.

The forest, shrubland and grassland resource

conservation priority bird species that would benefit

under this alternative are listed in Table 34 on

page 131. These priority bird species are a regional

subset of the priority species found in Partners in

Flight plans.

Objective 1

Complete about 240 acres of reforestation as

outlined under the existing Refuge reforestation plan to benefit forest wildlife species.

Strategy

1. Conduct reforestation activities that may

include site preparation (mechanical clearing and/or applying herbicides to unwanted

vegetation), planting hardwood tree seedlings, and follow-up mechanical or chemical

treatments.

Objective 2

Accelerate succession of all (about 3,300 acres)

pine plantations to native hardwood forest.

Strategy

1. Thin pine plantations to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. Most

thinning treatments will be conducted

under contract by commercial timber harvesting firms. Conduct prescribed burning

during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to

enhance habitat conditions and promote

desirable hardwood regeneration.

Objective 3

Maintain 240 acres of native warm-season

grassland to benefit grassland birds, such as

northern bobwhite, eastern meadowlark, and

Henslow's sparrow. (Figure 6) 

Strategy

1. Prescribed burn all native warm-season

grasslands on a 2- to 3-year cycle to favor

grassland vegetation and control undesirable plants. Apply mechanical or herbicide

treatments to control vegetation, when

needed.

Objective 4

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 700 acres of

hay fields, and about 1,600 acres of clover fields

with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

34

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Figure 6: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No 

Action) Projected Conditions 2015
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

35

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Figure 7: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative A, Current Management (No 

Action), Projected Conditions, 2100
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

36

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Strategy

1. All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields will take place after August 1.

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

Background: The Refuge has several types of habitat that support ducks, shorebirds, and other

waterbirds: 9,100 acres of open water in artificial

lakes and ponds, 1,900 acres of bottomland forest,

and 500 acres of swamps, marshes, and wet meadows. The Refuge manages about 450 acres of these

wetlands to encourage the growth of moist-soil

plants and aquatic invertebrates to provide food for

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds.

Objective 1

Provide 350 to 450 acres of moist soil habitat

during fall, winter and spring for migrating

shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds.

Strategy

1. Maintain dikes and water control structures. Manipulate water levels and vegetation to encourage production of food. 

 Water Quality Goal

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Background: Water quality in streams and lakes

on the Refuge is impacted by sedimentation, agricultural chemicals, and contaminants from past

industrial uses.

Objective 1

Keep Refuge soil erosion and chemical inputs at

levels that do not impair water quality or fish

and wildlife. 

Strategies

1. Work with farmers to establish buffer

strips and keep livestock away from

streams and ponds. Continue using current

soil and water protection measures in the

Refuge farm program: use no insecticides,

use only Service-approved herbicides, use

minimum tillage practices, and use winter

cover crops.

2. Continue cleanup of contaminated sites.

Ensure Refuge industrial operations conform to prescribed environmental standards.

2.6.2.2. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education Goal

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Background: The Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 identified six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses that should be facilitated on National

Wildlife Refuges if compatible with the purposes of

the refuge. These priority uses, specifically hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education, are compatible and can be facilitated at Crab Orchard.

Under this alternative, facilities and programs

would be provided at the levels and trends present

in 2001.

Objective 1

Provide hunting opportunities at the levels

offered in 2001.

Strategies

1. In the public hunting area of the Refuge,

continue the policy of providing hunting

opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and federal regulations.

2. In the restricted use area of the Refuge,

maintain current hunting opportunities by

permit during shotgun deer and spring

shotgun turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun

deer season hunting opportunities for youth

and persons with disabilities.

3. Continue providing waterfowl hunting

opportunities in the controlled waterfowl

hunting area through an agreement with a

partner organization.

Objective 2

Provide fishing opportunities at the levels

offered in 2001.

Strategies

1. In the public fishing areas, continue the policy of providing fishing opportunities based

on state and federal regulations.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

37

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

2. Continue to provide bank and boat fishing

opportunities in accordance with state and

federal regulations. Maintain existing Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking

facilities. 

Objective 3

Provide wildlife observation and photography

opportunities at the levels offered in 2001.

Strategies

1. Continue popular, established programs

and tours like the October Discovery Auto

Tours, January Eagle Tours, and Spring

Wildflower Walks that enhance visitor

experience, bring visitors in closer proximity to resources, and provide optimum seasonal opportunities for observation and

photography.

2. Maintain existing photo blinds, observation

blinds, and identified observation areas. 

Objective 4

Provide interpretive opportunities and materials at the levels offered in 2001.

Strategies

1. Continue to maintain and replace damaged

and outdated interpretive and information

panels on Refuge kiosks, wayside exhibits,

trails, ramps, and other facilities. Ensure all

panels comply with Service standards.

2. In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and

other partners, conduct a variety of quality

interpretive programs annually. Continue

popular and established interpretive programs and special events, such as the Families Understanding Nature program and

National Wildlife Refuge Week.

3. Continue to plan interpretive auto tour

route, using existing roads, that will facilitate opportunities for wildlife and cultural

resource observation and provide visitors

with an overview of the Refuge, its

resources, and its management. 

Objective 5

Provide environmental education programs and

materials at the levels offered in 2001.

Strategies

1. Within 2 years of the plan’s approval,

develop the environmental education portion of the Visitor Services Plan outlining a

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach

structured to be compatible with state

learning standards.

2. Continue the development and maintenance

of a multi-faceted environmental education

resource library, available for use by educators and in Refuge educational programs,

comprised of books, videos, posters, audio

tapes, written materials, and environmental

education kits. 

3. Continue currently-offered environmental

education programs done by request,

including on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group camp programs, and special interest group

programs. 

4. Conduct an annual review of the Refuge

environmental education program. Invite

feedback from area educators. Revise as

necessary.

Other Land- and Water-based Recreation Goal

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge.

Background: The Refuge was established with and

has a history of providing recreation that is not wildlife-dependent. Activities that fulfill the recreation

purpose of the Refuge but are not wildlife-dependent include motorboating and sailing, water-skiing,

swimming, camping and picnicking. The Refuge has

been challenged to maintain the quantity and quality of the facilities in support of these activities

throughout its existence. Under this alternative,

facilities would be provided at the levels present in

2001 and the quality would be improved as time and

resources permitted. In the past, two areas were set

aside for the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club and

The Haven. The Boat & Yacht Club is a private
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

38

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

organization requiring a membership for the use of

campgrounds and a marina operated by the Club.

The Haven is a facility that is operated and used by

local veterans for rest and recreation.

Objective 1

Maintain and gradually improve the quality of

boat launches, marinas, beaches, picnic areas,

and campgrounds at levels offered in 2001.

Strategy

1. Use recreation fee funds and compete for

Maintenance Management System funds to

improve facilities. Follow guidelines for

evaluating concession operations.

Customer Service Goal

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Background: Policy and guidance of the Service

directs each refuge to meet basic standards in hosting visitors. The guidance covers signs, kiosks, leaflets, facility and road maintenance, customer

service, and opportunities for visitor feedback. 

Objective 1

Meet Service standards for signs, information

sources, facilities, and opportunities for visitor

feedback at the levels offered in 2001.

Strategy

1. Maintain and gradually improve kiosks,

rest rooms, boundary signing, and opportunities for visitor feedback as time and

resources permit.

Objective 2

Provide visitors with a safe and enjoyable visit

and a feeling of security.

Strategies

1. Conduct annual safety inspections of all

Refuge facilities and reaffirm compliance

with Service standards.

2. Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that

clearly identify public hunting areas. 

3. Respond to notification of safety problems

and unsafe situations promptly and in

accordance with Service standards. 

2.6.2.3. Agricultural Goal

Agricultural Goal

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

Background: Agriculture, one of the specified purposes of the Refuge, has been a part of the landscape since early settlement. After many years of

soil depletion and erosion, beginning in the 1930s

efforts have been made to implement better farming

practices. On the Refuge, agriculture has been used

to benefit wildlife, chiefly wintering Canada geese. 

Objective 1

Continue farming operations on about 4,500

acres of row crops and 1,000 acres of pastures

and 700 acres of hay fields.

Strategy

1. Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in

support of agricultural operations. Address

erosion with buffer strips. Enlist technical

oversight from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the University of Illinois Extension.

2.6.2.4. Industrial Goal

Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards.

Background: The management of industry on the

Refuge was reviewed in the early 1980s and an

Industrial Policy was established. Most of the goals

established under that policy have been accomplished. Under this alternative, management would

continue under the existing policy.

Objective 1

Meet the guidelines of the Industrial Policy

established in December 1981.

Strategies

1. Maintain roads, as well as water and sewer

lines, in industrial areas as appropriations

become available. Building and grounds

maintenance are the responsibility of the

lessee in accordance with lease requirements.

2. Remove buildings that are no longer suitable for occupancy for reasons of contamination, safety or lack of structural integrity

and restore to natural habitats. 

2.6.2.5. Boundary Modification

The authorized Refuge boundary would remain

unchanged. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

39

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

2.6.3 Alternative B: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis With Land 

Exchange

2.6.3.1. Land Exchange

Early in this planning process, the Service indicated an interest in exchanging land developed for

non-wildlife-dependent recreation, such as camping

and marina operations, for undeveloped land adjoining the Refuge. Southern Illinois University (SIU)

and the Service have agreed upon a framework for a

land exchange that included the following: 

# The Service would exchange approximately 500

acres located in the northwest corner of the

Refuge for land located south and west of the

current boundary that is now owned by SIU

(see Figure 8 and Figure 14 on page 56). 

# Parcels in this 500 acres include the Crab

Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, The Haven, Crab

Orchard Campground, Lookout Point, Take

Pride Point (formerly Hogan's Point) and the

marina areas known as Playport and Images.

# The land currently owned by the Service would

be exchanged with SIU with the expectation of

complementing the University's academic

mission. Each of the above mentioned parcels

would be managed according to a mutually

agreeable plan that essentially permits the

continuation of existing non-wildlife-dependent

recreational uses. (A letter from SIU to the

Service outlining the proposed uses can be

found in Appendix I on page 289.)

# The Service would retain a flowage easement on

lands exchanged with SIU. Additionally, the

Service would maintain a reversionary interest

such that if the lands were no longer used as

outlined in Appendix I, the land or individual

parcels would revert back to Service ownership.

# The Service would manage the lands received

from SIU as forest habitat. The area would be

open to the public for wildlife-dependent

recreation. Some of this second-growth forest,

with proper management and time, may reach a

quality sufficient for its inclusion in the Crab

Orchard Wilderness. The approximate acreage

for the current land cover types of the SIU

property are: pine forest, 8 acres; hardwood

forest, 1,569 acres; and old fields, 122 acres. In

addition to the approximately 125 acres of

developed land, the land currently owned by the

Service that would be part of the exchange has a

land cover that includes: pine forest, 150 acres;

hardwood forest, 150 acres; agricultural, 40

acres; and grassland/shrubland, 40 acres.

2.6.3.2. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese Goal 

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Background: When established, the Refuge was

recognized as being important to providing habitat

for wintering Canada Geese. The Refuge was also

established with an agricultural purpose. The agricultural purpose and supporting wintering Canada

Geese are interrelated. The importance of wintering

refuge habitat to the Mississippi Valley population

of Canada geese has been recognized in population

management plans. 

The Refuge's approach to meeting the goal of 6.4

million goose-use-days is to provide relatively large

amounts of a diverse array of food-producing habitats (Table 2). This approach provides relatively

high assurance that even if a major habitat fails to

provide, sufficient foods will be available in other

habitats. The amount of these habitats would vary

only 1-2 percent under any CCP alternative

(Table 2). The amount of goose food produced by

these habitats would vary up to 14 percent (Table 3).

This leaves the Refuge with 4,300-4,540 acres of row

crops, which agrees with the Illinois DNR recommendation of “Maintain 4,000-5,000 acres of agriculture in crop fields, as winter food for Canada geese

and other wildlife” (IDNR 2001).

Objective 1

Provide enough food for wintering Canada

geese to support 6.4 million goose-use-days.

Strategy

1. Maintain 4,400 acres of cropland in agricultural production (Figure 9). Manage 500

acres of moist-soil units. Continue fall mowing around selected ponds. Maintain seasonal closure to boating on east end of Crab

Orchard Lake. Ensure technical oversight

of the agricultural program. Remove woody

fence rows and roadside vegetation. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

40

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 8: Lands Proposed for Exchange Between Crab Orchard NWR and Southern 

Illinois University
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

41

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Background: See the background provided in

Alternative A. 

Objective 1

Manage two portions of the Refuge as large forest blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds.

The first area (about 13,000 acres) extends from

the southern end of Grassy Bay east to Caney

Creek, and south including the wilderness area.

The second area (about 1,700 acres) extends

from the federal prison north and includes the

Crab Orchard Creek bottomlands. This will

include about 490 acres of reforestation of open

habitat to consolidate large blocks of forest habitat. 

Strategy

1. Reforest about 290 acres of crop fields, 130

acres of fallow fields, and 90 acres of perennial grasslands. This may include site prepTable 2: Area of Food-producing Canada Goose Habitat by Alternative

Habitat Existing 

Condition 

(Acres)

Alt. A 

(Acres

Alt. B and 

E

(Acres) 

Alt. C

(Acres)

Alt. D

(Acres) 

Corn 1,816 1,800 1,760 1,920 1,720

Wheat 908 900 880 960 860

Clover 1,816 1,800 1,760 1,920 1,720

Hay 800 700 600 700 500

Pasture 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Moist Soil 450 450 500 500 450

Ponds and Lakes 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000

Misc. Mowed Areas 200 200 200 200 200

Total Acres 15,900 15,850 15,700 16,200 15,450

Percent of Existing Acres 100 99 98 101 97

Table 3: Millions of Potential1 Goose-use-days2 of Food by Habitat and Alternative

Habitat Existing 

Condition 

GUDs

Alt. A 

GUDs

Alt. B and 

E GUDs

Alt. C 

GUDs

Alt. D 

GUDs

Corn 7.1 7.0 6.9 7.5 6.7

Wheat 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.9

Clover 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.5

Hay 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.9 1.8

Pasture 3.3 3.3 0.8 0.8 3.3

Moist Soil 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Ponds and Lakes3

Misc. Mowed Areas4

Total GUDs 19.5 19.0 15.9 17.7 17.7

Percent of Existing GUDs 100 97 82 91 91

1. Results do not reflect food losses due to low production, consumption by other nimals, etc.

2. “Goose-use-day” is defined as enough food to fee one gose for one day.

3. Production is not calculated or included in total GUDs.

4. Production not calculated or included in total GUDs.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

42

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 9: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected 

Conditions 2015
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

43

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 10: Land Covers of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternatives B and E, Projected 

Conditions 2100
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

44

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

aration, planting a cover crop, planting tree

seedlings, and weed control treatments.

Objective 2

Accelerate succession of all (about 3,300 acres)

pine plantations to native hardwood forest.

Strategy

1. Thin pine plantations to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. In

some cases, remove pine overstory to

release young hardwoods. Most silvicultural

treatments will be conducted under contract by commercial timber harvesting

firms. Conduct prescribed burning during

the dormant season (November through

March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable

hardwood regeneration.

Objective 3

Maintain about 300 acres in early successional

habitat.

Strategy

1. Use prescribed fire or mechanical treatment (mowing, discing) to disturb about 200

acres every 3 to 5 years. Add about 100

acres of 30-foot-wide borders of native

warm-season grasses in row crop fields in

the open portion of the Refuge.

Objective 4

Maintain 260 acres of native warm-season

grassland.

 Strategy

1. Prescribed burn all native warm-season

grasslands on a 2- to 3-year cycle to favor

grassland vegetation and control undesirable plants. Apply mechanical or herbicide

treatments to control vegetation, when

needed. 

Objective 5

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 700 acres of

hay fields, and about 1,600 acres of clover fields

with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds. 

Strategy

1. Remove 124 acres of linear forest habitat

and 8 miles of hedge rows. Install fences to

create paddocks within pastures to enable

greater control of grazing intensity. Convert fescue pastures to other cool-season

and native warm-season grasses by preparing the site and reseeding. The typical Refuge pasture would become three or four

paddocks with a paddock of cool-season

grass and two or three paddocks of native

warm-season grasses. Cattle would enter

the cool-season grass paddock in the spring

switch to the warm season grasses in the

summer, and move back to the cool season

grass in the fall. The native warm season

grass will provide the grassland birds with

nesting, migration, and winter habitat. Vegetation structure will be managed by the

amount of grazing applied to each paddock.

Most of the pasture grass would not require

fall mowing and would be taller than 6

inches during the winter. All mowing of hay

fields, pastures, and clover fields will take

place after August 1. 

Rationale for converting pasture fescue: Tall

fescue (Festuca arundinacea) is a cool-season, perennial grass native to Europe that

is invasive in many natural communities in

the U.S. Tall fescue has been planted for

forage and soil conservation and now covers

more than 35 million acres in the U.S. (Ball

et al. 1993). It has become the most abundant or dominant plant in many areas,

including the Refuge's grasslands. Most

(75-80 percent) tall fescue in the U.S. is

infected with a fungus (Neotyphodium

coenophialum) that produces compounds

that are toxic to insects (Breen 1994), small

mammals (Coley et al. 1995, Conover 1998),

and birds (Conover and Messmer 1996,

Madej and Clay 1991). Tall fescue often

results in loss of plant diversity (Clay and

Holah 1999). Livestock losses related to tall

fescue in the U.S. have been estimated

between $500 million and $1 billion annually

(Ball et al. 1993). 

Conversion of tall fescue pastures to native

warm-season grasses and cool-season

grasses with higher wildlife values will provide several benefits: 1) reduce the abundance of an invasive, non-native species, 2)

increase plant diversity, 3) increase plant

productivity, 4) improve forage for cattle

production, and 5) improve pastures for

wildlife production.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

45

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

Background: See Alternative A.

Objective 1

Provide 450 to 500 acres of moist-soil habitat

during fall, winter and spring for migrating

shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds.

Strategy

1. Construct 50 to 70 acres of new moist-soil

habitat. Maintain dikes and water control

structures. Manipulate water levels and

vegetation to encourage production of

waterfowl foods.

Water Quality Goal

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Background: Natural processes along with various

human activities occurring in the watershed affect

water quality on the Refuge. Since the Refuge controls only a portion of the watershed, increased

efforts to protect water quality both on the Refuge

and beyond its boundaries are essential. Urbanization of lands adjacent to the Refuge is likely to have

even greater impacts on water quality in the future. 

Objective 2

Improve the quality of water within the watershed of the Refuge. 

Strategies

1. Cooperate with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to monitor water quality.

Identify landowners and land uses in the

watershed. Provide education and technical

assistance to landowners with particularly

sensitive riparian areas. Work with municipalities and developers to enhance on-site

storm water retention.

2. Work with farmers to establish buffer

strips and keep livestock away from

streams and ponds. Continue using current

soil and water protection measures in the

Refuge farm program: use no insecticides,

use only Service-approved herbicides, use

minimum tillage practices, and use winter

cover crops.

3. Continue cleanup of contaminated sites.

Ensure Refuge industrial operations conform to prescribed environmental standards.

2.6.3.3. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education Goal

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Background: The Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 identified six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses that should be facilitated on National

Wildlife Refuges if compatible with the purposes of

the refuge. These priority uses, which include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

interpretation, and environmental education, are

compatible and can be facilitated at Crab Orchard

NWR. While all of these uses are provided at the

Refuge to some extent, support for some of these

uses has been inconsistent and the quality of experience has been variable. Efforts to enhance visitor

enjoyment by promoting understanding and appreciation of Refuge resources, management strategies, and purposes have had limited success. The

Refuge can provide high-quality experiences for

these priority wildlife-dependent users through

emphasis on and improvement of supporting facilities, programs, and materials over the next 15

years. A high-quality experience includes

uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other users,

a reasonable opportunity, and overall satisfaction.

Understanding and appreciation of Refuge

resources, management strategies, and purposes

also contribute to quality of experience and influence visitor enjoyment.

Objective 1

Increase the quality of hunting opportunities to

a level where at least 90 percent of hunters

experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts

with other users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and satisfaction with their overall experience. Instill a sense of awareness among

hunters of the Refuge as a component of the

National Wildlife Refuge System and of hunting

as a wildlife management tool. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

46

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Strategies

1. In the public hunting area of the Refuge,

continue the policy of providing hunting

opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and federal regulations.

2. In the restricted use area of the Refuge,

maintain current hunting opportunities by

permit during shotgun deer and spring

shotgun turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun

deer season hunting opportunities for youth

and persons with disabilities and, within 3

years of the plan's approval, provide these

groups with opportunities for spring shotgun turkey season hunting when populations warrant.

3. Within 6 years of the plan's approval, establish additional hunting programs to encourage participation in the Refuge hunting

program by non-traditional segments of the

public such as youth, persons with disabilities, and women.

4. Administer goose hunts in the controlled

area through an agreement with a partner

organization. 

5. Continue to promote conservation practices

and increase hunter adherence to federal

and state regulations through effective

informational brochures and signs.

Increase the visibility of Refuge law

enforcement.

6. Over the life of the plan, enhance public

understanding of Refuge hunting opportunities, the role of hunting in wildlife management, and the Refuge as a component of

the National Wildlife Refuge System by

increasing the quality of maps, signs, and

brochures. 

Objective 2

Increase the quality of fishing opportunities to a

level where at least 90 percent of anglers experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with

other users, a reasonable harvest opportunity,

and satisfaction with their overall experience.

Enhance angler understanding of the issues,

strategies, and policies involved in Refuge fisheries management and conservation. Instill

anglers with a sense of awareness of the Refuge

as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge

System.

Strategies

1. In the public fishing areas, continue the policy of providing fishing opportunities based

on state and federal regulations.

2. Within 5 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, promote

current and develop additional fishing

opportunities and programs to encourage

participation by non-traditional segments of

the public such as youth, persons with disabilities, and women.

3. Continue to provide bank and boat fishing

opportunities in accordance with state and

federal regulations. Maintain existing Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking

facilities. Study the feasibility for and construct accessible fishing facilities at Little

Grassy Lake and Devils Kitchen Lake

within 4 years of the plan's approval.

4. Over the life of the plan, promote Refuge

fishing opportunities and encourage conservation practices such as catch-and-release

fishing through the development and maintenance of high-quality maps, signs, brochures and the Refuge web page. 

5. Ensure that the fishing public clearly

understands the fish consumption advisories for Crab Orchard Lake through signs

and brochures within 2 years of the plan's

approval.

6. Over the life of the plan, provide insight to

anglers regarding Refuge strategies,

issues, and policies for fisheries management and conservation by redesigning and

developing more effective informational

signs and brochures. Increase angler

awareness of the Refuge as a component of

the National Wildlife Refuge System by

improving the quality and content of maps,

signs, and brochures.

Objective 3

Ensure that viewing and photography opportunities meet the needs of 95 percent of participants. Establish and maintain viewing and

photography opportunities for all major Refuge

habitat types and optimum seasons. 

Strategies

1. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop an annual observation/photography

fact sheet for the Refuge that will include a
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

47

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

calendar of established tours, programs,

and events; information on identified and

recommended viewing and photography

areas; guidelines to enhance viewing enjoyment; and a Refuge map delineating trails,

blinds, platforms, and identified viewing

areas. 

2. Continue popular, established programs

and tours like the October Discovery Auto

Tours, January Eagle Tours, and Spring

Wildflower Walks that enhance visitor

experience, bring visitors in closer proximity to resources, and provide optimum seasonal opportunities for observation and

photography and continually evaluate these

programs for effectiveness.

3. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

improve the existing photography/observation blinds and platforms by adding camouflage as needed to enhance viewing

opportunities. Evaluate location of existing

blinds and platforms and move as needed.

Position interpretive and identification panels in or near blinds and platforms to promote understanding and appreciation of

Refuge resources. Enhance panels to promote awareness of the Refuge as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. 

4. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, evaluate need for and add additional blinds/platforms, including interpretive and

identification panels, where and if needed to

ensure observation and photography opportunities in all major Refuge habitat types.

Maintain all identified viewing and photography sites.

5. Over the life of the plan and in cooperation

with other partners, encourage utilization

of the Refuge for birding and other wildlife

observation through development of informational materials, programs, trails, tours,

and special events. Promote the Refuge as a

site for quality wildlife observation and photography through participation in selected

community and regional birding, nature,

and photography festivals and events. 

6. Within 8 years of the plan's approval, identify and create a Refuge birding trail that

may include enhancement and coordination

of existing trails, viewing areas and signs,

and creation of a birding trail brochure and

map.

7. Over the life of the plan, expand the Refuge

web site to promote wildlife observation

and photography. Include updates on Refuge and area sightings of rare birds and

other wildlife; profiles of selected seasonally-occurring and resident species; suggested optimal viewing times and locations;

and current Refuge programs, facilities,

tours, and other opportunities for observation and photography. 

Objective 4

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge interpretive program such that 85 percent of participants gain a better understanding of three

primary concepts: (1) the value and unique purposes of the Refuge, (2) the Refuge as a component of a national network of refuges, and (3)

the significance and mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Heighten awareness of

conservation and stewardship concepts.

Encourage participants to adopt conservation

practices and take positive actions that support

Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission.

Strategies

1. Within 3 years of the plan's approval,

develop the interpretive portion of the Visitor Services Plan outlining a comprehensive, multifaceted approach emphasizing

selected themes and key Refuge resources.

Themes will be selected based on importance to Refuge and System goals and relevance to surrounding communities. All

interpretive materials, tours, facilities and

programs will focus on one or more of these

Refuge themes, along with the three basic

concepts of the Refuge and Refuge System.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

48

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Refuge interpretive themes may be in a storyline form that includes three or more

themes. Themes may include: Exploring

the Diversity of Wildlife, Understanding

the Past, Protecting the Balance, and Communicating Visitor Opportunities.

2. Within 4 years of the plan’s approval, renovate and replace damaged and outdated

interpretive and information panels on Refuge kiosks, wayside exhibits, trails, ramps,

and other facilities. Ensure that all panels

and structures comply with Service standards.

3. In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and

other partners, conduct a variety of highquality interpretive programs annually.

Continue popular and established interpretive programs and special events, such as

the Families Understanding Nature program and National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Ensure interpretive programming remains

current and dynamic by continually evaluating and creating new programs, incorporating new ideas, updating information, and

revitalizing ongoing programs. Focus each

interpretive program on one or more Refuge themes. 

4. Over the life of the plan, upgrade the following Refuge trails to enhance interpretive

opportunities: Rocky Bluff Trail for neotropical migrants; Woodlands Trail for wildlife

observation, fishing and accessibility; and

Harmony Trail for wildlife observation.

5. Over the life of the plan and in cooperation

with Friends of Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge and other partners, revise

Refuge interpretive brochures, handouts,

and other written materials as needed to

improve consistency and to meet Service

standards.

6. Within 1 year of the plan's approval, create

a custom audiovisual program that provides

visitors with orientation information about

the Refuge. Ensure this program and a

variety of other wildlife-related audiovisual

programs are made available for view at the

Visitor Center and for use in interpretive

programs.

7. Within 3 years of the plan's approval, establish and maintain an interpretive auto tour

route, using existing roads, that will facilitate opportunities for wildlife and cultural

resource observation and provide visitors

with an overview of the Refuge, its

resources, and its management. Include

identified stations with interpretive panels.

Objective 5

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge environmental education program so that 90 percent of participants gain a better understanding

and appreciation of the resources, purposes,

and value of the Refuge and the Refuge System.

Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts and encourage participants to

take positive actions on the Refuge and in their

community that support Refuge goals and the

Refuge System mission. 

Strategies

1. Promote the use of the Refuge as an outdoor classroom and incorporate national

environmental education guidelines and

state learning standards into programs and

materials. 

2. Manage the environmental education program as described in Service policy.

3. Within 2 years of the plan’s approval,

develop the environmental education portion of the Visitor Services Plan, outlining a

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach

structured to be compatible with state

learning standards and national environmental education guidelines. Emphasize

key Refuge resources, the Refuge, the

National Wildlife Refuge System, and

selected Refuge themes. These themes will

be based on importance to Refuge and System goals and relevance to surrounding

communities. All environmental education

materials, facilities, and programs will focus

on one or more of these Refuge themes,

along with the basic concepts of the Refuge

and the Refuge System. Refuge themes

may be in a storyline form that incudes

three or more themes. Themes may include:

exploring the diversity of wildlife, understanding the past, protecting the balance,

and communicating visitor opportunities.

4. Within 3 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with Friends of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, create an array of environmental education kits, each focusing on one or more
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

49

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

aspects of Refuge themes. Educational kits

will include interactive materials and a

detailed instructional and activity guide

designed with a clear, consistent format and

coordinated with state learning standards.

Develop and maintain a multi-faceted environmental education resource library, available for use by educators and in Refuge

educational programs, comprised of books,

videos, posters, audio tapes, written materials, and environmental education kits. 

5. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, establish

an environmental education complex that

incorporates an outdoor amphitheater with

educational displays, a set of associated

trails, the Refuge Visitor Center, and an

educator's trail specifically designed to

facilitate environmental education activities and function as an outdoor classroom. 

6. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, create an

Educator's Guide to Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge that provides an orientation, guidelines, grade-level and state learning standards information, maps, and sitespecific activities that focus on one or more

Refuge themes. Incorporate input from

area educators to ensure that the Refuge

guide meets area teachers' needs.

7. In cooperation with other partners, conduct

or host bi-annual teacher workshops that

encourage area educators to incorporate

environmental education into their curriculum and to utilize Refuge materials, staff,

and resources, both in the classroom and

during field trips. Within 5 years of the

plan's approval, develop a Refuge-specific

teacher workshop to demonstrate methods

for combining use of the Educator's Guide,

environmental education kits, and the educator's trail. Explore continuing education

credit options for all teacher workshops.

8. Over the life of the plan, establish a positive, cooperative relationship with educators and schools in surrounding

communities. Promote use of the Refuge,

environmental education resources, and

staff through e-mail newsletters to educators, the Refuge web page, informational

fliers and materials, targeted special

events, and involvement in area parentteacher and other organizations.

9. Continue currently-offered environmental

education programs done by request,

including on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Over the life of the plan, expand

the environmental education program to

include additional on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group

camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Develop pre- and post-visit activities in addition to on-site activities.

10. Over the life of the plan, establish partnerships with selected local schools, agencies,

and nonprofit organizations to more effectively develop and expand environmental

education programs. Involve volunteers in

educational programs and explore the

potential for environmental education

interns through Southern Illinois University and John A. Logan College. Explore

the potential for creating a grant program

to help area schools with field trip expenses.

11. Conduct a bi-annual review of the Refuge

environmental education program. Invite

feedback from area educators. Revise as

necessary.

Other Land- and Water-based Recreation Goal

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge when the

Refuge was established.

Background: The Refuge has not been able to provide and maintain facilities and services in support

of non-wildlife-dependent recreation at the level

expected by many visitors, as expressed in comments as part of this planning effort.

In order to better provide non-wildlife-dependent

recreation, under this alternative the portion of the

Refuge that supports the majority of non-wildlife

dependent recreation would be transferred to

Southern Illinois University in a land exchange. The

assumption is that SIU can provide more and better

quality facilities and services than the Refuge to

support boating, water skiing, swimming, picnicking

and camping. The Refuge would concentrate its

resources on improving the quality of the six priority wildlife-dependent uses. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

50

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Objective 1

Maintain the quality of non wildlife-dependent

recreation facilities and activities at the levels

offered in 2001 until facilities are transferred in

a land exchange. Improve the quality of facilities not a part of the exchange to industry standards within 5 years of completion of exchange.

Strategies

1. Maintain picnicking at Greenbriar, Wolf

Creek, Harmony Trail, and Visitor Center

recreation areas. Within 2 years of the land

exchange convert the Cambria Neck recreational area to foot traffic only.

2. Explore the potential for a bicycle route

within the restricted use area of the Refuge.

The route would run mainly along old railroad beds. 

3. Continue current policies on swimming at

Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy, and Crab

Orchard Lakes. Swimming is prohibited at

Devils Kitchen Lake, east of Wolf Creek

Causeway at Crab Orchard Lake, all

marina areas, and within 100 feet of all boat

ramps, spillways, causeways, and dams.

4. Within 5 years of the plan's approval,

upgrade boat ramps and associated parking

at Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy and Crab

Orchard Lakes.

5. Continue current policies on lake zoning on

Crab Orchard Lake (includes 150-foot nowake zone along shoreline) with an additional no-wake zone east of Highway 148

(see Figure 11). Implement the zoning of

motorized boating at Devils Kitchen Lake

(see Figure 12). Gas motors would be prohibited south of the southernmost boat

ramp on Devils Kitchen Lake and ponds

within the public use area of the Refuge . 

6. Horseback use on the Refuge would be confined to public roads and a designated River

to River Trail (see Figure 13) and erosion

due to trail use would be actively controlled

through maintenance and/or seasonal closures. . 

7. Camping at Devils Kitchen would be discontinued. Little Grassy Campground

would be upgraded to standards comparable to others in the area.

8. The Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club and

The Haven would be included in the land

exchange with SIU.

Customer Service Goal

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Background: Policy and guidance of the Service

directs each refuge to meet basic standards in hosting visitors. The guidance covers signs, kiosks, leaflets, facility and road maintenance, customer

service, and opportunities for visitor feedback.

Awareness of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge as a national wildlife refuge can also influence

visitor experience and enjoyment. 

Objective 1

Improve Refuge signs, kiosks, and facilities so

90 percent of visitors feel welcome and secure,

enjoy their visit, and recognize the area as a

national wildlife refuge.

Strategies

1. Within 5 years of the plan's approval,

develop and install distinct and consistent

identification markers that allow visitors to

recognize and distinguish between each

type of Refuge facility, including trails,

observation platforms, photography blinds,

bank fishing areas, public hunting areas,

and other similar locations. Design all such

markers in accordance with Service standards. 

2. Within 3 years of the plan's approval, revise

information on existing kiosks, trailhead

and other identification markers, boundary

signs, structures and other such signs as

necessary to meet Service standards.

3. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, create

and install additional kiosks where needed

at Refuge access points to ensure all visitors are greeted and informed that they are

entering a national wildlife refuge. Ensure

that all structures comply with Service

standards.

4. Verify annually that visitors are welcomed

and treated courteously by staff and volunteers. Confirm customer service standards

during employee and volunteer orientations. Provide visitors with opportunities

for feedback through suggestion cards, verbal reports, written mail, and e-mail
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

51

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 11: Crab Orchard Lake Watercraft Zoning Proposed Under Alternatives B, C, 

D and E
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

52

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 12: Devils Kitchen Lake Zoning, Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

53

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

through the Refuge web page. Address customer service issues promptly and professionally according to Service standards.

5. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop a Refuge brochure with detailed

information on accessible facilities, trails,

programs, and recreational opportunities at

the Refuge.

6. Conduct semi-annual safety inspections of

all Refuge facilities and reaffirm compliance with Service standards

7. Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that

clearly identify public hunting areas.

Increase awareness among non-hunting visitors of hunting areas and seasons through

effective signs and brochures.

8. Respond to notification of safety problems

and unsafe situations promptly and in

accordance with Service standards.

Increase visibility of Refuge law enforcement, particularly during periods of heavy

visitation.

2.6.3.4. Agricultural Goal

Agricultural Goal

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

Objective 1

Continue farming operations on about 4,400

acres of row crops with greater emphasis on

conservation practices.

Figure 13: Proposed Horseback Riding Trails on Crab Orchard NWR Under 

Alternatives B, C and E
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

54

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Strategy

1. Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in

support of agricultural operations. Identify

and drop farmed wetlands from the farm

program. Permit cooperator to harvest corn

remaining in the field in the spring. Emphasize Johnsongrass control. Prohibit mowing

of clover in the crop rotation until after

August 1. Enlist technical oversight from

Natural Resource Conservation Service

and University of Illinois Extension.

Objective 2

Continue farming operations on about 700 acres

of hay fields with greater emphasis on conservation practices.

Strategy

1. Prohibit mowing of hay until after August 1.

Maintain an updated rate charge for hay.

Objective 3

Enhance nesting habitat for grassland birds

while maintaining or increasing the value for

grazing on about 1,000 acres of pastures.

Strategy

1. Convert fescue pastures to other cool-season grasses and native warm season

grasses with higher wildlife value. Divide

existing pastures into three or four paddocks with a paddock of cool season grass

and two or three paddocks of native warm

season grasses. Rotate grazing cattle

among the paddocks during the season.

Enlist technical oversight from Natural

Resource Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension.

2.6.3.5. Industrial Goal

Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards, that are

utilized by compatible tenants.

Background: Industry began in the area during

World War II. When the Refuge was established it

was given an industrial purpose, because industry

was seen as a way of improving the economy of the

area. The war time industry and some subsequent

industrial tenants have contaminated the soils and

waters of the Refuge. Providing the water and

sewer infrastructure in support of industry has been

difficult for the Refuge to accomplish. Most of the

manufacturing and storage buildings are reaching

the limits of their expected lifetime. The buildings

require a lot of maintenance and refurbishing to

meet today's standards. Recently, several industrial

parks have been developed in the area that offer

amenities not available on the Refuge. Of the industries on the Refuge, the munitions industry is in a

unique position of requiring widely spaced facilities

for safety. By providing a safe area for munitions

manufacture, the Refuge is able to contribute to and

support the national defense. Under this alternative, the Refuge would continue to provide an area

for defense munitions manufacture. The Service

would seek not to compete with neighboring industrial parks. The Refuge would maintain roads and

provide water and sewer services sufficient for current industrial tenants. Tenants would be expected

to bring their facilities up to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards

under any new leases. If tenants do not renew

leases, the Refuge would seek new tenants for facilities that continue to be suitable for occupancy.

Under this alternative the intent would be to consolidate the areas occupied by industry.

Objective 1

Consolidate the areas occupied by industry.

Strategies

1. Update Industrial Policy. Maintain the current infrastructure to support existing facilities.

2. Remove buildings that are no longer suitable for occupancy for reasons of contamination, safety or lack of structural integrity

and restore to natural habitats. 

2.6.3.6. Boundary Modification

The authorized Refuge boundary would expand

to include land proposed for exchange with Southern Illinois University and additional lands contiguous with the current Refuge boundary.

Background: The Washington Office of the Service

approved the study of potential additional Refuge

lands in 1990. The Refuge did not pursue the study

of additional lands until the CCP process. The CCP

planning effort was the logical time to re-examine

all management and land protection issues related

to the Refuge. So, during the CCP effort we again

looked at the possible need to adjust the boundary

of the Refuge. Land acquisition and subsequent

habitat management would enhance the purposes of
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

55

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

the Refuge and offer additional protection to existing lands as development accelerates along Refuge

boundaries.

Land Exchange 

Early in this planning process, the Service indicated an interest in exchanging land developed for

non-wildlife-dependent recreation, such as camping

and marina operations, for undeveloped land adjoining the Refuge. Southern Illinois University (SIU)

and the Service agreed upon a framework for a land

exchange that included the following: 

# The Service would exchange approximately 500

acres located in the northwest corner of the

Refuge for approximately 1,700 acres of land

owned by SIU located south and west of the

current Refuge boundary (see Figure 14 and

Figure 8 on page 40). 

# Parcels in the 500 acres of Refuge land include

the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, The

Haven, Crab Orchard Campground, Look Out

Point, Take Pride Point (formerly Hogan's

Point) and the marina areas also known as

Playport and Images. The land cover types

include approximately 125 acres of developed

land, 150 acres of pine forest, 150 acres of

hardwood forest, 40 acres of agricultural fields,

and 40 acres of grassland/shrubland.

# The land currently owned by the Service would

be exchanged with SIU with the expectation of

complementing the University's academic

mission. Each of the above mentioned parcels

would be managed according to a mutually

agreeable plan that essentially permits the

continuation of existing non-wildlife-dependent

recreational uses and developing additional

facilities. (A letter from SIU to the Service

outlining the proposed uses can be found in

Appendix I.)

# The Service would retain a flowage easement on

lands exchanged with SIU. Additionally, the

Service would maintain a reversionary interest

such that if the lands were no longer used as

outlined in the letter in Appendix I, the land or

individual parcels would revert back to Service

ownership.

# The Service would manage the lands received

from SIU as forest habitat. The area would be

open to the public for wildlife-dependent

recreation. This second growth forest, with

proper management and time, may reach a

quality sufficient for its designation as

Wilderness. The approximate acreage for the

current land cover types of the SIU property

are: 8 acres of pine forest, 1,569 acres of

hardwood forest, and 122 acres of old fields.

Contiguous Lands

A proposed modification of the Refuge boundary

could result in the addition of approximately 4,242

acres to the Refuge. The boundary modification

would allow the acquisition of inholdings from willing sellers and moving segments of the boundary to

coincide with roads that would better define the limits of the Refuge. The boundary modification would

increase the efficiency of management, reduce

incompatible land uses, and enhance public use

opportunities.

Currently, if a landowner wishes to sell or

exchange land that is outside the authorized boundary of the Refuge, the Service must complete an

analysis for the individual parcel and complete environmental documents related to the transaction.

This tract-by-tract analysis is inefficient and does

not provide for an overall, cumulative analysis of the

land transactions. The separate analysis also may

delay a land transaction to the detriment of the

seller.

The inholdings, boundary modification, and adjacent protected lands are depicted in Figure 14. A

more detailed analysis of the boundary modification

is presented in a Land Protection Plan (Appendix

L).

The priority for acquisition of parcels would be

determined by Refuge purposes; goals and objectives of the CCP; the potential to contribute to an

unfragmented landscape component of forest or

grassland; and pending development. Habitat

within the proposed modified boundary includes

approximately 2,000 acres of farmland, some of

which has reverted back to grasses, brush and hardwoods. The other land is composed of a combination

of pasture, old field and mixed stands of oak, hickory, sycamore and tulip-poplar.

Service policy is to buy land only from willing

sellers. The policy is that no rights of landowners or

citizens would be transferred without the willing

participation of the individuals owning land or rights

to the land, including appropriate just-compensation

for those rights. The Service is required to make

purchase offers based on fair market value that

matches the price of comparable land in the area.

It is also Service policy to seek the least amount

of land ownership necessary to meet resource protection goals. Fee title acquisition is only one option
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

56

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 14: Crab Orchard NWR Inholdings, Boundary Modification, and Adjacent 

Protected Lands
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

57

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

available to the landowner and the Service. Conservation easements, cooperative agreements and

other options may meet conservation objectives for

some parcels.

The Service would evaluate any lands that it may

acquire for potential contamination. We do not

anticipate finding any contamination, which would

hinder the Service's ability to achieve the Refuge

purposes, in the area of proposed expansion. The

extent of possible contamination is expected to be

limited to levels associated with residences and

small farming operations.

Any acquired lands would become part of the

Refuge. The annual costs for administration, operations and maintenance would be lower than acquiring non-adjacent lands. Operation costs would

ultimately depend upon the amount of land purchased in fee and easement and habitat restoration

requirements.

2.6.4 Alternative C: Open Land 

Management/Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation

2.6.4.1. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese Goal

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Goal, background and objectives are the same as

those listed under Alternative A.

Strategy

1. Maintain 4,800 acres of cropland in agricultural production. (Figure 15). Manage 500

acres of moist-soil units. Continue fall mowing around selected ponds. Maintain seasonal closure to boating on east end of Crab

Orchard Lake.

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Objective 1

Manage the southern portion of the Refuge as a

large forest block to benefit area-sensitive forest birds. This area (about 9,500 acres) extends

south from Grassy Road and includes the Crab

Orchard Wilderness.

Strategy

1. Reforest 1 fallow field (52 acres) south of

Grassy Road. This may include site preparation, planting a cover crop, planting tree

seedlings, and weed control treatments.

Objective 2

Accelerate succession of pine plantations south

of Grassy Road and outside the Wilderness

(about 650 acres) to native hardwood forest. 

2. Thin pine plantations to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. Most

silvicultural treatments will be conducted

under contract by commercial timber harvesting firms. Conduct prescribed burning

during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3 to 5-year cycle to

enhance habitat conditions and promote

desirable hardwood regeneration. 

Objective 3

Same as Alternative B (page 44).

Strategy

Same as Alternative B (page 39).

Objective 4

Same as Alternative B (page 44).

Strategy

Same as Alternative B (page 44).

Objective 5

Same as Alternative B (page 44).

Strategy

Same as Alternative B (page 44).

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

Objectives and strategies same as Alternative B

(page 45). 

 Water Quality Goal

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Objectives and strategies same as Alternative A

(page 45).
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

58

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 15: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 

2015
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

59

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 16: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative C, Projected Conditions 

2100
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

60

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

2.6.4.2. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education Goal

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Background: The Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997 identified six wildlife-dependent, priority public uses that should be facilitated on national

wildlife refuges if compatible with the purposes of

the Refuge. These priority uses, which include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

interpretation, and environmental education, are

compatible and can be facilitated at the Refuge.

While all of these uses are provided at the Refuge to

an extent, support for some of these uses has been

inconsistent and the quality of the experience has

been variable. The Refuge can provide high-quality

experiences for these priority wildlife-dependent

uses through improvement of supporting facilities,

programs, and materials over the next 15 years. A

high-quality experience includes uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other users, a reasonable

opportunity, and overall satisfaction. Understanding and appreciation of Refuge resources, management strategies, and purposes also contribute to

quality of experience and influence visitor enjoyment.

Objective 1

Increase the quality of hunting opportunities to

a level where 75 percent of hunters experience

uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and

satisfaction with their overall experience. Instill

a sense of awareness among hunters of the Refuge as a component of the National Wildlife

Refuge System and of hunting as a wildlife

management tool. 

Rationale: Without the land exchange, the management of non-wildlife-dependent recreation

would reduce the visitor services staff's ability

to provide the quality of services for wildlifedependent recreation anticipated in Alternative

B. 

Strategies

1. In the public hunting area of the Refuge,

continue the policy of providing hunting

opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and federal regulations.

2. In the restricted use area of the Refuge,

maintain current hunting opportunities by

permit during shotgun deer and spring

shotgun turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun

deer season hunting opportunities for youth

and persons with disabilities and, within 3

years of the plan's approval, provide these

groups with opportunities for spring shotgun turkey season hunting when populations warrant.

3. Administer goose hunts in the controlled

area through an agreement with a partner

organization. 

4. Over the life of the plan, promote ethical

hunting behavior and increase hunter

adherence to federal and state regulations

through effective informational brochures

and signs. Increase the visibility of Refuge

law enforcement.

5. Over the life of the plan, enhance public

understanding of Refuge hunting opportunities, ethical behaviors, the role of hunting

in wildlife management, and the Refuge as

a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System by increasing the quality of

maps, signs, and brochures. 

Objective 2

Increase the quality of fishing opportunities to a

level where 75 percent of anglers experience

uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and

satisfaction with their overall experience. At

least 75 percent of anglers understand the

issues, strategies, and policies involved in Refuge fisheries management and conservation. 

Strategies

1. In the public fishing areas, continue the policy of providing fishing opportunities based

on state and federal regulations.

2. Continue current policies on tournaments

and fish-offs conducted on the Refuge. Continue current policies on limited closures of

Refuge waters east of Wolf Creek Road. 

3. Continue to provide bank and boat fishing

opportunities in accordance with state and

federal regulations. Maintain existing Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking

facilities. Study the feasibility for and con-
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

61

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

struct accessible fishing facilities at Little

Grassy and Devils Kitchen Lakes within 4

years of the plan’s approval.

4. Over the life of the plan, promote Refuge

fishing opportunities and encourage conservation practices, such as catch-and-release

fishing, through the development and maintenance of high-quality maps, signs, brochures and the Refuge web page. 

5. Ensure that the fishing public clearly

understands the fish consumption advisories for Crab Orchard Lake through signs

and brochures.

6. Over the life of the plan, provide insight to

anglers regarding Refuge strategies,

issues, and policies for fisheries management and conservation by redesigning and

developing more effective informational

signs and brochures. Increase angler

awareness of the Refuge as a component of

the National Wildlife Refuge System by

improving the quality and content of maps,

signs, and brochures.

Objective 3

Objective and strategies for wildlife observation

and photography same as Alternative B

(page 46).

Objective 4

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge interpretive program so that 70 percent of visitors

gain a better understanding of three primary

concepts: (1) the value and unique purposes of

the Refuge, (2) the Refuge as a component of

the national network of refuges, and (3) the significance and mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts. Encourage

visitors to adopt ethical behaviors and to take

positive actions that support Refuge goals and

the Refuge System mission.

Strategies

1. Within 3 years of the plan's approval,

develop the interpretation portion of the

Visitor Services Plan outlining a comprehensive, multifaceted approach emphasizing selected themes and key Refuge

resources. Themes will be selected based on

importance to Refuge and System goals and

relevance to surrounding communities. All

interpretive materials, tours, and programs will focus on one or more of these

Refuge themes, along with the three basic

concepts of the Refuge and Refuge System.

Refuge interpretive themes may be in a storyline form that includes three or more

themes. Themes may include: Exploring

the Diversity of Wildlife, Understanding

the Past, Protecting the Balance, and Communicating Visitor Opportunities.

2. Within 4 years of the plan's approval, renovate and replace damaged and outdated

interpretive and information panels on Refuge kiosks, wayside exhibits, trails, ramps,

structures and other facilities. Ensure all

panels comply with Service standards.

3. In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and

other partners, conduct a variety of high

quality interpretive programs annually.

Continue popular and established interpretive programs and special events, such as

the Families Understanding Nature program and National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Ensure interpretive programming remains

current and dynamic by continually creating new programs, incorporating new ideas,

updating information, and revitalizing

ongoing programs. Focus each interpretive

program on one or more Refuge themes. 

4. Over the life of the plan and in cooperation

with Friends of Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge and other partners, revise

Refuge interpretive brochures, handouts,

and other written materials as needed to

improve consistency and to meet Service

standards.

5. Within 1 year of the plan's approval, create

a custom audiovisual program that provides

visitors with orientation information about
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

62

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

the Refuge. Ensure this program and a

variety of other wildlife-related audiovisual

programs are made available for viewing at

the Visitor Center and for use in interpretive programs.

6. Within 3 years of the plan's approval, establish and maintain an interpretive auto tour

route, using existing roads, that will facilitate opportunities for wildlife and cultural

resource observation and provide visitors

with an overview of the Refuge, its

resources, and its management. Include

identified stations with interpretive panels

and corresponding, radio-broadcasted

interpretive messages.

Objective 5

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge environmental education program so that 75 percent of participants gain a better understanding

and appreciation of the resources, purposes,

and value of the Refuge and the Refuge System.

Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts and encourage participants to

take positive actions on the Refuge and in their

community that support Refuge goals and the

Refuge System mission. 

Strategies

1. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop the environmental education portion of the Visitor Services Plan, outlining a

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach

structured to be compatible with state

learning standards and national environmental education guidelines. Emphasize

key Refuge resources, the Refuge, the

National Wildlife Refuge System, and

selected Refuge themes. These themes will

be based on importance to Refuge and System goals and relevance to surrounding

communities. All environmental education

materials, facilities, and programs will focus

on one or more of these Refuge themes,

along with the basic concepts of the Refuge

and the Refuge System. Refuge themes

may be in a storyline form that incudes

three or more themes. Themes may include:

Exploring the Diversity of Wildlife, Understanding the Past, Protecting the Balance,

and Communicating Visitor Opportunities.

2. Within 3 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with Friends of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, create an array of environmental education kits, each focusing on one or more

aspects of Refuge themes. Educational kits

will include interactive materials and a

detailed instructional and activity guide

designed with a clear, consistent format and

coordinated with state learning standards.

Develop and maintain a multi-faceted environmental education resource library, available for use by educators and in Refuge

educational programs, comprised of books,

videos, posters, audio tapes, written materials, and environmental education kits. 

3. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, establish

an environmental education complex that

incorporates an outdoor amphitheater with

educational displays, a set of associated

trails, the Refuge Visitor Center, and an

educator's trail specifically designed to

facilitate environmental education activities and function as an outdoor classroom. 

4. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, create an

Educator's Guide to Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge that provides an orientation, guidelines, grade-level and state learning standards information, maps, and sitespecific activities that focus on one or more

Refuge themes. Incorporate input from

area educators to ensure the Refuge guide

meets area teachers’ needs.

5. In cooperation with other partners, conduct

or host annual teacher workshops that

encourage area educators to incorporate

environmental education into their curriculum and to utilize Refuge materials, staff,

and resources, both in the classroom and

during field trips. 

6. Continue currently-offered environmental

education programs done by request,

including on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Over the life of the plan, expand

the environmental education program to

include additional on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group

camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Develop pre- and post-visit activities in addition to on-site activities.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

63

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

7. Over the life of the plan, establish partnerships with selected local schools, agencies,

and nonprofit organizations to more effectively develop and expand environmental

education programs. Involve volunteers in

educational programs and explore the

potential for environmental education

interns through Southern Illinois University and John A. Logan College. Explore

the potential for creating a grant program

to help area schools with field trip expenses.

8. Conduct an annual review of the Refuge

environmental education program. Invite

feedback from area educators. Revise as

necessary.

Other Land- and Water-based Recreation Goal

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge when the

Refuge was established.

Background: There is a recognized need to

improve the facilities at the Refuge. Under current

trends of resource allocation, the current facilities

can not be maintained at acceptable standards.

Under this alternative, the intent would be to

reduce the facilities so that the quality could be

improved.

A conflict has existed between anglers and highspeed watercraft. A 150-foot no-wake zone along the

shoreline of Crab Orchard Lake would reduce this

conflict. This alternative establishes a no-wake zone

east of Highway 148.

The Haven and the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht

Club are available only to a limited segment of the

general population. The facilities and activities at

these clubs amount to private use of public land. Our

long-term goal is to make these areas available to a

broader portion of the public.

The Haven is a 10-acre site located on the north

side of Crab Orchard Lake, near the Highway 13

and Cambria Neck Road intersection. This site has

been leased to the Egyptian Past Commanders Club

of the American Legion since 1948 for the benefit

and enjoyment of disabled veterans primarily from

the Marion Veterans Hospital and the Anna State

Hospital. The Haven includes a one-story lodge

building, and several outside picnic sites, that are

used for day visits by veterans for recreation and

socializing. During the length of the planning period

established for this Refuge CCP (next 15 years), the

Refuge Staff will work collaboratively with the

Egyptian Past Commanders Club to evaluate the

effectiveness of this facility in achieving the purpose

of Haven’s establishment, and to make recommendations for its future use. 

We will extend the lease of the Crab Orchard

Boat & Yacht Club for two years after the approval

of the Refuge CCP. After the lease expires, we will

convert the operation of the club facilities to a concession contract. This would end what amounts to

private use of public land and make the facilities

available to a wider portion of the public. 

Objective 1

Improve the quality of boat launches, marinas,

beaches, picnic areas, and campground to industry standards within the life of the CCP.

Strategies

1. Maintain picnicking at the Refuge recreational areas of Greenbriar, Wolf Creek,

Harmony Trail, Cambria Neck, Playport

Marina and the Visitor Center. Explore the

option of concession-operated picnic shelters at Little Grassy and Crab Orchard

Campgrounds.

2. Explore the potential for a bicycle route

within the restricted use area of the Refuge.

The route would run mainly along old railroad beds. 

3. Continue current policies on swimming at

Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy, and Crab

Orchard Lakes.

4. Within 10 years of the plan's approval,

upgrade boat ramps and associated parking

at Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy and Crab

Orchard lakes.

5. Continue current zoning on Crab Orchard

Lake with additional no wake zones (see

Figure 11 on page 51). Gas motors would

be permitted at Devils Kitchen Lake.

6. Horseback use on the Refuge would be confined to a designated River to River Trail

(see Figure 13 on page 53) and erosion due

to trail use would be actively controlled

through maintenance and/or seasonal closures. 

7. Camping at Devils Kitchen would be discontinued. Crab Orchard and Little Grassy

Campgrounds would be upgraded to standards comparable to others in the area.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

64

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

8. Within 2 years of the plan's approval, consolidate Playport and Images marinas on

Crab Orchard Lake. Images marina slips

will be moved to Playport marina. Within 5

years of the plan's approval, remove the

building at Images Marina and develop the

area into a large access area to the lake with

a comfort station.

9. After 2 years of the completion of the CCP,

the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club will

be converted to a concession.

Customer Service Goal

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Background: Policy and guidance of the Service

directs each refuge to meet basic standards in hosting visitors. The guidance covers signs, kiosks, leaflets, facility and road maintenance, customer

service, and opportunities for visitor feedback.

Awareness of Crab Orchard NWR as a national

wildlife refuge can also influence visitor experience

and enjoyment. 

Objective 1

Improve Refuge signs, kiosks, and facilities so

that 90 percent of visitors feel welcome and

secure, enjoy their visit, and recognize the area

as a national wildlife refuge.

Strategies

1. Within 3 years of the plan's approval, revise

information on existing kiosks, trailhead

and other identification markers, boundary

signs, and other such signs as necessary to

meet Service standards.

2. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, create

and install additional kiosks where needed

at Refuge access points to ensure that all

visitors are greeted and informed that they

are entering a national wildlife refuge.

Ensure that all structures comply with Service standards.

3. Verify annually that visitors are welcomed

and treated courteously by staff and volunteers. Confirm customer service standards

during employee and volunteer orientations. Provide visitors with opportunities

for feedback through suggestion cards, verbal reports, written mail, and e-mail

through the Refuge web page. Address customer service issues promptly and professionally according to Service standards.

4. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop a Refuge brochure with detailed

information on accessible facilities, trails,

programs, and recreational opportunities at

the Refuge.

5. Conduct semi-annual safety inspections of

all Refuge facilities and reaffirm compliance with Service standards.

6. Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that

clearly identify public hunting areas.

Increase awareness among non-hunting visitors of hunting areas and seasons through

effective signs and brochures.

7. Respond to notification of safety problems

and unsafe situations promptly and in

accordance with Service standards.

Increase visibility of Refuge law enforcement, particularly during periods of heavy

visitation.

2.6.4.3. Agricultural Goal

Agricultural Goal

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

Objective 1

Continue farming operations on about 4,500

acres of row crops, and reclaim and farm about

300 acres of former fields, with greater emphasis on conservation practices.

Strategies

Same as Alternative B (page 54).

Objectives and strategies for pastures are the

same as Alternative B (page 54).

Objectives and strategies for hay fields are the

same as Alternative A (page 54).

2.6.4.4. Industrial Goal

Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards. 

Objective 1

Consolidate the areas occupied by industry.

Strategies

1. Non-munitions-related tenants would not

be replaced as they leave the Refuge.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

65

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

2. Remove buildings that are no longer suitable for occupancy for reasons of contamination, safety or lack of structural integrity

and restore to natural habitats. 

2.6.4.5. Boundary Modification

The authorized Refuge boundary would expand

to include additional lands contiguous with the current Refuge boundary.

The proposed boundary modification is depicted

in Figure 14 on page 56. The background discussion

of this proposed modification is presented under

Alternative B..

2.6.5 Alternative D: Forest Land 

Management/Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation

2.6.5.1. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese Goal 

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Goal, background, and objectives same as Alternative A (page 32).

Strategy

1. Maintain 4,300 acres of cropland in agricultural production (Figure 17). Manage 450

acres of moist-soil units. Continue fall mowing around selected ponds. Maintain seasonal closure to boating on the east end of

Crab Orchard Lake.

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Objectives and strategies for reforestation,

management of pine plantations, and management of early successional habitat are the same

as Alternative B (page 41). 

Objective 1

Objectives and strategies for native warm-season grassland are the same as Alternative B

(page 41). 

Objective 2

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 500 acres of

hay fields, and about 1,500 acres of clover fields

with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds, along with an emphasis on cattle production on pastures.

Strategy

1. Remove 15 acres of linear forest habitat and

2 miles of hedge rows. Increase forage

diversity in fescue pastures by adding

legumes, other cool-season or warm-season

grasses by reseeding or interseeding. Subdivide larger pastures for rotational grazing

to increase cattle production. All mowing of

hay fields, pastures, and clover fields will

take place after August 1. 

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

Objectives and strategies are the same as Alternative A (page 36).

Water Quality Goal

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Objectives and strategies are the same as Alternative A (page 36).
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

66

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 17: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 

2015
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

67

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 18: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, Alternative D, Projected Conditions 

2100
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

68

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

2.6.5.2. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education Goal

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Objectives and strategies for hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education are the

same as Alternative C (page 60).

Other Land- and Water-based Recreation Goal

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge when the

Refuge was established.

Objectives and strategies for other land- and

water-based recreation are the same as Alternative C except that horseback use would be

prohibited on the Refuge and gas motors would

be prohibited on Devils Kitchen Lake.

Customer Service Goal

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Objectives and strategies for customer service

are the same as Alternative C (page 64).

2.6.5.3. Agricultural Goal

Agricultural Goal

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

Background: Under this alternative the emphasis

would be on producer benefits. Decisions that

involve a compromise between agricultural goals

and wildlife goals would be weighted toward the

agricultural goals.

Objective 1

Continue farming operations on about 4,300

acres of row crops with greater emphasis on

conservation practices, along with reasonable

allowances to cooperators.

Strategy

1. Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in

support of agricultural operations. Address

erosion with buffer strips. Drop small, less

profitable fields (less than 5 acres) from row

cropping and convert to other cover (about

15 fields totaling 52 acres). Identify and

drop farmed wetlands from the farm program. Permit cooperator to harvest corn

remaining in the field in the spring. Emphasize Johnsongrass control, for example:

allow cooperators to adjust rotation by

planting soybeans in two successive years

in one field annually. Prohibit mowing of

clover in the crop rotation until after

August 1. Enlist technical oversight from

Natural Resource Conservation Service

and University of Illinois Extension.

Objective 2

Continue farming operations on about 500 acres

of hay fields with greater emphasis on conservation practices.

Strategy

1. Prohibit mowing of hay until after August 1.

Maintain an updated rate charge for hay.

Objective 3

Continue farming operations on about 1,000

acres of pasture with greater emphasis on conservation practices, along with reasonable

allowances to cooperators. 

Strategy

1. Remove 15 acres of linear forest habitat and

2 miles of hedge rows. Increase forage

diversity in fescue pastures by adding

legumes, other cool-season or warm-season

grasses by reseeding or inter-seeding. Subdivide larger pastures for rotational grazing

to increase cattle production. All mowing

would take place after August 1. Enlist

technical oversight from Natural Resource

Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension.

2.6.5.4. Industrial Goal

Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards.

Objective and strategies are the same as Alternative C (page 64).

2.6.5.5. Boundary Modification

Same as Alternative C (page 65).
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

69

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

2.6.6 Alternative E: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation/Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation (Preferred 

Alternative)

2.6.6.1. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Canada Geese Goal

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Goal, background, and objective same as Alternative A (page 32).

Strategy

1. Maintain 4,300 acres of cropland in agricultural production (see Figure 9 on page 42).

Manage 450 acres of moist-soil units. Continue fall mowing around selected ponds.

Maintain seasonal closure to boating on the

east end of Crab Orchard Lake.

Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Objectives and strategies for reforestation,

management of pine plantations, management

of early successional habitat, and management

for native warm-season grasslands are the same

as Alternative B.

Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds Goal

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

Objective and strategies are the same as Alternative B (page 45).

Water Quality Goal

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Objective and strategies are the same as Alternative B (page 45).

2.6.6.2. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education Goal

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural and cultural

resources and their management.

Objectives and strategies for hunting, fishing,

wildlife-observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education are the

same as Alternative C (page 60).

Other Land- and Water-based Recreation Goal

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge when the

Refuge was established.

Objectives and strategies for other land- and

water-based recreation are the same as Alternative C (page 63) except that gas motors would

be prohibited south of the southern-most boat

ramp on Devils Kitchen Lake and ponds within

the public use area of the Refuge.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

70

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

Customer Service Goal

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Objectives and strategies for customer service

are the same as Alternative C (page 64).

2.6.6.3. Agricultural Goal

Agricultural Goal

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

Objectives and strategies for agriculture are the

same as Alternative B (page 53).

2.6.6.4. Industrial Goal

Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards.

Objective and strategies for industry are the

same as Alternative B (page 54).

2.6.6.5. Boundary Modification

The authorized Refuge boundary would expand

to include additional lands contiguous with the current Refuge boundary.

The proposed boundary modification is depicted

in Figure 14 on page 56. The background discussion

of this proposed modification is presented under

Alternative B (page 54).

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives

2.7.1 Comparison of Funding and 

Personnel Needs by Alternative

2.7.1.1. Alternative A: Current Management (No 

Action)

Under this alternative, funding and personnel

would remain the same.

2.7.1.2. Alternative B: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation/ Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Emphasis With Land Exchange 

Habitat management increases under this alternative. Reforestation, aggressive control of invasive

species, an increase in the number of acres managed

as moist soil units, and improvements to the open

land units would require additional staff and operating funds. A person with expertise in agriculture

and invasive species would be added to the biological

program staff. Also, a person with expertise in Geographic Information Systems would be needed to

assist the biological staff with mapping and record

keeping for invasive species control and other habitat work. Maintenance staff efforts would shift from

the campground and marina operations that would

be traded to SIU to assist with the increased habitat

work.

Emphasis on recreation would focus on wildlifedependent activities such as hunting, fishing, and

environmental education. To improve the quality of

services, the Refuge would add a position in the visitor information center to assist with administrative

duties, freeing up the park rangers to provide environmental education and interpretive opportunities.

Law enforcement efforts would shift from campgrounds and marinas that would be traded to SIU to

resource protection on other parts the Refuge.

Funds for new signs, kiosks, courtesy boat docks,

improvements to the Little Grassy Campground,

trails, and environmental education would be

required.

The addition of the new strategies to meet the

goals and objectives of this alternative would

require a 15 percent increase in the Refuge's current operations and maintenance budget.

2.7.1.3. Alternative C: Open Land Management/

Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Habitat management under this alternative

focuses on open land. Many of the new habitat

projects found in Alternative B would be undertaken in this alternative. The two new biological

staff positions mentioned above would be added

under this alternative. A seasonal tractor operator

would need to be hired under this alternative to help

accomplish the habitat work. This position is not

necessary under Alternative B because the land

exchange would allow the shifting of maintenance

workers from the marina and campground work to

habitat work.

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative has

an increased focus on wildlife-dependent uses. The

management of the campgrounds and marinas

would reduce the visitor services staff's ability to

provide the quality of services anticipated in Alternative B. The additional staff person to help with the

administration of the visitor information center is

included in this alternative.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

71

The completion of the consolidation of the Playport and formerImages Marinas would occur under

this alternative. Funds would be required to move

the remainder of the docks from the Images area,

removal of the concession building and construction

of a boat ramp.

An increase in funding similar to Alternative B

would be needed for this alternative.

2.7.1.4. Alternative D: Forest Land Management/

Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Habitat management under this alternative

would focus on forests. Under this alternative the

additions to the biological staff would be the Geographic Information System Specialist and a biological technician. The biological technician would

assist with invasive species control and forestry

work.

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative has a

greater focus on wildlife-dependent uses. The management of the campgrounds and marinas would

reduce the visitor services staff's ability to provide

the quality of services anticipated in Alternative B.

The additional staff person to help with the administration of the visitor information center is included

in this alternative.

The completion of the consolidation of the former

Images and Playport Marinas would occur under

this alternative. Funds would be required to move

the remainder of the docks from the Images area,

removal of the concession building and construction

of a boat ramp.

Funding of the Refuge's operations and maintenance budget would need to increase about 10 percent if this alternative is implemented.

2.7.1.5. Alternative E: Reduced Habitat 

Fragmentation/Consolidate and Improve Recreation 

(Preferred Alternative)

Habitat management increases under this alternative. Reforestation, aggressive control of invasive

species, an increase in the number of acres managed

as moist soil units, and improvements to the open

land units would require additional staff and operating funds. A person with expertise in agriculture

and invasive species would be added to the biological

program staff. Also, a person with expertise in Geographic Information Systems would be needed to

assist the biological staff with mapping and record

keeping for invasive species control and other habitat work. A seasonal tractor operator would need to

be hired under this alternative to help accomplish

the habitat work. This position is not necessary

under Alternative B because the land exchange

would allow the shifting of maintenance workers

from the marina and campground work to habitat

work.

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative has

an increased focus on wildlife-dependent uses. The

management of the campgrounds and marinas

would reduce the visitor services staff's ability to

provide the quality of services anticipated in Alternative B. An additional staff person to help with the

administration of the visitor information center is

included in this alternative.

The completion of the consolidation of the Playport and former Images Marinas would occur under

this alternative. Funds would be required to move

the remainder of the docks from the Images area,

removal of the concession building and construction

of a boat ramp.

An increase in funding similar to Alternative B

would be needed for this alternative. 
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

72

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Wildlife Conservation

Threatened/Endangered Species

Management 

activities would 

protect Bald 

Eagle and Indiana 

bat.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Canada Goose Provide food for 

6.4 million gooseuse-days annually.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Resident Fish and

Wildlife

Manage mixedspecies, warmwater sport fish 

population. 

Manage resident 

wildlife species at 

levels that allow 

hunting 

opportunities.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Forest Birds Reforest 240 

acres. 

Reforest 490 

acres. 

Reforest 52 acres. Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B.

 Prescribed Fire Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

3,300 acres pine 

plantations.

Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

3,300 acres pine 

plantations.

Prescribed 

burning and 

thinning on about 

650 acres pine 

plantations.

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B.

Early Successional

Birds

All early 

successional 

habitat matures.

Maintain about 

300 acres of early 

successional 

habitat.

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B.
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

73

Grassland Birds Maintain 240 

acres of native 

warm season 

prairie. Maintain 

3,300 acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1.

Maintain 260 

acres of native 

warm season 

prairie. Maintain 

3,300 acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1. Remove 

124 acres of linear 

forest habitat and 

8 miles of hedge 

row. Convert 

fescue grasses in 

pastures to more 

desirable wildlife 

grasses.

Same as Alt. B. Maintain 260 

acres of native 

warm season 

prairie. Maintain 

3,000 acres of 

agricultural 

grasslands. Delay 

mowing until after 

August 1. Remove 

15 acres of linear 

forest habitat and 

2 miles of hedge 

row.

Same as Alt. B.

 Prescribed Fire Prescribed 

burning on 240 

acres of native 

prairie.

Prescribed 

burning on 260 

acres of native 

prairie.

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B.

Ducks, Shorebirds and

Other Waterfowl

Manage 450 acres 

of moist soil units.

Manage 500 acres 

of moist soil units 

by constructing 50 

to 70 acres of new 

units.

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Water Quality Continue use of 

soil and water 

protection 

measures.

Continue use of 

soil and water 

protection 

measures, plus 

establish more 

buffer strips and 

keep livestock 

away from 

streams. Work 

with landowners 

to improve quality 

of water within 

Refuge 

watersheds. 

Identify and drop 

farmed wetlands 

from the farm 

program.

Continue use of 

soil and water 

protection 

measures, plus 

establish more 

buffer strips and 

keep livestock 

away from 

streams. Identify 

and drop farmed 

wetlands from the 

farm program.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. B.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

74

Recreation

Hunting and Fishing Hunting and 

fishing programs 

as offered in 2001.

Strive to provide 

quality experience 

for 90 percent of 

participants. 

Additional 

hunting programs 

to encourage nontraditional 

participants.

Strive to provide 

quality experience 

for 75 percent of 

participants. 

Additional 

hunting programs 

to encourage nontraditional 

participants.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. C.

Wildlife Observation

and Photography

Provide programs 

as offered in 2001.

Strive to provide 

quality experience 

for 95 percent of 

participants. 

Increase number 

and quality of 

services and 

facilities.

Strive to provide 

quality experience 

for 85 percent of 

participants. 

Some increase in 

number and 

quality of services 

and facilities.

Strive to provide 

quality experience 

for 70 percent of 

participants. 

Slight increase in 

number and 

quality of services 

and facilities.

Same as Alt. C.

Interpretation and

Environmental

Education

Provide programs 

as offered in 2001.

Strive for better 

understanding of 

conservation and 

stewardship 

concepts among 

85 percent of 

participants. 

Increase number 

and quality of 

services and 

facilities.

Strive for better 

understanding of 

conservation and 

stewardship 

concepts among 

70 percent of 

participants. 

Some increase in 

number and 

quality of services 

and facilities.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. C.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

75

Non-wildlifedependent Land

Based Recreation

Maintain four 

campgrounds and 

four group camps. 

Length of stay at 

campgrounds 

would be limited 

to 14 days. 

Existing picnic 

areas would be 

maintained.

Two campgrounds 

would become the 

responsibility of 

SIU. Refuge 

would improve 

and maintain 

campground at 

Little Grassy 

Lake. Devils 

Kitchen 

Campground and 

group picnic area 

would close. 

Length of stay at 

campgrounds 

would be limited 

to 14 days. Four 

group camps 

would be 

maintained. Picnic 

area at Cambria 

Neck would close.

Sites at three 

campgrounds 

would be 

consolidated and 

improved. Devils 

Kitchen 

Campground and 

group picnic area 

would close. 

Length of stay at 

campgrounds 

would be limited 

to 14 days. Four 

group camps 

would be 

maintained. 

Remaining picnic 

areas would 

continue to be 

open.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. C.

The Boat & Yacht 

Club and The 

Haven would 

continue 

operations.

The Boat & Yacht 

Club and The 

Haven would 

continue 

operations under 

agreement with 

Southern Illinois 

University.

The Boat & Yacht 

Club would be 

converted to a 

concession 

operation 2 years 

after completion 

of the CCP. The 

Haven would 

continue 

operations.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. C.

Horseback use 

would remain an 

unauthorized use.

Horseback use 

would be 

permitted on 

designated trail.

Same as Alt. B. Horseback use 

would be 

prohibited on 

Refuge.

Same as Alt. B.

Non-wildlifedependent Water

Based Recreation

Five marinas 

would be 

maintained.

Three marinas 

would become the 

responsibility of 

SIU. Refuge 

would maintain 

two marinas – 

Devils Kitchen 

and Little Grassy.

Four marinas 

would be 

maintained: 

Images Marina 

and Playport 

Marina would be 

consolidated at 

the Playport site.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. C.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

76

Maintain existing 

lake zoning for 

boating activities.

A no-wake zone 

east of Highway 

148 would be 

established in 

addition to 

existing 

regulations. Gas 

motor use at 

Devils Kitchen 

Lake would be 

prohibited south 

of southern most 

boat ramps.

Same as Alt. B 

with the exception 

that gas motor use 

at Devils Kitchen 

Lake would 

continue.

Same as Alt. B, 

except that gas 

motor use at 

Devils Kitchen 

Lake would be 

prohibited.

Same as Alt. B.

Existing beaches 

would remain.

Crab Orchard 

Lake beach 

becomes the 

responsibility of 

SIU.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Agriculture

Row Crops Farm 4,500 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 4,400 acres. 

Greater emphasis 

on buffer strips 

and not farming in 

wetlands. Allow 

cooperators to 

harvest remaining 

corn in the spring. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 4,800 acres. 

Greater emphasis 

on buffer strips 

and not farming in 

wetlands. Allow 

cooperators to 

harvest remaining 

corn in the spring. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 4,300 acres. 

Greater emphasis 

on buffer strips 

and not farming in 

wetlands. 

Eliminate fields 

smaller than 5 

acres. Allow 

cooperators to 

harvest remaining 

corn in the spring, 

and other 

allowances to 

cooperators. No 

mowing until after 

August 1.

Same as Alt. B.

Hay Fields Farm 700 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 600 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 700 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Farm 500 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Same as Alt. B.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

77

Pastures. Graze 1,000 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1.

Graze 1,000 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1. 

Convert fescue 

grasses in 

pastures to more 

desirable wildlife 

grasses.

Same as Alt. B. Graze 1,000 acres. 

No mowing until 

after August 1. 

Enhance forage 

diversity and 

practice rotational 

grazing to 

increase cattle 

production.

Same as Alt. B.

Industry

Continue under 

1981 guidelines. 

Departing tenants 

replaced if 

buildings remain 

suitable for 

occupancy. 

Emphasis on 

munitions 

manufacturing.

Update 1981 

guidelines. 

Departing tenants 

replaced if 

buildings remain 

suitable for 

occupancy. 

Emphasis on 

munitions 

manufacturing.

Update 1981 

guidelines. Nonmunitions tenants 

would not be 

replaced as they 

leave the Refuge. 

Emphasis on 

munitions 

manufacturing.

Same as Alt. C. Same as Alt. B.

Wilderness

Maintain 4,050-

acre Crab 

Orchard 

Wilderness and 

recommend 120 

acres of 

inholdings for 

Wilderness 

designation. The 

Wilderness 

Management Plan 

would be revised.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 2:Alternatives, Objectives, and Strategies

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

78

Protection

Natural and 

cultural resources 

and the health and 

safety of visitors 

would be 

protected. 

Integrated Pest 

Management Plan 

would be written 

and implemented. 

Clean-up of 

contaminated 

industrial sites 

would continue.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Table 4: Summary of Management Alternatives

Issue Alternative A

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative C

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and 

Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

79

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 provides an overview of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge and the resources it provides in terms of habitat, wildlife and people.

3.2 Physical Environment

3.2.1 Physiography

The physiography of the northern and southern

portions of the Refuge is quite different. The terrain

of the northern portion of the Refuge is characterized by low relief, broad valleys, and relatively welldeveloped drainage systems while the southern portion of the Refuge is uplands with narrow ridges dissected by deep, narrow valleys with steep slopes and

numerous sandstone outcrops. 

The northern portion of the Refuge is covered

with a heterogeneous mixture of rock fragments

ranging in size from clay to boulders deposited by

glaciers on bedrock. Generally the slopes in the area

are less than 3 percent. The southern portion of the

Refuge is part of a continuous ridge extending from

Battery Rock on the Ohio River to Horseshoe Bluff

overlooking the Mississippi River. The hills are

highly dissected uplands with little flat land and

nearly all of the area has steep slopes, most in

excess of 10 percent slope.

The Refuge's elevation ranges from less than 380

feet above mean sea level at Crab Orchard Creek in

Jackson County to over 740 feet at the southeast

corner of the Refuge in Union County. 

The most prominent features of the Refuge landscape are three artificial impoundments: Crab

Orchard Lake, Little Grassy Lake, and Devils

Kitchen Lake. Together these lakes total about

8,720 surface acres.

3.2.2 Geology

The bedrock underlying the Refuge is of Pennsylvanian age. In the northern part of the Refuge, the

bedrock is covered by a thin layer of glacial till of

Illinoian age. During the Wisconsin glacial age, the

weathered Illinoian glacial till was covered by the

Farmdale and the Peorian loess sheets. The present

upland soils developed from these loess sheets. The

Loveland loess sheet underlies the Peorian and

Farmdale sheets in the unglaciated areas in the

southern portion of the Refuge. The Mississippi

River valley is the main source of the loess.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

80

Although mining for bituminous coal has

occurred over extensive areas to the north of the

Refuge, no coal has been mined on Refuge lands. In

1940, an exploratory oil well was drilled in the central portion of the Refuge, but apparently it never

produced any oil. The federal government owns the

mineral estate on all lands originally transferred to

the Department of the Interior in 1947, except for a

one-half interest in oil and gas minerals on one 40-

acre tract. The government does not own the subsurface rights on several parcels of land acquired

since that time. These parcels amount to about 1,350

acres.

3.2.3 Soils

Information on soils is essential for their conservation, development, and productive use. The various soil types have characteristic properties that

determine their potential and limitations for specific

land uses. Knowledge of soils is important in managing the Refuge's agriculture and wildlife habitat programs, as well as recreational and industrial

facilities and activities.

Since the existing soil surveys were published for

Williamson County (Fehrenbacher and Odell, 1959)

and Jackson County (Herman et al., 1977), many

changes and dramatic improvements have been

made in soil classification and mapping techniques.

The Heartland Geographic Information System

Project will create an updated, digitized soil survey

of Williamson, Jackson, and Perry counties. The

Refuge is co-sponsoring the new soil survey of Williamson County. The soil survey, which will meet

current National Cooperative Soil Survey standards, will be completed in December 2005.

3.2.4 Climate

The climate of the area is typical of the mid-western region of the United States in which frequent

weather changes occur from day-to-day and seasonto-season. The weather is governed by cold air moving southward across the plains from Canada,

warm, moisture-laden air moving up from the Gulf

of Mexico, and dry air from the west and southwest.

Summers are generally hot and humid, with July

normally the hottest month. Winters are normally

mild with the coldest temperatures recorded in January. The average frost-free dates in spring and fall

for the area are April 15 and October 22. The mean

annual temperature of the area is about 57 degrees

Fahrenheit with mean monthly temperatures ranging from about 35 degrees Fahrenheit in January to

79 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Lake evaporation in

the area averages nearly 36 inches a year varying

from about 0.7 inch in December to 5.6 in July.

The average annual rainfall for the area is

approximately 44 inches. Precipitation is usually

highest March through June. Annual snowfall averages from 10 to 15 inches. 

3.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality

The entire Refuge lies within the Crab Orchard

Creek watershed. Crab Orchard Creek is a tributary of the Big Muddy River, which drains into the

Mississippi River. Major tributaries of Crab

Orchard Creek include Drury Creek, Grassy Creek,

Little Grassy Creek and Wolf Creek; other tributaries include Prairie Creek, Pin Oak Creek, Pigeon

Creek, Rocky Comfort Creek, and numerous

smaller, unnamed streams (Figure 19). Surface

water on the Refuge exists almost exclusively as

man-made reservoirs and ponds. Three large reservoirs cover nearly 9,000 acres of the Refuge (Table 5

on page 81). There are about 60 smaller impoundments covering about 300 acres (range 0.5-100

acres, average = 6 acres). The only natural lake on

the Refuge is a 42-acre oxbow of Crab Orchard

Creek. The hydrology of this oxbow has been modified by drainage ditches and impoundment of Crab

Orchard Lake.

Water quality, drainage modification, shoreline

erosion and sedimentation remain ongoing concerns

for water bodies on the Refuge. Refuge waters are

impacted by agricultural runoff, wastewater treatment effluent, urban runoff, stream channelization,

and industrial contaminants. Pollutants from agriculture include sediment, nutrients and pesticides. 

3.2.5.1. Crab Orchard Lake

Crab Orchard Lake is the oldest (1940), largest,

and most heavily used lake on the Refuge. Although

created for water supply and recreation purposes, it

is no longer used as a source for industrial or drinking water. Crab Orchard Lake is eutrophic (high

nutrient levels, low oxygen levels) and rarely exhibits thermal stratification. Turbidity can be quite

high, especially following rain storms, and the lake

supports moderate plankton blooms during warm

months. Water surface temperatures reach 88

degrees Fahrenheit in August. The land cover of the

Crab Orchard Lake watershed consists mostly of

forests (31 percent), grasslands (34 percent), and

about 19 percent developed or in row crops. 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

81

3.2.5.2. Little Grassy Lake

Little Grassy Lake was impounded in 1950 as a

recreation resource and today is most commonly

used for sport fishing. Little Grassy Lake is relatively clear, has low nutrient levels, and supports

light plankton blooms during warm months. The

land cover of the Little Grassy Lake watershed consists of forests (65 percent), grasslands (18 percent),

and about 8 percent developed or in row crops. 

3.2.5.3. Devils Kitchen Lake

Devils Kitchen Lake was impounded in 1959 as a

recreation resource and today is most commonly

used for sport fishing. Devils Kitchen is one of the

Figure 19: Streams and Watersheds of Crab Orchard NWR

Table 5: Crab Orchard NWR Lake Details

Name Crab Orchard Little Grassy Devils Kitchen

Surface Area (acres) 6,910 1,000 810

Capacity (acre feet) 72,525 27,000 29,200

Average Depth (feet) 10.7 27.0 36.0

Shoreline Length (miles) 125 28.3 24.0

Watershed Area (square 

miles)

215 15 18.3

Creek Dammed Crab Orchard Creek Little Grassy Creek Grassy Creek

Spillway Elevation 405.0 500.0 510.0

Maximum Depth (feet) 24.6 77.0 90.0
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

82

deepest and clearest lakes in Illinois, has low nutrient levels, and supports minimal plankton blooms

during warm months. Except for the dam area, the

lake shoreline consists primarily of oak-hickory forest. The land cover of the Devils Kitchen Lake

watershed consists of forests (62 percent), grasslands (25 percent), and about 4 percent developed or

in row crops.

3.2.6 Contaminants

3.2.6.1. Comprehensive Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

Following World War II and the transfer of the

War Department's Illinois Ordnance Plant to the

Department of the Interior, explosives production

continued to be the principal industry on the property. In addition, new industries moved into buildings formerly used by the wartime contractor. Over

the years, approximately 200 tenants have operated

a variety of manufacturing plants under lease from

the Refuge. In addition to munitions, manufactured

products included plated metal parts, ink, electrical

components, machined parts, various painted products, and boats.

A number of locations on the Refuge were contaminated with hazardous substances as a result of

handling and disposal methods that were once considered acceptable. These methods included placing

waste materials in unlined landfills and discharging

liquids into surface water bodies and impoundments. These practices contaminated soils, aquatic

sediments, and water, which eventually led to the

Refuge's designation by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1987 as a national

priority for hazardous waste investigation and

cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In the 1970s, the State of Illinois identified polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and cadmium contamination at the Refuge. A fish consumption advisory

has been in effect for Crab Orchard Lake since 1988.

In 1989, a Refuge-wide investigation was completed

on 33 sites. Several sites were remediated and other

sites are in different phases of clean-up. A subsequent investigation was conducted in 2001. This

investigation identified additional areas of significant contamination where efforts will fully characterize the nature and extent of contamination,

evaluate potential cleanup alternatives, and select

and implement protective cleanup measures.

The Department of the Interior, the Department

of Army, the USEPA, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) are actively involved

in the site remediation process. The agencies

entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA)

in 1991 that defined roles and responsibilities for the

contaminants investigations and remediation. 

Approximately $85 million has been spent so far

for investigation and clean up of contaminated sites.

In one cleanup project, approximately 117,000 cubic

yards of hazardous PCB contaminated soils were

safely treated. The soils, along with other PCB contaminated soils and incinerator ash, were placed in a

repository on the site. Other cleanup projects

addressed contamination problems associated with

unexploded ordnance and lead-contaminated soils

around water towers. 

Investigation and cleanup are continuing at several sites in existing and former industrial areas

within the restricted use portion of the Refuge.

These activities are expected to continue into the

foreseeable future.

3.2.7 Administrative Facilities

The Service is responsible for maintaining the

Refuge headquarters building, visitor information

center, maintenance building, a small office building, and three high hazard dams. The visitor information center is described in the discussion of public

use in Section 3.6 on page 96. 

The headquarters building consists primarily of

office space for four offices – Refuge administrative

staff, Ecological Services Marion Field Office, Ecological Services Crab Orchard Superfund Office,

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The

building has 10,000 square feet and was completed

in 1981. 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

83

The Refuge maintenance building consists of

office areas, supply and equipment storage areas,

and a large bay area for various equipment and

vehicle maintenance and repair functions. This

building has 10,000 square feet and was completed

in 1981.

The office building houses the Carterville Fishery Resource Office and the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources. This building, built in 1941, has

3,420 square feet. 

The three major dams on the Refuge are the

Crab Orchard Lake Dam, Devils Kitchen Lake

Dam, and Little Grassy Lake Dam.

The Crab Orchard Lake Dam was constructed to

provide a reservoir for an industrial and municipal

water supply, recreation, and work relief. Construction was authorized in 1936 and completed in 1939,

with extensive modifications completed in 1991. The

dam is a zoned earth fill embankment dam with a

service spillway.

Devils Kitchen Lake Dam was constructed to

provide recreation, water storage, habitat and

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other

wildlife, and conservation. The dam was designed in

1940. Construction began in 1941, but was suspended in 1943 because of World War II. In 1955,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed and

modified the original designs. Construction was

completed in 1959. The dam is concrete with a concrete spillway.

Little Grassy Lake Dam was constructed to provide recreation. Construction was authorized in 1936

and completed in 1942, with modifications in 1991,

1994 and 2003. The dam is a homogeneous earth fill

embankment dam with a concrete spillway near the

center of the embankment.

3.3 Habitat Overview

The purpose of this section is to broadly describe

the existing habitats and the changes that have

occurred in the last 200 years. The discussion helps

us understand and evaluate the management alternatives discussed in this document. The historic

framework helps us implement the Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy on maintaining the biological

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. The historic perspective is useful to us as a starting point for assessing the condition of the landscape, the potential for

restoration of habitats where appropriate, and the

recognition of irreversible changes that may preclude or greatly limit restoration.

3.3.1 Background

The habitats of the Refuge area have changed

dramatically in the last 200 years. The area that is

now the Refuge was 90-95 percent forest prior to

European settlement (Anderson and Anderson

1975) (Figure 20). European settlement of southern

Illinois began in the early 1800s and by the mid

1800s Native Americans had been pushed out and

villages and primitive roads established. Change in

Figure 20: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

84

the area was greatest in the late 1800s and the first

half of the 1900s. Nearly all of the area was either

logged for timber or cleared and converted to other

uses, particularly agriculture. By the 1930s, the soils

in the area were depleted and severely eroded.

Starting in 1938, the Resettlement Administration

acquired 32,000 acres of the land along Crab

Orchard Creek in an effort to prevent further degradation. However, additional clearing and development ensued with the establishment of the Illinois

Ordnance Plant during World War II.

The changes in Refuge habitats since 1807 can be

summarized as follows: the original hardwood forest

(92 percent of aboriginal area) was converted to

largely open habitats (agricultural fields and open

water) by the 1930s, where forests now exist the

mature hardwood forest has been changed to a forest in an earlier seral stage and pine plantations.

Savannah (7 percent of aboriginal area) and native

prairie (1 percent of aboriginal area) have been completely converted to other habitats. The overall

result has been the fragmentation of the hardwood

forest and an increase in aquatic habitats with the

construction of the lakes. The current land cover for

the Refuge is displayed in Figure 21; changes in

land cover are displayed in Table 6. 

3.3.2 Forests

Before European settlement, the area that is now

the Refuge was 92 percent forest. Essentially, all of

the original forest was either converted to other

habitats, harvested for timber, or otherwise disturbed. The amount of forest reached the lowest

point in the first half of the 1900s. Since that time,

forests have gradually become reestablished in

abandoned farm fields and industrial areas, and

some areas were actively replanted with trees. Presently, 56 percent of the Refuge is covered by forest.

Examples of wildlife that use Refuge forests are

deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls, and a variety

of forest song bird species. A Refuge goal has been

to manage for productive oak-hickory forest dominated by native species. Management activities have

included tree planting, prescribed burning, thinning, and control of exotic and invasive plants.

3.3.3 Shrubland

Before European settlement, the area that is now

the Refuge was about 7 percent savannah. Savannah

was probably dominated by prairie grasses interspersed with trees, but some of it was dominated by

shrubs. Presently, about 2 percent of the Refuge is

covered by shrubland. Examples of wildlife that use

shrubland are deer, rabbit, loggerhead shrike, Bell's

vireo, and field sparrow. Most Refuge shrubland is

the result of abandoning farm fields and industrial

areas.

3.3.4 Grassland

Before European settlement, the area that is now

the Refuge was 1 percent prairie. All of the prairie

was converted to other habitats. Presently, about 4

percent of the Refuge is covered by grassland.

Examples of wildlife that use grassland are deer,

rabbit, northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow,

loggerhead shrike, dickcissel, and eastern meadowlark. The majority of Refuge grassland is managed

pasture (55 percent) and hay (35 percent) with the

remainder (10 percent) represented by planted,

native warm-season grasses. Management activities

have included planting agricultural and native

grasses, prescribed burning, grazing, mowing, control of exotic and invasive plants, and fertilizing.

3.3.5 Wetlands

Before European settlement, there was relatively

little wetland habitat on the area that is now the

Refuge. Presently, most wetland habitat on the Refuge consists of man-made ponds and lakes, which

are discussed in the following paragraphs. Wetlands

cover about 6 percent of the Refuge. Examples of

wildlife that use wetlands are Canada goose, other

waterfowl, herons, raccoons, turtles, frogs, and

other amphibians and reptiles. The majority of

these wetlands are bottomland hardwood forests

(1,900 acres) and moist-soil units (450 acres). During

normal years, water levels in moist-soil units are

lowered during the summer to encourage the establishment of moist-soil vegetation. Water levels are

then raised during the fall to make the seeds produced by moist-soil plants available to waterfowl.

Management activities include maintenance of

levees and water control structures, water level

manipulation, mowing, disking, planting, and control of exotic and invasive plants.

3.3.6 Open Water

Before European settlement, the area that is now

the Refuge had little, if any, open water habitat.

Presently, about 20 percent of the Refuge is covered

by open water, almost all of it in man-made reservoirs. Open water serves as habitat for warm-water

sport fish, waterfowl and other waterbirds. Management activities include maintenance of dams, levees,

and water control structures, and manipulation of

water levels. 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

85

Figure 21: Land Cover of Crab Orchard NWR, 2000 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

86

3.3.7 Cropland

Row croplands are farmed through cooperative

farming agreements with eight farmers. The objectives of the cooperative farming program have been

to provide food for wintering Canada geese and

other waterfowl, protect and improve Refuge soils,

and fulfill the agricultural purpose of the Refuge.

Presently, about 10 percent of the Refuge is covered

by cropland. Examples of wildlife that use cropland

are deer, Canada goose, northern bobwhite, and

wild turkey. Management activities include mowing,

disking, planting, herbicide and fertilizer application, and harvesting.

3.3.8 Developed Land 

Presently, about 2 percent of the Refuge is covered by developed land. These include: roads and

adjacent rights-of-way, and industrial, administrative, and recreational facilities. 

3.3.9 Invasive Species

Three categories of undesirable species (invasive,

exotic, noxious) are found on the Refuge. 

Invasive species are alien species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Executive

Order 13112 requires the Refuge to monitor, prevent, and control the presence of invasive species.

Table 6: Area and Percent Cover of Habitats on Crab Orchard NWR, 1807 and 2000

Habitat Type Acres in 2000 Percent 

Cover in 

2000

Acres in 1807 Percent 

Cover in 

1807

Forest 25,254 56 41,820 92

Eastern Red-cedar Forest (old field) 71 <1

Mixed Hardwood Upland Forest 18,923 42

Mixed Hardwood Bottomland Forest 1,908 4

Eastern Red-cedar Mixed Hardwood Forest 

(old field)

1,006 2

Pine Plantation/Mixed Hardwood Forest 1,633 4

Pine Plantation Forest 1,665 4

Bald-cypress Plantation Swamp Forest 44 <1

Early Successional Oak Forest (reforested) 5 <1

Shrubland 956 2 3,182 7

Upland Mixed Shrubland (old field) 872 2

Willow Wet Shrubland 3 <1

Buttonbush Swamp Shrubland 81 <1

Herbaceous 9,026 20 455 1

Restored Native Grassland 198 <1

Fallow Herbaceous Old Field 1,542 3

Forest Regeneration Herbaceous Land 168 <1

Perennial Grass Crops 1,752 4

Wet Herbaceous Meadow 389 1

Common Reed Marsh 7 <1

Cattail Marsh 25 <1

Aquatic Herbaceous Marsh 365 1

Agricultural Field 4,580 10

Other Land Cover 10,220 22 0 0

Open Water 9,082 20

Developed Land 1,138 2

Totals 45,456 100 45,456 100
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

87

Exotic species are species that are not native to a

particular ecosystem. Service policy directs the Refuge to try to maintain habitats free of exotic species.

 Noxious weeds are designated by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture or the Illinois Department of Agriculture as species which, when established, are destructive, competitive or difficult to

control. Principal weed species are shown in

Table 7.

Invasive, exotic and noxious weed species are relatively abundant on the Refuge. These species are

quite diverse and are found in most Refuge habitats,

although some are typically found in agricultural

fields or lakes and ponds. Johnsongrass, Canada

thistle and giant ragweed are Illinois state-listed

noxious weeds that occur on the Refuge. Currently,

most Refuge control efforts focus on Johnsongrass,

autumn olive, kudzu, garlic mustard and common

reed. The principal invasive and exotic species on

Crab Orchard NWR are shown in Table 8.

Exotic and invasive plant species pose one of the

greatest threats to the maintenance and restoration

of the diverse habitats found on the Refuge. They

threaten biological diversity by causing population

declines of native species and by altering key ecosystem processes like hydrology, nitrogen fixation,

and fire regimes. Left unchecked, these plants have

come to dominate many areas on the Refuge and

reduced the value of the land as wildlife habitat.

There is a bountiful seed source of many of these

exotic/invasive species on the lands surrounding the

Refuge, thus in order to be effective in our management plans, we must bring together a complex set of

interests including private landowner, commercial,

and public agencies.

Table 7: Principal Weed Species in Agricultural Fields, Crab Orchard NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

crab grass Digitaria sp.

fall panicum grass Panicum sp.

foxtail grass Setaria sp.

cocklebur Xanthium strumarium

smartweed Polygonum sp.

shattercane Sorghum bicolor

ragweed Ambrosia sp.

pigweed Amaranthus sp.

lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album

trumpet-creeper Campsis radicans

morning-glory Ipomoea sp.

nutsedge Cyperus esculentus

Table 8: Principal Invasive and Exotic 

Species, Crab Orchard NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata

multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

kudzu Pueraria montana

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

common reed Phragmites australis

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense

reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea

fescue grass Festuca pratensis

tall fescue Festuca arundinacea

garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

Japanese 

honeysuckle

 Lonicera japonica

Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii

Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare lanceolatum

black-locust Robinia pseudoacacia

white poplar Populus alba

mimosa Albizia julibrissin

tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima

wintercreeper Euonymus fortunei

Chinese yam Dioscorea oppositifolia

crown vetch Coronilla varia

white sweet clover Melilotus alba 

yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis

sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata

bush clover Lespedeza bicolor

Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum

dodder Cuscuta spp.

shortleaf pine Pinus echinata

loblolly pine Pinus taeda

Virginia pine Pinus virginiana

ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

(aquatic)

Eurasian 

watermilfoil

 Myriophyllum spicatum 

(aquatic)

common teasel Dipsacus fullonum

cut-leaved teasel Dipsacus laciniatus
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

88

3.3.10 Natural and Current Role of Fire

Prior to European settlement, fire assuredly was

an influence on the structure and function of the

small patches of prairie and savannah in the area

that is now the Refuge. Fire was less of a factor in

open forests, and even less in closed forests. Now,

the natural process of fire has been replaced by fire

management that includes suppression and prescribed burning.

We have fire records for the Refuge from 1947 to

the present, but information prior to 1986 is incomplete. Records indicate that the area has an average

of 2.3 wildland fires annually, with a total of 127

wildland fires recorded from 1947 to 2001. Fires are

most likely to occur in the spring from March 1 to

May 15 and in the fall from October 15 to December

1. 

We use prescribed fire to manipulate vegetation

in a safe and cost-effective manner. Our principal

purpose is to improve the wildlife habitat conditions

in the southern pine plantations. Prescribed burning

also reduces hazardous fuels, encourages oak and

hickory and discourages sugar maple. Burning

improves the condition of the understory. And,

although burning is not specifically undertaken for

these purposes, burning enhances the aesthetics of

the forest by making the understory more open and

improves access for both habitat management and

recreation.

Southern pine plantations are burned to reduce

fuels on the forest floor and to keep understory low

to better provide for wildlife. By burning, we keep

the understory vegetation in a young, vigorous condition, increasing seeds and fruit that are available

to wildlife near the ground. As a result of fire, more

light reaches the ground, which favors less shadetolerant species. We conduct inventories to determine if there are enough young hardwoods in the

understory of pine stands to permit succession to a

native hardwood forest. If succession is likely, we

will terminate prescribed burning.

Areas identified as “fallow herbaceous fields”

(Figure 20, page 97) are old fields that have been

invaded by low, woody vegetation and vines. If we

want to maintain these lands in an early seral stage,

fire helps maintain the openings and habitat diversity. Burning also enhances conditions for deer and

upland game hunting and wildlife observation and

photography.

Fire is essential for proper management of

native, warm-season grasses and associated forbs.

Prescribed fire stimulates growth of the grasses,

increases seed germination and growth of forbs,

creates open ground for wildlife, retards encroachment of woody vegetation, and reduces the fuel load.

Tallgrass prairie has been established on several

areas on the Refuge. Fire will play a significant role

in maintaining this habitat type, which benefits prairie bird species.

3.4 Wildlife

Information on wildlife in the area before European settlement is limited. We do know that some

mammals that were in the area are no longer found

in Illinois (Hoffmeister 1989): bison (Bison bison),

elk (Cervus elaphus), black bear (Ursus americanus), and mountain lion (Felis concolor). The Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) and

Carolina Parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis) inhabited the area but are now extinct. The Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) has a greatly

reduced range (Bohlen 1989). We know little about

how amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates in the

area may have changed through the years. 

The Refuge provides habitat for many species

that occur in Illinois (Table 9). See Appendix D for a

complete list of wildlife species known to inhabit the

Refuge. 

3.4.1 Mammals

Forty-three species of mammals have been

recorded in or near the Refuge (Appendix D).

White-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, raccoon, rabbits, squirrels, beaver, and coyote are commonly

observed species on the Refuge. 

Bernie Angus
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

89

White-tailed deer numbers on the Refuge have

shown a pattern similar to the rest of Illinois. By the

early 1900s, deer had either been extirpated from

the Refuge, or occurred in very low numbers. Refuge records mention a release of deer in 1942, but no

numbers are provided. The number of deer on the

Refuge is estimated at 10 in 1947, 30 in 1949 and 70

in 1950. By 1953, deer were no longer an oddity on

the Refuge. The population increased and attained

such high levels that deer damage to crops and forest began to become an issue in the early 1960s. The

first Refuge deer hunt in the restricted use area

occurred in 1966. The average annual harvest in the

restricted use area since then has been about 600

per year. 

3.4.2 Birds

Two-hundred sixty-nine species of birds have

been recorded in or near the Refuge (Appendix D).

Herons, Canada goose and other waterfowl, raptors,

wild turkey, and songbirds are commonly observed

species on the Refuge.

 Canada Goose

Prior to European settlement, Canada geese

probably rarely used the Refuge area. The Refuge

was dominated by forest (more than 90 percent) and

had little habitat to attract geese. Refuge records

indicate that there were only about 2,200 Canada

geese on the Refuge in 1947. Establishing a large,

wintering population was a Refuge priority. Refuge

staff kept pinioned or penned geese as a decoy flock

to attract migrating geese and emphasized production of corn and other grains in the Refuge farm

program to provide food for wintering geese. The

response by Canada geese was relatively quick; in

1948 the peak count on the Refuge was 24,000 and

peak counts generally increased through the middle

1990s (Figure 22). The average peak count (1947-

2001) is 82,000. 

Overall, Canada goose use of the Refuge, as measured in goose-use-days, has been more variable

and shows less of a trend than peak counts

(Figure 23). The average (1952-2002) has been 5.4

million goose-use-days. The Refuge goal is to provide food for 6.4 million goose-use-days each year. 

 Since the Refuge was created in 1947, attracting

and providing food for migratory Canada Geese has

been a primary focus of activities on the Refuge.

Early efforts to attract geese included maintaining a

captive flock of pinioned geese, increasing the production of desirable agricultural crops, and, sometimes, directly feeding geese by placing large

quantities of grain in open areas of the Refuge. Current efforts to supply food for geese emphasize providing sufficient quantities of diverse foodproducing habitats. Much of this food is provided by

the Refuge agriculture program. Row crops provide

corn, winter wheat, and clover. Hay fields and pastures provide grasses and legumes. Food is also provided in natural wetlands, managed moist soil

wetlands, lakes and ponds, and miscellaneous sites

such as mowed industrial areas and rights-of-way.

Other goose management activities include seasonal

closure to boating on the east end of Crab Orchard

Lake and fall mowing around selected ponds.

In 1998, Service and Illinois DNR biologists completed a report that set a specific Refuge goal of providing food for 6.4 million goose-use days annually.

This goal was derived using over 40 years of Refuge

Canada Goose data (unpublished Crab Orchard

NWR report, 1998). This report also calculated that

the minimum amount of agricultural row crops

required topotentially provide for 6.4 million GUDs

is 1,500 acres, but this requires several critical

assumptions. These assumptions are: 1) geese have

unrestricted use of all fields, 2) average crop yields,

3) average winter temperatures, 4) average snow

fall, and 5) crops are not consumed by other animals.

In practice, we know these assumptions are not met

Table 9: Number of Wildlife Species Found in Illinois and at Crab Orchard NWR

Taxonomic Group Number of Species 

Found in Illinois

Number of 

Species Found 

at Crab 

Orchard NWR

Percent of Illinois 

Species Found at 

Crab Orchard NWR

Amphibians 41 22 54

Reptiles 61 28 46

Mammals 62 43 69

Birds 327 269 82

Terrestrial Vertebrates 491 362 74
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

90

and goose food availability is influenced by the following factors: 1) geese do not use some fields

because they are too small to fly into or they are in

the portion of the Refuge open to the public and disturbance levels are higher, 2) crop yields can vary

substantially (winter wheat production was low in

fall 2001 because of late and wet planting conditions,

corn and clover production in 2002 was low because

of drought conditions, etc.), 3) lower than average

winter temperatures result in greater calorie

demand by Canada geese, 4) some crops are

unavailable because of occasionally heavy snow

cover, and 5) other animals (deer, raccoons, blackbirds, etc.) also consume crops. In order to compensate for factors that regularly decrease food

availability (ex., consumption by other species and

non-use of certain fields) and factors that occasionally decrease food availability (ex., low crop production due to drought, deep snow conditions) more

than 1,500 acres of crops are required. For example,

if each of these five factors reduced food availability

by just 10 percent, over 2,500 acres of row crops

would be required to provide 6.4 million goose-usedays. However, we know that in some instances

Figure 22: Peak Counts of Wintering Canada Geese on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947 to 

2001

Figure 23: Canada Goose-use Days on Crab Orchard NWR, 1952 to 1999
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

91

these factors can cause larger reductions. For

example, in 2002 corn production was reduced by 50

percent or more. 

Wild Turkey 

Wild turkeys were not known to occur on the Refuge until 122 were released by the Illinois Department of Conservation in 1958. Occasional turkey

sightings were made on the Refuge through 1965. In

1966, Refuge records estimate a population of seven

wild turkeys and state that several observations

were made during the year. Wild turkey numbers

continued to increase enough that by 1989, the Illinois DNR trapped 14 hen turkeys for stocking off

the Refuge. The Refuge held its first wild turkey

hunting season in the restricted use area in the

spring of 2001, when 39 wild turkeys were harvested

by 52 hunters. 

USFWS Nongame Bird Species of Management 

Concern 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1980,

requires that the Service identify “all migratory

nongame birds that, without additional conservation

action, are likely to become candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973." Additionally, the Act further underscores the need to

develop actions to assure the conservation of these

species with the underlying philosophy that “an

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Species of management concern in Region 3 have been

identified in a Resource Conservation Priorities

report (USFWS 2002). Nongame species of management concern known to regularly occur on the Refuge are shown in Table 10.

3.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

Twenty species of amphibians and 28 species of

reptiles have been recorded on the Refuge (Appendix D). Cricket frog, Fowler's toad, bullfrog, painted

turtle, eastern box turtle, racer, and diamondback

water snake are commonly observed species on the

Refuge.

3.4.4 Fish1

 Prior to dam construction, fish habitat in the

area consisted primarily of the larger, named

streams. No fish community survey data from

streams from before dam construction exists, and

only one cursory survey has been completed since.

Over the last 50-60 years, most fish habitat has been

provided by the three large lakes and eight smaller

impoundments. Fish management on the Refuge

has emphasized mixed-species, warm-water sport

fish. Since 1998, the fisheries on the Refuge have

been managed cooperatively by IDNR and the Refuge. Table 11 lists fish species found in Crab

Orchard Lake. 

3.4.4.1. Crab Orchard Lake

The fish community of Crab Orchard Lake is

dominated by carp and gizzard shad, which comprise 75 percent of the biomass. However, a popular

recreational fishery exists for largemouth bass,

bluegill, crappie, channel catfish and white bass.

1. Information for this section comes primarily from: 1) Refuge records; 2) IDNR records and 3) an unpublished report

by the Carterville Fisheries Resource Office (Surprenant

1994).

Table 10: Nongame Species of Management

Concern, Crab Orchard NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Common Loon Gavia immer

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Red-shouldered 

Hawk 

Buteo lineatus

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

Red-headed 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes erythrocepalus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Bell's Vireo Vireo belli

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Prothonotary 

Warbler

Protonotaria citrea

Worm-eating 

Warbler

Helmitheros vermivorus

Louisiana 

Waterthrush

Seiurus motacilla

Kentucky Warbler Oporomis formosus

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Ammordramus savannarum

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

92

The Lake's aquatic habitat has been affected by

shoreline erosion, sedimentation, excessive nutrient

loading from discharges of municipal wastewater

and nonpoint source pollution, and contamination by

PCBs and other contaminants. Sediments contaminated by PCBs were dredged from a bay of the lake

in 1996.

The fish management goals for Crab Orchard

Lake are to: 

# maintain and/or improve the existing bluegill

and redear fisheries, 

# maintain and/or improve the existing

largemouth bass fishery, 

# maintain the existing channel catfish fishery, 

# maintain the existing white bass and hybrid

striped bass fishery, 

# maintain the existing white and black crappie

fishery, and 

# monitor PCB concentrations in fish flesh. 

Species abundance and body condition, which are

monitored by annual surveys, determine population

objectives for bluegill, redear, largemouth bass,

black and white crappie, white and hybrid striped

bass, and channel catfish. 

Although initial stocking records are not available, if USDA Soil Conservation Service recommendations were followed, largemouth bass, bluegill,

channel catfish, and bullheads were stocked. Other

species now occurring were present in the waterTable 11: Crab Orchard NWR Fish Species List

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Bowfin Poeciliidae

Bowfin Amia calva (N) Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Herrings Pikes

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum (N) Grass pickerel Esox americanus (N)

Threadfin shad D. petenense (I)* Northern pike E. lucius (I)

Minnows Silversides

Carp Cyprinus carpio (I) Brook silversides Labidesthes sicculus (N)

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus (N) Sunfishes

Fathead minnow P. promelas Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (N)

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

(N)

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus (N)

Suckers Warmouth Chaenobryttus. gulosus (N)

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus (N) Orangespotted sunfish L. humilus (N)

Perches Redear sunfish L. microlophus (N)

Yellow perch Perca flavescens (I) Bluegill L. macrochirus (N)

Log perch Percina caprodes (N) White crappie Pomoxis annularis (N)

Slough darter Etheostoma gracile Black crappie P. nigromaculatus (N)

Killifishes Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

(N)

Blackstripe topminnow Sea basses

Catfishes White bass Morone chrysops (N)

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas (N) Yellow bass M. mississippiensis (N)

Yellow bullhead A. natalis (N) Striped bass M. saxatilis (I)

Channel catfish I. punctatus (N) Hybrid striped bass M. chrysops X M. saxatilis 

(I)

Flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris (N) Aphredoderidae

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus (N) Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus

Drums * Periodically stocked

 (I) introduced species

(N) native species

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens (N)
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

93

shed or have since been introduced. Following the

pattern of large impoundments in the 1940s and

1950s, the largemouth bass fishery flourished initially then declined through the late 1940s as carp,

gizzard shad, white crappie and yellow bass became

dominant. Supplemental stocking of game species

began with 1.5 million largemouth bass 2-inch fingerlings in the 1950s. Since then, millions of fry and

fingerlings of several species have been released

into Crab Orchard Lake.

Commercial fishing was permitted on Crab

Orchard Lake during the 1960s and 1970s and discontinued in 1979. There are no plans to resume

commercial fishing on Crab Orchard Lake. 

Contaminant levels in Crab Orchard Lake fish

have been studied by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and

Illinois Department of Natural Resources since

1975. PCBs in fish flesh have exceeded FDA safety

levels, especially in fish east of Route 148 (Hite and

King 1977, Ruelle 1983, Kohler and Heidinger 1990,

Kohler and Heidinger 1994). 

Based on analysis of PCB data, the first fish consumption advisory was issued in 1988. People were

advised that certain fish had high contamination and

should not be eaten. This advisory applied to channel catfish longer than 15 inches and to carp longer

than 15 inches caught east of Route 148. People

were advised that bluegill and largemouth bass

caught east of Route 148 had moderate contamination and should not be eaten by children and nursing

mothers. This advisory has since been modified and

covers largemouth bass, channel catfish, and carp.

Consumption advisory information is published

annually by IDNR in the Illinois Fishing Information booklet.

3.4.4.2. Devils Kitchen Lake

Devils Kitchen Lake is most commonly used for

sport fishing and is known for its quality-sized bluegill and redear, occasional trophy bass, and yearround rainbow trout. The fish management goals for

Devils Kitchen Lake are to: 1) maintain and/or

improve the existing bluegill and redear fisheries, 2)

maintain and/or improve the existing largemouth

bass fishery, and 3) maintain the existing rainbow

trout fishery through annual stockings. 

The forage base at Devils Kitchen Lake is augmented with annual stockings of threadfin shad, if

available. Population objectives for bluegill, redear,

and largemouth bass are based on species abundance and body condition, which are monitored by

annual surveys. Low lake fertility results in minimal

plankton blooms and limited food for fish leading to

lower fish numbers and growth rates. In 2004, the

Illinois Department of Public Health issued a fish

consumption advisory for largemouth bass caught in

Devils Kitchen Lake because of elevated levels of

methyl mercury.

3.4.4.3. Little Grassy Lake

Little Grassy Lake is most commonly used for

sport fishing and is known for quality-sized bluegill,

redear, and largemouth bass. The fish management

goals for Little Grassy Lake are to: 1) maintain and/

or improve the existing bluegill and redear fisheries,

2) maintain and/or improve the existing largemouth

bass fishery, and 3) maintain the existing channel

catfish fishery through annual stockings. 

The forage base at Little Grassy Lake is augmented with annual stockings of threadfin shad,

when available. Population objectives for bluegill,

redear, and largemouth bass are based on species

abundance and body condition, which are monitored

by annual surveys. Like Devils Kitchen Lake, low

fertility limits fish management. Light plankton

blooms and limited food leads to lower fish numbers

and growth rates. 

3.4.4.4. Small Impoundments

Sport fisheries management also occurs on eight

small impoundments (Table 12). The IDNR

attempts to control algae blooms in some of the

smaller impoundments. Two ponds were treated in

1999 and 2001 with an aquatic herbicide. These

impoundments are managed for warm-water, mixed

species sport fisheries. 

Table 12: Small Fishing Ponds on Crab Orchard

NWR

Name Surface 

Area (Acres)

Shoreline 

Length

(miles)

A-41 Pond 37 2.0

Bluegill Pond 6 0.6

Blue Heron Pond 10 0.6

Honker’s Corner 

Pond

6 0.5

Mann’s Pond 9 0.7

Manager’s Pond 2 0.3

North Prairie Pond 6 0.6

Visitor’s Center Pond 40 2.3
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

94

3.4.5 Monitoring

Refuge staff, staff from the IDNR, and volunteers survey wildlife use. The surveys provide information for Refuge management and support state

and national conservation efforts. The following

paragraphs describe current monitoring programs.

Canada Goose Surveys: Aerial surveys of Canada

geese are conducted by the IDNR, generally from

mid-October to mid-March. The data are used to

estimate goose-use-days. Refuge biologists also conduct an informal survey of goose use of agricultural

fields.

Weekly Waterfowl Survey: Refuge biologists survey waterfowl weekly from mid-August through

mid-April, traveling over 70 miles and covering 50

points to view large areas of Crab Orchard Lake

and several smaller impoundments and moist-soil

units. Survey data are entered into a database,

which can produce 16 types of reports. Gulls, shore,

wading, and predacious birds are also counted

throughout the route. Goose collar observations are

also recorded and reported to the Office of Migratory Bird Management.

Bald Eagle Monitoring: Biologists monitor Bald

Eagle nests for use and productivity. As part of a

nation-wide effort, the Refuge has participated in

the mid-winter Bald Eagle survey since 1961.

Heron Rookeries: Biologists periodically check

the known heron rookeries for use and productivity.

Wild Turkeys: Biologists monitor wild turkeys to

keep track of their population. The data are used in

establishing harvest permits.

Bluebirds: Since 1992, a group of volunteers has

maintained and monitored bluebird boxes. In 2000,

nine volunteers monitored 220 boxes.

Christmas Bird Count: The Refuge participates

in the Christmas Bird Count, a national survey

organized by the National Audubon Society.

Spring Bird Count: The Refuge participates in

the Spring Bird Count, another national survey

organized by the National Audubon Society.

Mourning Dove Count: The Mourning Dove

Count is conducted off the Refuge as part of a

nation-wide survey coordinated by the Office of

Migratory Bird Management. The survey has been

conducted every year since 1964.

American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey:

The North American Woodcock Singing Ground

Survey is a cooperative effort conducted on and off

the Refuge in conjunction with the Office of Migratory Bird Management.

White-tailed Deer: The Refuge uses a fall deer

count to establish a deer population index. The population index is used, in turn, to determine the number of available hunting permits. A 20-mile survey

route was developed by Southern Illinois University

in 1966 and the Refuge has conducted the survey

every year since then. 

Indiana Bat Surveys: The Indiana bat is a federally listed endangered species. Biologists conducted

mist-netting for 2 years to determine if and where

the Indiana bat might be using the Refuge. 

Amphibian Surveys: Biologists have used a variety of techniques (searching, song counts and drift

fences) to determine what species of amphibians,

and to a lesser extent reptiles, inhabit the Refuge.

In a one-time effort, biologists surveyed for

deformed frogs as part of a nation-wide cooperative

effort. In an effort to evaluate certain CERCLA

sites, surveys for the absence or presence of

amphibians and deformed frogs are ongoing.

Gypsy Moth: The Refuge cooperates with the

U.S. Forest Service by installing gypsy moth traps

each summer as part of a nation-wide effort to monitor this pest's distribution and population.

Exotic and Invasive Plants: Biologists informally

monitor exotic and invasive plants. Some of the species monitored are autumn-olive, Johnsongrass,

common reed, purple loosestrife, Canada thistle,

musk thistle, kudzu, and reed canary grass.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

95

Forest Watch: Forest Watch is a volunteer cooperative effort organized by the Illinois DNR. Volunteers conduct biological monitoring in order to

identify long-term changes in the health of forest

ecosystems. Two permanent monitoring plots are

located on the Refuge.

River Watch: River Watch, like Forest Watch, is

a volunteer cooperative effort organized by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Each spring

citizen scientists evaluate two streams on the Refuge. The data and results are reported to the state

for an evaluation of stream quality.

Fish Surveys: Refuge fish management is conducted by IDNR in conjunction with the Service's

Carterville Fishery Resource Office. The IDNR

uses electrofishing on the lakes and several of the

smaller ponds each year to determine population

diversity, structure and overall health. The IDNR

also collects fish for contaminant analysis as dictated by the State fish consumption advisory group

and studies delayed bass mortality associated with

fishing tournaments as appropriate. Creel surveys

were conducted in 1976, 1978 and 2000.

Lotus Surveys: The American lotus (Nelumbo

lutea) that grows in Grassy Bay is in apparent

decline and is being studied. The IDNR has done

some seeding and planting in the bay. The Refuge is

monitoring several new patches of lotus in Crab

Orchard Lake east of Route 148.

Shoreline Surveys: Shoreline and island erosion

has been shown to be a contributor of sediment to

the lakes, especially Crab Orchard Lake. Over the

years various surveys and control efforts have been

tried. The last effort was in 2001. 

3.5 Federal Threatened and 

Endangered Species

3.5.1 Mammals

The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is

not known to occur on the Refuge, but it has been

observed in areas nearby. In winter, Indiana bats

hibernate in caves and mines. There are no known

caves or mines on the Refuge, but Indiana bats are

known to hibernate in caves in Jackson County adjacent to the Refuge. Summer maternity roosts and

colonies are found in well-developed riparian woods

and upland forests.

The first surveys for Indiana bats on the Refuge

occurred in 1989. During two nights of netting, none

were captured. However, Illinois DNR biologists

thought that some of the Refuge habitat looked suitable. There have been several attempts to capture

Indiana bats on the Refuge to determine if the species is present. A 1999 survey was unsuccessful in

capturing any Indiana bats.

3.5.2 Birds

The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

occurs as a winter migrant and a summer breeder

on the Refuge (Figure 24). The Bald Eagle is currently listed as a threatened species that has been

proposed to be delisted. Bald Eagles are probably

much more common in the area than they were

before construction of Crab Orchard Lake in 1940.

The Refuge estimated 10-14 wintering birds in 1961.

The history of eagles nesting can be summarized as:

1974-construction of the first nest; 1979-the first

nesting attempt; 1980-first nestling; 1981-first

fledglings. Generally, each year 10 to 30 bald eagles

winter on the Refuge; there are two or three active

nests and two to six fledglings (Figure 25). 

3.5.3 Plants

There are no known federally listed threatened

or endangered plants on the Refuge. 

Figure 24: Bald Eagle Survey Counts on 

Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2002
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

96

3.6 Public Use Resources and 

Trends

Swimming, boating, picnicking, dog field trials,

camping, hunting and fishing were a part of the

Crab Orchard Creek Project before the establishment of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

When Congress transferred the lands to the

Department of the Interior, they directed the Secretary to classify the lands for the most beneficial use.

Subsequently, the Secretary designated Area I and

Area III of the Refuge for recreational use, including hunting, fishing, picnicking, boating, swimming

and similar activities. In Area III group recreation

and camps were to take precedence over other public uses. Area II was classified as “closed refuge.”

(Figure 26)

When the Department of the Interior assumed

management of the lands, Area I was under a single

concession permit issued by the Soil Conservation

Service. The concessionaire operated two government owned bathing beaches, a boat docking concession (Playport) and a skeet and trap facility. The

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, an incorporated

group of individuals, leased property and paid concession royalties to the main concessionaire.

In 1956, the Refuge reached a milestone of 1 million annual visitors. Nine years later visitation surpassed 2 million annual visits. Visitation fell as

additional State and federal recreational areas were

constructed in Southern Illinois. Today the annual

visitation averages 1 million.

A wide spectrum of recreational activities continues to occur on and around Crab Orchard, Devils

Kitchen and Little Grassy lakes. The activities

include boating, water-skiing, swimming, camping,

picnicking, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,

environmental education, environmental interpretation, horseback riding, and photography. Public use

facilities include campgrounds, marinas, boat

ramps, fishing piers, beaches, picnic areas, hiking

trails, auto tour, visitor center, environmental education complex, observation decks, and photo blinds.

3.6.1 Hunting

Several species of small game, big game, and

migratory waterfowl are hunted on the Refuge.

Federal and State hunting regulations apply. Recreational trapping requires a special use permit. Refuge records show only a few trappers setting traps

on the Refuge in the last few years.

 Most hunting occurs outside the restricted use

area. The public use area of the Refuge makes up

approximately 23,000 acres and is open to all hunting activities in accordance with State hunting seasons. Hunting includes muzzleloader, archery,

shotgun and pistol deer hunting, waterfowl hunting,

archery and shotgun wild turkey hunting, small

game hunting (rabbit, squirrel, quail, and woodchuck), game bird hunting (dove, woodcock, snipe

and crow) and furbearer hunting (raccoon, opossum,

fox and coyote).

A controlled white-tailed deer and wild turkey

hunt occur in the restricted use area. Other hunting

programs include controlled goose hunting, youth

deer hunting and deer hunting for people with physFigure 25: Bald Eagle Fledgling Counts on 

Crab Orchard NWR, 1993-2000
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

97

Figure 26: 1948 Area Designations, Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

98

ical disabilities. Hunting is prohibited in zones

around the youth camps on Little Grassy Lake and

industrial areas in the restricted use area.

Restricted Use Area Deer Hunt: Since 1973,

white-tailed deer hunting in the restricted use area

has been an important management tool and a popular recreational activity. The Refuge conducts two

hunts that coincide with State seasons. Five hundred permits are issued each season for a total of

1,000 permits. 

From 1973 through 1994, hunters could take

either sex of deer. They were encouraged to take

antlerless deer with the intent of keeping the Refuge's deer population strong and healthy by limiting

the herd size and balancing the sex ratio. However,

the Refuge did not achieve this goal. Therefore, in

1995, the first gun deer hunting season was designated antlerless only.

Restricted Use Area Spring Wild Turkey Hunt:

In the spring of 2001, the Refuge implemented a

spring turkey hunt in the Restricted Use Area. The

Refuge requested 15 State-issued permits for each

of four seasons for a total of 60 permits. When the

State went to five seasons in 2002, the Refuge chose

to keep the same total number of permits (60) so 12

permits were issued for each season. The State also

added a youth season, so 12 additional Restricted

Use Area permits were added in 2002. A total of 72

permits are currently offered. The public use area

portion of the Refuge is open to all turkey hunters

who have an appropriate permit from the State.

This can result in hunter competition for prime

hunting areas and lower success rates. The Refuge

goal for the Restricted Use Area hunt has been to

offer an experience that focuses on lower numbers

of hunters and higher success rates. Hunter success

rates in the Restricted Use Area during 2001-2004

have been 75 percent, 43 percent, 52 percent, and 35

percent, respectively. The State-wide hunter success rate is about 20 percent.

Controlled Goose Hunting: The area for this

hunt is within the portion of the Refuge open to public hunting. The controlled goose hunting areas, contain 18 land blinds and 15 water blinds. Two of the

blinds are accessible to people with disabilities and

can be reserved daily. 

Youth and Disabled Persons Deer Hunt: In

1991, volunteers constructed blinds and implemented the hunts, which have been very successful.

The hunts coincide with the first shotgun deer hunt

season. The Refuge reserves permits for 25 disabled

hunters and 25 youth hunters and a portion of the

Restricted Use Area is designated for these hunts.

Hunters are required to have an aide or adult with

them in the field. 

3.6.2 Fishing

Fishing is one of the more popular visitor pastimes on the Refuge. Crab Orchard, Little Grassy

and Devils Kitchen Lakes are available for fishing

year-round with one exception. The eastern portion

of Crab Orchard Lake is closed to boating from

October 1 to March 14 to provide resting area for

wintering waterfowl. The main species of fish

sought by the anglers are largemouth bass, crappie,

bluegill and channel catfish. 

There are several bank fishing areas on the Refuge (see Figure 27). Although there are many other

good fishing areas, the areas described in the following paragraphs receive the highest visitation and

the most noticeable resource impacts. 

Visitor's Pond is a popular fishing site on the Refuge. It is located in the restricted use area behind

the visitor information center. The pond is open

from March 15 to September 30. A universally

accessible asphalt trail leading to a fishing pier

allows easy access to the pond. 

Wolf Creek Recreation Area consists of a causeway and a peninsula where pan fishing is popular

year-round. There are two gravel parking areas, a

restroom, fish attractors, and six accessible fishing

platforms along the causeway. Picnic tables and

benches are provided for day use. 

 Blue Heron Pond is located in the restricted use

area. The pond is open from March 15 to September

30. Because it is out of the way, the pond receives

far fewer visits than other ponds in the restricted

use area.

A-41 Pond is located in the restricted use area.

People walk from a gravel parking area approximately one-half mile to the pond. The pond is open

from March 15 to September 30. The opening coincides with cattle pasturing in the same area.

Manager's Pond is accessible from Old Route 13

near Carterville. The pond receives light use, possibly due to the scarcity of parking facilities and the

heavy algae growth covering the pond during most

of the summer.

Honker's Corner Pond is located on Old Route 13

approximately 1 mile west of Route 148. There is

ample roadside parking. The pond is used consistently in early spring, but slows as algae growth covers the pond during most of the summer months. 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

99

Figure 27: Bank Fishing Sites on Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

100

Route 148 North is located on the northeast end

of the Route 148 causeway. There is a large gravel

parking lot and kiosk. The area receives moderate

use from spring to fall. Mostly anglers fish for pan

fish and channel catfish in Crab Orchard Lake.

Route 148 South is located on the southeast end

of the Route 148 causeway. There is a small gravel

parking lot. The area usually has one or more cars in

the parking lot during fishing season. 

Cambria Neck Area is located on a peninsula off

Cambria Road. The area is used by anglers often

during the height of fishing season. There are picnic

facilities, a restroom, a parking lot and a grassy recreation area. The area is visible from New Route 13,

which may account for a lot of first-time visitors. 

Ann Manns Pond is located on Spillway Road, 2

miles south of the Crab Orchard Lake Dam. Bank

fishing and fishing from non-motorized boats is permitted year around. There is a small parking area.

Bluegill Pond is located along the southern

boundary of the Restricted Use Area. People walk

from a gravel parking area approximately one-half

mile to the pond. The pond is open from March 15 to

September 30. The opening coincides with cattle

pasturing in the same area.

Fishing Tournaments

Five fishing tournaments are held annually on

the Refuge's three lakes under special use permits.

The tournaments are well established and require

minimal assistance from Refuge staff, although the

Refuge's law enforcement staff and Illinois DNR

officers do run spot checks during the tournaments.

Approximately 500 anglers participate in these

events. Anglers and biologists have expressed concern over the lack of vegetation for spawning bass

and, with respect to tournaments, to post-release

mortality. 

Fish-Offs

The three major lakes receive many visits from

fishing clubs hosting club events called “fish-offs.” A

fish-off is defined as an organized club fishing event

of 20 boats or fewer. The Refuge registered over 130

fish-offs in 2001 and more occur without being registered. The Refuge recently instituted new rules

restricting fish-offs to one per club, per lake, per

year. All fish caught must be returned to the lake

and aerated live wells are required for all boats. 

3.6.3 Camping

At one time camping was allowed throughout

open areas of the Refuge. Because of litter and trash

problems, camping was restricted to a concessionoperated campground on each of the three major

lakes. Campground locations are shown in Figure 1

on page 2.

 Crab Orchard Campground began operation in

1964 under a concession contract. In 1969, the Refuge assumed operation of the campground and

upgraded electric service, restrooms and showers.

The campground returned to a concession contract

in 1972. 

Today Crab Orchard Campground is the largest

of the four campgrounds with 250 electric and nonelectric sites. Restroom and shower facilities are

located on each of the six loops. In addition, there is

a fish cleaning area, a store and a swimming beach.

The campground is open from April 1 through October 31. With management approval, campsites may

be made available during the off-season. There is no

limit on campground stays.

Little Grassy Campground is a concession-operated campground and marina that has 130 electric

and non-electric campsites. There is a restroom and

shower facility. A store offers bait, food items and

boat rental. The campground is open from April 1

through October 31 with limited campsites available

during the off season.

Devils Kitchen Campground is a concession-operated campground and marina that has 45 electric

and non-electric campsites. The campsites are

tiered, because they are located on a steep hill.

There is a restroom and shower facility. A store

offers bait, food items and boat rental. The campground is open from April 1 through October 31

with limited campsites during the off season.

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, a private organization, operates a marina and a campground with

40 electric campsites under a lease contract. Membership is required to use any part the facility.

Camping is permitted with an annual membership.

Figure 28 summarizes campground visits to the

Refuge.

3.6.4 Wildlife Observation

Wildlife observation is the most popular activity

occurring on the Refuge, and there are many good

observation areas on the Refuge. Points of interest,

trails, auto tours and viewing blinds have been
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

101

developed in an effort to encourage and enhance

wildlife viewing. Figure 29 identifies existing observation blinds and decks.

The Route 148 observation platform is located

approximately 2 miles south of the Visitor Center.

The platform has interpretive signs and offers a

good view of an open field, but only adequate viewing of a pond area. There is a large, paved parking

lot.

Wolf Creek Causeway is a very popular location

when wintering waterfowl are present. The parking

lot is used to view birds from automobiles.

Waterfowl Display Pond is located on Wolf Creek

Road about one-half mile north of the causeway.

There is a roadside pull-off area from which visitors

can view waterfowl at the 1-acre pond, which is

about 100 yards west of the road.

Bald Eagle Lane is located off Spillway Road and

offers a view of Grassy Bay and an occasional Bald

Eagle sighting. There is a Bald Eagle's nest not too

far from this site.

The Devils Kitchen Dam observation area offers

good viewing of the lake. The area has a restroom,

parking lot, picnic table, grassy area and trail leading to the bottom of the dam. 

Devils Kitchen Line No. 11 offers a good view of

the lake.

Little Grassy Lake Dam overlook offers an excellent view of the lake. The area has enough room for

a few automobiles and is occasionally congested

when anglers use it as a parking lot.

3.6.5 Hiking Trails

Hiking is permitted throughout the public use

area of the Refuge. Refuge volunteers maintain

seven trails that are open to the general public and

one trail that is provided for educational purposes

only. Numerous fire trails have served as hiking

trails on the Refuge. The following is a list of maintained trails. 

Harmony Trail: The trail is about 1 mile long

and is a self-guided, non-interpretive trail. The trail

has an A-frame structure with interpretive panels at

the trailhead. The trail receives heavy use, especially during the spring and fall.

Prairie Trail: Located across from the Harmony

Trail, this trail makes a circle through a 7-acre prairie restoration area. Currently the trail is used very

little, because it is not well defined or interpreted.

Wild Turkey Trail: Located across from Devils

Kitchen Line No. 12 on Tacoma Lake Road, the 2-

mile trail zigzags through a pine plantation and continues along a ridge top, ending at a gravel parking

lot on Grassy Road. The trail has been signed at the

trailheads and throughout the trail.

Figure 28: Crab Orchard NWR Campground 

Visits Per Year
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

102

Figure 29: Observation Areas on Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

103

Devils Kitchen Line No. 17: This loop trail is an

asphalt road that has been closed to automobile traffic. It borders and offers access to the Crab Orchard

Wilderness. There is a large, paved parking lot at

the trailhead.

Visitor Center Trail: The trail is located next to

the Visitor Center. The first quarter mile is universally accessible and has three benches and four

interpretive signs. A new half-mile section completes the loop trail. The new section awaits an

asphalt surface.

Homestead Trail: The gravel, 1-mile loop trail

next to Refuge Headquarters is designed as an environmental education trail. It has an observation

blind and a study platform.

Rocky Bluff Trail: The trail is the most popular

trail on the Refuge. Located across from Devils

Kitchen Line No. 11, the trail offers a magnificent

view of the unglaciated part of the Refuge. The 1.5

mile loop trail crosses the Wild Turkey Trail at midpoint. During the spring, volunteers lead wildflower

walks along the trail. 

The National Trail System Act of 1968 (Public

Law 90-543) authorized creation of a national trail

system comprised of National Recreation Trails,

National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails.

Legislation is pending in Congress to add National

Discovery Trails as a new category of long-distance

trails and designate the American Discovery Trail

as the first National Discovery Trail. The proposed

American Discovery Trail covers more than 6,000

miles from Delaware to California. The Southern

Midwest Route of the American Discovery Trail

crossing Illinois would overlay most of the River to

River Trail, which runs about 146 miles from Battery Rock on the Ohio River to Grand Tower on the

Mississippi River for a distance of about 176 miles

(River to River Trail Society, 1995).

In late 1997, the Shawnee National Forest

drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between the Shawnee National Forest, the Refuge,

and the River to River Trail Society to formalize

maintenance responsibilities and alignment of the

River to River Trail along a tentative route through

the Crab Orchard Wilderness. The parties have not

agreed to or signed the MOU.

3.6.6 Boating 

Boating has long been a popular activity on the

Refuge. When Crab Orchard Lake was completed in

1940, it was the largest man-made lake in Illinois.

Crab Orchard Lake hosted professional outboard

motor races in 1947. In 1953, the Southern Illinois

Sailing Club moved from St. Louis to Crab Orchard

Lake. Over the past 50 years boating on Crab

Orchard Lake has changed with the times, from 25

hp outboards in the 1940s to jet skis and house boats

today. 

The Refuge offers boating on Crab Orchard, Devils Kitchen, and Little Grassy lakes. Crab Orchard

Lake has 13 improved boat launching facilities;

three ramps are provided on Devils Kitchen Lake;

four are provided at Little Grassy Lake (see

Figure 30). The lakes and boating facilities are

described in the following paragraphs.

3.6.6.1. Crab Orchard Lake

Crab Orchard Lake is the largest of the three

main lakes and covers approximately 7,000 acres.

The area west of Wolf Creek Road is open all year

and serves as a multi-recreation area for pleasure

boating of all types (jet skis, house boats, runabouts,

sail boats, and pontoons) and fishing. The area east

of Wolf Creek Road is open March 15 to September

30. Thirteen boat ramps offer access to the lake.

Three marinas are operated on Crab Orchard

Lake. The Refuge operates Playport Marina and

the former Images Marina. Crab Orchard Boat &

Yacht Club offers docks, slips, a picnic area and

campsites to members only.

3.6.6.2. Devils Kitchen Lake

The smallest and most scenic of the three lakes,

Devils Kitchen Lake covers approximately 800

acres. Care must be used when boating in the lake

because numerous trees lie just under the water's

surface. The lake is used for boating, canoeing, and

fishing. Outboard motors on the lake are limited to

10 horsepower. There are three public boat ramps

and one marina on the lake.

3.6.6.3. Little Grassy Lake

Little Grassy Lake covers approximately 1,000

acres. The lake is heavily used by the public, four

group camps and Southern Illinois University's

Touch of Nature Environmental Center for fishing,

boating, swimming and canoeing. The lake is scenic

and has some underwater hazards from trees. Outboard motors on the lake are limited to 10 horsepower. There are four public boat ramps and one

marina on the lake.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

104

Figure 30: Boat Launches on Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

105

3.6.7 Swimming

Swimming has long been a popular activity on the

Refuge. At one time the Refuge supported six public

beaches – four on Crab Orchard Lake and one each

on Devils Kitchen Lake and Little Grassy Lake. 

 The Soil Conservation Service ran two concession-operated beaches on Crab Orchard Lake at the

time the area was transferred to the Department of

the Interior. Each beach had a beach house with

showers, changing area, and vending area. Subsequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service ran these

beaches (Hogan's Point and Crab Orchard) as fee

areas. The Service also created beaches at Carterville and Lookout Point. In 1973, the Crab Orchard

Beach and Hogan's Point Beach were closed and

Carterville and Lookout Point were placed under

concession contracts. 

Today swimming is allowed in Crab Orchard and

Little Grassy lakes and prohibited in Devils Kitchen

Lake. In 1994, Carterville and Lookout Point

beaches were removed from concession contract.

The Service then ran Carterville Beach as a recreational area and Lookout Point was closed. Because

the Refuge was not able to meet public health standards at Carterville Beach, the beach was closed in

1998. The Refuge expanded the beach at the Crab

Orchard Campground and the concessionaire

opened the beach to the general public. The Little

Grassy Campground also operates a beach that is

open only to campers.

3.6.8 Picnicking

From the late 1940s through the 1960s, picnicking was a very popular activity on the Refuge. In

1961 there were 20 designated picnic areas with

more than 200 picnic tables. When the Refuge experienced a $75,000 budget cut in non-program uses in

1973, several picnic areas were closed. Today picnicking is encouraged in four locations on the Refuge. The areas vary in size, character and type of

use (see Figure 31).

Cambria Neck: This is the largest of the picnic

areas. The area has several picnic tables with grills,

a restroom, a gravel boat ramp and parking lot. The

area is open during warm season months for picknicking and fishing. 

Greenbriar: This area has a parking lot, a

restroom, an accessible fishing dock and three picnic tables and grills. The area is used mostly by

anglers fishing along the bank.

Harmony Trail: The area has a heated restroom,

a large parking lot and two concrete picnic tables.

The area is used mainly by school groups and trail

visitors. 

Wolf Creek Recreation Area: This area is mostly

used by anglers fishing from the bank. The area has

five picnic tables and grills, a restroom, and fishing

access. 

3.6.9 Horseback Riding

Regulations controlling horseback riding on Crab

Orchard NWR have seen several changes over the

years. During the 1960s and up to 1979, horseback

riding was permitted only in areas designated by

signs or on marked horseback trails. In 1979, the

regulation permitted horseback riding only on existing paved or graveled roads in the open area (public

use area) of the Refuge. In 1984, the regulation prohibited horses in concession, agriculture and grazing areas.

Even though the 1984 regulation allowed horseback riding in most of the public use area, this activity is concentrated in the more wild and scenic

southern portion of the Refuge. In 1976, much of

this southern portion was designated as the Crab

Orchard Wilderness and horseback riding was not

allowed. In the past two decades, probably as a

result of lax enforcement, horseback riding in the

Wilderness has become increasingly common.

Equestrians typically ride on old abandoned roads

and user-defined trails within the Wilderness and

adjacent lands. Recently there has been a marked

increase in the development of unauthorized trails

in the Wilderness.

Several organizations have proposed developing

trails in the Wilderness for hiking and horseback

riding. In 1980 the Shawnee Trails Conference, Inc.

proposed the 130-mile MISHIO trail traversing

southern Illinois from Grand Tower on the Missis-
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

106

Figure 31: Picnic Areas on Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

107

sippi River to Cave-in-Rock on the Ohio River. The

Refuge Manager decided not to authorize any trail

construction in the Wilderness based on the unsuitable soil and steep slopes. The Refuge’s Master

Plan, finalized in 1979, also recommended that no

trails be developed for these same reasons. The

Crab Orchard Wilderness Management Plan (1985)

states: “No trail construction will be undertaken in

the future ...” In 1993 The River to River Trail Society sought permission to realign the River to River

Trail from public, paved roads to a route through

the Wilderness. The Refuge Manager requested

more details from the Society regarding design criteria, layout, construction and maintenance, as well

as modes of travel and expected levels of public use,

to assess the impacts on the Wilderness and the

Refuge in general. In 1997 volunteers laid out and

cleared a tentative route, but the proposal has not

been formally evaluated. Later that year a formal

Memorandum of Understanding between the Society, the Refuge and the U.S. Forest Service was

drafted to define trail alignment and maintenance

responsibilities, but it has not been signed.

3.6.10 Group Camps

Four group camps are located on Little Grassy

Lake. The camps operate under a cooperative

agreement with the Refuge. 

Annually, approximately 5,700 people attend the

United Methodist Church Camp and 1,200 attend

Camp Carew, a Presbyterian Church camp. 

The Boy Scouts of America camp, Pine Ridge, is

primarily a day use facility that is active throughout

the year. Approximately 6,000 Scouts attend the

camp each year.

The Girl Scouts camp, Camp Cedar Point, is recognized as one of the oldest Girl Scout camps in the

nation. The camp is active throughout the year.

Approximately 7,000 Scouts attend this camp.

Almost 20,000 campers participate in group

camping activities on the Refuge every year

(Figure 32).

3.6.11 Environmental Education

The Refuge provides educational assistance to

area teachers, educators, and Refuge group camps.

Refuge staff, interns, and volunteers present both

on-site and off-site educational programs to area

school groups, Boy Scout groups, and other organizations upon request. In addition, each group camp

is required to provide a minimum of 1 hour of environmental education each day to campers. The Refuge provides camp instructors with workshops and

lesson plans prior to each camping season.

Educational materials (books, posters, videos,

and other supplies) are maintained by the Refuge

and are available for loan to area educators. Educational kits focusing on key concepts and resources

are also available for loan. In addition, Refuge staff

provide assistance with curriculum development

and with special event programs conducted by other

agencies and organizations.

Figure 32: Annual Group Camp Attendance at Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Visits

19,324

17,459

16,225

18,110 18,626
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

108

3.6.12 Interpretation

Interpretive programs are given by Refuge staff

and volunteers to school, civic and other groups. The

programs are presented through automobile tours,

talks and walks. Some of the better attended programs include Bald Eagle tours, wildflower walks

and owl prowls. The Refuge also presents its interpretive message through bulletin boards, signs and

wayside exhibits. Visitor services staff presented

114 programs to more than 3,400 individuals in 2001.

3.6.13 Visitor Center

The Visitor Center contains an information and

exhibit area, auditorium/conference room, book

store and office space for visitor services staff. The

Williamson County Tourism Bureau also occupies

office space in the building. Built in 1941, the building originally housed a fire station. The building was

renovated in 1993 and has 3,455 square feet.

Approximately 1 million people visit the Refuge

every year, and the Center receives approximately

40,000 of those visitors. Visitor Center staff answer

questions, issue user passes, host workshops and

conferences, present interpretive programs, and

check-in deer and turkey hunters.

3.6.14 Existing Transportation Patterns and Visitor 

Facilities

Crab Orchard NWR is located in southern Illinois relatively close to Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee. Interstate highways

24, 55, 57, and 64 provide high speed routes to southern Illinois. Several state and county roads provide

access to and within Refuge boundaries.

State Route 148 passes through the Refuge from

north to south, passes the Visitor Center and has an

average daily traffic count of 5,800. New State

Route 13 crosses the northern portion of the Refuge

and has an average daily traffic count of 25,000. New

State Route 13 provides the primary access to the

developed recreation sites in the northwestern portion of the Refuge. Interstate 57 passes through the

eastern portion of the Refuge and has an average

daily traffic count of 26,900.

The Refuge also maintains an extensive system of

roads within its boundaries. According to a 2001 survey of Refuge roads completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge maintains 38 miles of paved surface

roads and 17 miles of gravel roadway for a total of

56 roadway miles. And additionally, 1.1 million

square feet of parking area, 21 boat launch ramps,

and three universally accessible areas are also maintained by Refuge personnel. 

3.7 Special Management 

Areas

3.7.1 Wilderness

Congress designated the Crab Orchard Wilderness as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System on October 19, 1976, when it enacted

Public Law 94-557. The 4,050-acre Wilderness was

the first in the State of Illinois; seven additional wilderness areas have since been established on the

Shawnee National Forest. The Crab Orchard Wilderness is located in the extreme southern portion

of the Refuge bordering the shores of Devils

Kitchen and Little Grassy lakes. (See Figure 1 on

page 2.) A Wilderness Management Plan was

approved for the Crab Orchard Wilderness in 1985. 

The rugged terrain of this unglaciated land is

interlaced with numerous creeks. The vegetation

cover in the Crab Orchard Wilderness is predominantly second growth deciduous forest on slopes

and typical old-fields with scattered trees, brush

and small grassy openings along ridges. There are

more than 700 acres of plantations, including 400

acres of hardwood (mostly black-locust) and 325

acres of non-native pine and pine-hardwood. Invasive species, such as autumn-olive, multiflora rose,

Japanese honeysuckle, Amur honeysuckle and Oriental bittersweet, are common throughout the Wilderness, and likely to become more problematic.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

109

The Wilderness contains numerous old house sites

with relic exotic ornamental plants, sandstone pillars, open wells, ponds and trash. There is one

known cemetery (Baker) located in the north central portion. Rocky Comfort Road, which is maintained by Williamson County, runs north and south

through the area.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 permits certain activities within designated wilderness areas that do not

alter natural processes. Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum tool” approach that

requires the Refuge to use the least intrusive methods, equipment and facilities necessary for administering the areas. The Refuge staff maintains

boundary signs and barricades to prevent vehicle

trespass and occasionally patrols in the area. There

are no research projects presently being conducted

within the Wilderness.

Visitor activities in the Crab Orchard Wilderness

include hunting, hiking, horseback riding, nature

study, and mushroom picking. Although horseback

riding was prohibited when the Wilderness was designated, this use has become increasingly common

in the years since then, likely as a result of lax

enforcement. Hikers and horseback riders generally

follow old roads and user-defined trails, which have

become eroded in some places especially on the

steeper slopes. Horse traffic, though generally light,

has disturbed the fragile soils along the trails. Most

damage occurs during winter and spring when the

ground is wet and soft.

The Crab Orchard Wilderness is located near the

population center of southern Illinois and is readily

accessible to visitors who seek solitude in a natural

setting. The primary access points are along Rocky

Comfort Road, Devils Kitchen Lines #9 and #17,

Antioch Cemetery Road, and West Liberty Cemetery Road. The Wilderness is also accessible by boat

from Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen lakes. The

number and distribution of visitors in the Wilderness are not well documented. A study was conducted by Reeder (1977) soon after Wilderness

designation to characterize public use by surveying

128 visitors. A more detailed study by McCurdy and

others (1994) described the demographics and recreation use patterns of visitors to five wilderness

areas on the Shawnee National Forest, one of which

was Panther Den Wilderness which is adjacent to

the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

3.7.1.1. Inholdings and Lands Contiguous to the Crab Orchard 

Wilderness

The entire northern boundary and almost all of

the western boundary of the Wilderness border

other Refuge land (see Figure 4 on page 20). Much

of the northern boundary is formed by the Little

Grassy and Devils Kitchen lakes, which are manmade reservoirs. At the time of designation, the Wilderness designation excluded an inholding and

another parcel surrounded by Wilderness on three

sides, both owned by Southern Illinois University.

Through a land exchange in 1979, the Refuge

acquired these tracts, which together constitute

about 120 acres. An additional 558-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the Crab

Orchard Wilderness was acquired in the same land

exchange. Rocky Comfort Road runs north-south

through this tract. 

Lands on the southern boundary of the Wilderness include the 779-acre Panther Den Wilderness,

managed by the USDA Forest Service. Additional

lands are owned by Southern Illinois University and

private individuals. Neighboring lands are primarily

second growth forest with a few fields making up

the rest of the boundary. Lands adjacent to the

eastern boundary of the Wilderness are primarily

fields in private ownership.

3.7.2 Research Natural Areas

The Service administratively designates research

natural areas (RNA), which are part of a national

network of reserved areas under various ownerships. RNAs are intended to assist in the preservation of examples of all significant natural

ecosystems for comparison with those influenced by

man, to provide educational and research areas for

scientists to study the ecology, successional trends,

and other aspects of the natural environment, and to

serve as gene pools and preserves for rare and

endangered species of plants and animals. In RNAs,

as in designated Wilderness, natural processes are

allowed to predominate without human intervention. Under certain circumstances, deliberate

manipulation may be used to maintain the unique

features for which the RNA was established. Activities such as hiking, bird watching, hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, and photography are permissible, but not mandated, in RNAs. Thirteen RNAs

totaling 1,353 acres have been established on the

Refuge (Figure 33 and Table 13). 
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

110

Figure 33: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

111

3.7.3 Conservation Easements

When the Farm Services Agency (FSA), formerly the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA),

acquires property through default of loans, it is

required to protect wetland and floodplain

resources on the property prior to resale to the public. The Service assists the FSA in identifying

important wetland and floodplain resources on the

property. Once those resources have been identified, FSA protects the areas through a perpetual

conservation easement and transfers management

responsibility to the Service. The authority and

direction comes from the Consolidated Farm and

Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 and 1985, as

amended); Executive Order 11990 providing for the

protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988

providing for the management of floodplain

resources. The Service administers the easements

as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Refuge manages 24 conservation easement

areas totaling 490 acres located within the Crab

Orchard Fish and Wildlife Management District, a

21-county area in southern Illinois (see Figure 34).

Inadequate staffing levels have impeded proper

management of the widely dispersed easements.

Some of the easements have not been surveyed or

marked on the ground. The easements should be

inspected regularly, but some have not been

inspected in over ten years. Without appropriate

monitoring the easements and their resources can

not be protected from the myriad forms of

encroachment. 

3.8 Industrial Use Status and 

Trends

In 1942, the eastern portion of the Crab Orchard

Creek Project was transferred to the War Department for construction of the Illinois Ordnance Plant.

The War Department acquired additional lands for

its purposes. The Illinois Ordnance Plant was built

during 1942 as a loading site for high explosive

shells, land mines, bombs and components. 

Initially, the Illinois Ordnance Plant contained

536 buildings with approximately 2.3 million square

feet of space, water and sewage treatment plants

and distribution systems, power and telephone utility systems, 88 miles of railroad track, 93 miles of

access and service roads, parking for 6,900 vehicles,

nine steam generating plants and a peak wartime

employment of approximately 10,000 workers. The

Illinois Ordnance Plant ceased ordnance operations

in 1945 with the end of World War II.

When the War Department and Soil Conservation Service lands were transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1947, approximately 1.6

million square feet of space suitable for industrial

leasing were included in the transfer.

From 1947 to 1978, the Refuge leased buildings

to a variety of tenants. Conventional buildings were

used for the manufacture of munitions, boats, stencil

board, marking machines, mobile homes, inks and

brushes. A vocational training school also operated

in the buildings. Cold storage warehouses were used

for washer/dryer parts storage, beverage distributorship, freight terminal and office space, among

other things. Igloo type buildings were leased primarily by munitions manufacturers, fireworks distributors, and coal mining companies for storage of

explosives or explosive components.

 In 1978, in a master planning process, the Service considered divesting the industrial operations

on the Refuge. A 250-acre tract of land was identified on the north boundary of the Refuge as an

industrial park for the relocation of existing industrial tenants. The industrial park concept failed due

to distance requirements of munitions manufacturTable 13: Research Natural Areas on Crab Orchard NWR

Name Area 

(Acres)

Date 

Established

Crab Orchard Creek 

Bottoms

105 1970

Devils Kitchen Dam 130 1970

Post Oak Flats 22 1970

Area 10 40 1972

Big Grassy Creek 210 1972

Crab Orchard 

Cemetery

70 1972

Devils Kitchen Lake 136 1972

Little Grassy Creek 20 1972

Pigeon Creek 40 1972

Post Oak Flats 

Addition

50 1972

The Oxbow 160 1972

Wolf Creek Bay 40 1972

Wolf Creek East 

Tributaries

330 1972

Total 1,353
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

112

ing, costs related to relocation of industrial operations, and the industrial purpose specified in the

public law that created the Refuge.

In 1981, in a cooperative effort with the Industrial Tenant Association, the Service implemented a

new industrial policy and new lease contracts. The

policy and leases have served as guidelines in the

administration of the industrial complex since 1981.

The industrial complex currently consists of about

1.2 million square feet. The Refuge collects about

$500,000 in rental receipts each year. Rental

receipts are returned to the Refuge and are used as

part of its operation and maintenance budget.

3.9 Agriculture

The Refuge began farm management in 1948.

The original focus of management was to:

# reclaim farmland that had been fallow during

ordnance plant operations,

# improve soil fertility,

# improve farm practices,

# emphasize establishment of pasture, and

# use crops to help establish a wintering flock of

Canada geese.

The Refuge started with 35 cooperative and 18

cash farmers in 1948. By 1952, there were 60 cooperative farmers and no cash farmers. .Common

crops included corn, soybeans, wheat, sudan grass,

oats, rye, and barley. Crop fields were in a 5-year

rotation that included 2-3 years of grass or legumes.

Pastures of cheat (Bromus tectorum) and bluegrass

(Poa sp.) were grazed by cattle along with some

horses and sheep. There were no permanent hay

fields. 

Hay crops were red clover (Trifolium pratense),

lespedeza, red top (Agrostis alba), and timothy

(Phleum pratense). The number of cooperators was

high and the number of acres allocated to each cooperator was relatively small. In 1953, there were 99

Figure 34: Conservation Easements Administered by Crab Orchard NWR
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

113

cooperators with an average of 110 acres per cooperator (Figure 35). By 1979, there were 28 cooperators with an average of 280 acres per cooperator. In

2001, there were 20 cooperators with an average of

315 acres per cooperator 

Efforts to reclaim farmland continued through

the 1950s and 1960s (Figure 36). Some bottomland

forest was converted to farmland. In 1963, for example, 170 acres of bottomland forest were cleared and

converted to crop production. During this period,

the common rotation was: corn, soybeans, winter

grain, hay, hay. In 1966, 2,500 geese died from

impaction of soybeans in their crops. In 1967, soybeans were dropped from the rotation and replaced

with milo, and 1967 was the first year in 10 with no

impaction mortality of geese on the Refuge. Soybeans were added back into the rotation in 1992.

More has been learned about crop impaction in

geese and there has been no subsequent impactionrelated mortality. 

Current row crop management emphasizes soil

protection and integrated pest management. Management consists of crop rotation, no-till planting,

higher weed tolerance, restricted use of herbicides,

and no insecticide use.

The current rotation, which was implemented in

1994, is:

# Year 1 – corn followed by rye

# Year 2 – soybeans (drilled) followed by winter

wheat (drilled)

# Year 3 – corn

# Year 4 – clover

# Year 5 – clover

Approximately 300 acres are in a continuous rotation of corn and soybeans, because these areas are

too wet to produce clover. 

Until recently, cooperators signed 5-year agreements. In anticipation of comprehensive conservation planning, the agreements were changed to 1-

year agreements until a management direction for

the Refuge is specified within a plan. Cooperators

bear the expense of all planting and harvesting

costs. Cooperators receive 75 percent of the corn,

100 percent of the soybean harvest, and 100 percent

of any second year clover they cut for hay. Crab

Orchard NWR receives 25 percent of the corn and

100 percent of the winter wheat. The Refuge's

share of corn and wheat are left unharvested to be

used by geese and other wildlife. In 2001, approximately 4,464 acres were planted in corn, beans or

clover (Figure 37). There were 244 fields with an

average size of 18 acres.

The current grazing program consists exclusively

of cattle grazing on fescue pastures. The grazing

period runs from April 15 to September 30. To make

pastures more attractive to geese, cooperators are

required to have their pastures grazed or mowed to

Figure 35: Number of Agricultural Cooperators at Crab Orchard NWR, 1953, 1979, 

and 2001
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

114

6 inches or lower in height by October. The Refuge's

pastures are in relatively poor condition with low

soil fertility. Cooperators currently sign a 1-year

special use permit. The grazing fee is $8.95 per animal unit month (AUM). Cooperators pay the fee

through a mowing credit of $2.53/AUM and by fertilizing the pasture. In 2001, there were 10 pastures

with an average size of 108 acres – approximately

863 acres were grazed and 220 acres were cut for

hay. 

The current hay program consists of improved

timothy fields and unimproved fields that are mostly

old fescue pastures. Cooperators are allowed as

many cuttings as a field will produce each year, and

they are required to cut their field to 6 inches or

shorter by October. The Refuge's hay fields currently have low soil fertility. In 2001, cooperators

paid $8.50 per ton of hay. Payment is made by fertilizing their field. In 2001, approximately 767 acres

were cut for hay. There were 22 fields with an average size of 34 acres.

3.10 Archaeological and 

Cultural Values2

Several investigations have shown that humans

have exploited southern Illinois, with its great variations in topography, geology, and vegetation, for

over 10,000 years. People of the nomadic hunterFigure 36: Total Area of Agricultural Fields on Crab Orchard NWR, 1947-2001

Figure 37: Area of Row Crop Fields, Pastures and Hay Fields in 1953, 1979, and 2001
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

115

gatherer PaleoIndian (10,000 to 8,000 BC) and

Archaic (8000 to 600 BC) cultures found rich lithic

resources for tools, rock overhangs for shelter, and

animals and plants from both forests and prairies

for subsistence. Late Archaic people began farming

the prairies to supplement their hunting and gathering procurement. People of the Woodland culture

(600 BC to AD 1000) acquired pottery and the bow

and arrow and increased reliance on farming, with

cultural influences that came from the west via the

Mississippi River and from the east via the Ohio and

Illinois rivers. The Refuge area was the center for

the Woodland Crab Orchard Tradition, the archeological site type now flooded by Crab Orchard Lake.

Woodland people were further influenced by the

flowering of the Hopewellian and Mississippian culture (AD 1000 to 1500), resulting in the establishment of small agricultural communities in the

Refuge area. Southern Illinois essentially became

depopulated from about AD 1500 until after the first

European contact in AD 1673, although groups of

displaced eastern tribes intermittently settled the

area. 

Euro-American settlers began arriving in the

early 19th century, primarily from Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Carolinas. Even earlier, George

Rogers Clark passed through Williamson County

and possibly the Refuge area in 1788 while taking

Illinois from British control. Subsequent settlers

constructed fortifications for protection; three

blockhouses were located on or near the Refuge. 

Settlements established before the mid-1800s

near what is now the Refuge were Russell Corners

on Eight Mile Prairie, Bainbridge and Phelps Prairie on Phelps Prairie, Cottage Home and Fredonia.

One settlement located on what is now Refuge land

was the village of Chamnesstown (later known as

Mousertown), which became a center for agricultural trade.

By the 1930s farmsteads and small towns covered

the Refuge area. Documents indicate at least 28

farmsteads and habitations, 34 cemeteries, three

churches, 12 schools, and two towns within the Refuge boundaries.

About 1,000 acres of the Refuge have been subjected to controlled and reported archeological survey and investigation. One hundred and thirty-six

prehistoric sites have been reported on the Refuge,

and human remains have been identified for at least

98 persons. Moreau Maxwell conducted the important excavation of the Sugar Camp Hill site 11-WM1 in 1939 and identified the Crab Orchard Tradition

before the site was covered by Crab Orchard Lake.

The artifacts from this work have been dispersed to

various museums; many artifacts can no longer be

located. 

Some subsequent investigations at the Refuge in

the 1950s and 1960s have had similar or worse problems. Reyman reported a survey from which artifacts, field notes and other documents have all been

lost. The Refuge contracted, as part of its 1978 master planning, for an inventory of 28 recorded and

reported sites on the Refuge, but documentation

was still incomplete. During the 1980s and 1990s

several investigations have occurred on the Refuge

for which reports have been completed and collections are curated at appropriate repositories.

Recent studies indicate settlement patterns in the

Crab Orchard Creek basin may be more complex

than previously thought.

As of October 1, 2001, there were no National

Register properties on or in the vicinity of the Refuge.

The area of the Refuge having been vacated of

most human occupancy from approximately 1500

and resettled by historic period tribes from the 17th

to 19th centuries, modern descendants of prehistoric cultures have not been identified. Three historic period tribes have legal or occupancy claims to

the Refuge area. The Kaskaskia (part of the Illini2. This section of the Draft EIS is derived from the report,

“Cultural Resource Management Plan for Cultural

Resources Within the Crab Orchard NWR” (3 vols.) by

Anthony Godfrey and Donna Stubbs, dated August 2001, as

well as other cultural resources reports of studies at the

Refuge from 1951 to the present.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

116

wek or Illinois, now part of the Peoria Tribe) were

declared by the Indian Claims Commission as having jurisdiction over most of southern Illinois. The

Piankashaw, a sub-group of the Miami tribe, historically were in southern Indiana, then in southeastern

Illinois with a short-term reservation 75 miles

northeast of the Refuge, but actual occupation there

was historically late, brief, and tenuous. The Indian

Claims Commission determined the Piankashaw to

be legally part of the Peoria tribe and later became

the United Peoria and Miami. The third tribe was

the Shawnee, who had homes in Ohio and Missouri

and used southern Illinois as transient travelers.

The Indian Claims Commission identified Shawnee

villages in the 18th century in Illinois south of the

Kaskaskia on the Mississippi, south of Grayville on

the Wabash, and along the Ohio River.

Although Indian tribes are generally considered

to have concerns about traditional cultural properties, the several church groups (and possibly other

groups) formerly within the Refuge boundaries

could also have similar concerns.

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 may exist and contain cultural items.

3.11 Law Enforcement

Enforcement of Federal wildlife laws, regulations

specific to the Refuge System, and State laws is an

essential part of Refuge operation. Law enforcement plays a crucial role in ensuring that natural

and cultural resources are protected and that visitors have a safe environment. The Refuge currently

has five employees, three full-time and two collateral duty, who conduct law enforcement duties on

the Refuge. Cooperative relationships exist with

state conservation officers and all county sheriff

departments in the area. Table 14 displays the most

frequently cited offences between 1997 and 2001 . 

3.12 Socioeconomic 

Environment

3.12.1 Economic Setting

The study area for estimating the economic

effects of the recreational, agricultural and commercial use of the Refuge is defined as Williamson and

Jackson counties. Most visitors to the Refuge (about

89 percent) come from within a 50-mile radius of the

Refuge, and about 90 percent of these visitors come

from Williamson and Jackson counties. Since most

visitors come from these two counties, most of the

economic impact of Refuge visitation occurs within

these counties. All of the commercial activities that

take place on the Refuge are within these counties. 

Table 14: Most Frequently Cited Offences on Crab Orchard NWR, 1997-2001

Offence 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Totals

Trespass 73 109 118 93 68 461

No Entrance Pass 57 103 91 73 49 373

State Vehicle Code 9 15 11 10 9 54

State Hunting Law 8 10 13 9 6 48

No Fishing License 25 21 14 19 17 96

Underage Drinking 16 21 29 20 10 96

Under Influence 3 11 14 8 5 41

Unauthorized Fire 7 5 12 9 6 39

Violate Posted Sign 4 6 9 7 8 34

Illegal Transport Alcohol 33 41 54 19 21 168

Special Regulations 17 15 29 12 28 101

Public Indecency 15 11 7 14 6 53

Possession of Controlled Substance 43 52 39 31 24 189

Off-road Vehicle 6 9 6 10 4 35

Total 316 429 446 334 261 1,788
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

117

Williamson County contains almost all of the Refuge lands. Williamson County was established in

1839 with Marion as the county seat. Major communities include Marion, Herrin, Carterville, Johnston

City, Pittsburg and Creal Springs. 

Jackson County contains portions of Little

Grassy Lake. The county was established in 1816.

Most of the county's residents live in one of three

cities: Carbondale, DeSoto, and Murphysboro,

which is the county seat. 

3.12.1.1. Population

Table 15 compares the population growth of Williamson and Jackson counties, Illinois, and the

United States from 1980 to 2000. Williamson County

population grew at a slower rate than the state but

substantially less than the U.S. from 1980 to 2000.

The 1990s was a period of significantly increased

growth for both Williamson County and the state,

but both lagged behind national population growth. 

Jackson County population declined while the

State and U.S. population grew from 1980 to 2000.

From 1990 to 2000, Jackson County lost population

compared with significant increases in the state and

U.S. population. 

Demographic information for Williamson and

Jackson counties is provided in Table 16.

3.12.1.2. Employment

Table 17 shows full- and part-time employment

by major business sector in Williamson County in

1980 and 2000. The majority (68 percent) of county

employment in 1980 was in four sectors: services,

retail trade, government and manufacturing. These

four sectors accounted for 75 percent of county

employment in 2000. 

Table 15: Williamson County and Jackson County, Illinois and the United States Population, Percentage Change 1980, 1990, 2000

Percent Change

1980 1990 2000 1980-

1990

1990-

2000

1980-

2000

Williamson County 56,846 57,717 61,296 1.5 6.20 7.8

Jackson County 61,846 61,055 59,612 -1.30 -2.40 -3.60

Illinois 11,434,702 11,446,979 12,419,293 0.10 8.50 8.60

United States 227,224,719 249,464,396 281,421,906 9.80 12.80 23.90

Table 16: Demographic Profile of Jackson County, Williamson County, Illinois and the United

States

Jackson County Williamson County Illinois USA

Population, percent change 1990-2000 -2.40 6.20 8.60 13.10

White, percent 80.80 95.30 73.50 75.10

Black or African American, percent 13.00 2.50 15.10 12.30

American Indian and Alaska Native, 

percent

0.30 0.30 0.20 0.90

Asian, percent 3.00 0.50 3.40 3.60

Hispanic or Latino origin, percent 2.40 1.20 12.30 12.50

Home ownership rate, percent 53.3. 73.60 67.30 66.20

Persons per household 2.21 2.35 2.63 2.59

Persons below poverty level, percent 21.00 14.90 11.30 13.30
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

118

Employment growth in Williamson County generally outpaced state growth from 1980 to 2000. Williamson County has had a substantially higher

unemployment rate than either the state or the U.S.

However, since 1983, Williamson County unemployment rates have slowly declined so that they more

closely resemble state and national unemployment

rates. 

Table 17: Employment by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000

Sector 1980 Percent of 

Total 

Employment

2000 Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Percent 

Change in 

Employment, 

1980-2000

Farming 788 3.80 591 1.90 -25.00

Mining 1,046 5.00 124 0.40 -88.10

Construction 1,443 6.90 2,105 6.80 45.90

Manufacturing 3,440 16.50 3,119 10.10 -9.30

Transportation/Public Utilities 1,293 6.20 1,681 9.50 30.00

Wholesale Trade 942 4.50 837 2.70 -11.10

Retail Trade 3,541 16.90 6,174 20.10 74.40

Finance, Insurance, and Real 

Estate

1,226 5.90 2,414 7.90 96.90

Services 3,615 17.30 8,166 26.60 125.90

Government 3,488 16.70 5,534 18.00 58.70

Total Employment 20,909 100.00 30,745 100.00 47.00

Illinois Total Employment 5,688,059 100.00 7,442,406 100.00 30.80

Table 18: Employment by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000 

Sector 1980 Percent of 

Total 

Employment

2000 Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Percent 

Change in 

Employment 

1980-2000

Farming 1,0611 3.50 973 2.50 -12.70

Mining 662 2.20 89 0.20 -86.60

Construction 1,119 3.70 1,729 4.50 54.50

Manufacturing 1,742 5.70 1,469 3.80 -15.70

Transportation/Public Utilities 1,473 4.90 1,062 2.70 -27.90

Wholesale Trade 488 1.60 460 1.20 -5.70

Retail Trade 5,548 18.30 7,285 18.80 31.30

Finance, Insurance and Real 

Estate

1,663 5.50 2,056 5.30 23.60

Services 5,828 19.20 9,920 25.50 70.20

Government 10,783 35.50 13,784 35.50 27.80

Total Employment 30,367 100.00 38,827 100.00 27.90

Illinois Total Employment 5,688,054 100.00 7,442,406 100.00 30.80

1.Equals 5-year average 1980-84.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

119

Table 18 shows the major employment sectors in

Jackson County for 1980 and 2000. In 1980, the

major sectors – government, services and retail

trade – totaled 73 percent of county employment. In

2000, government, services and retail trade

accounted for 80 percent of county employment. 

3.12.1.3. Employment Earnings and Personal Income3

Employment earnings in Williamson County

totaled $604 million in 1980 and $789 million in 2000,

an increase of 31 percent. This compares with a 51

percent statewide increase. Table 19 shows employment earnings for Williamson County by major

employment sectors for 1980 and 2000. 

Employment earnings in Jackson County totaled

just under $750 million in 1980 and about $985 million in 2000, an increase of 32 percent. Table 20

shows employment earnings for the major employment sectors in Jackson County.

Table 21 shows per capita personal income

(PCPI) for Williamson and Jackson counties, Illinois, and the U.S. for 1980, 1990 and 2000. During

the 1980s, PCPI growth in Williamson County was

significantly lower than both the state and the U.S.

However, in the 1990s county PCPI growth was

fairly even with state growth and much higher than

national growth. While growth rates were similar

for Jackson County and the state, 2000 PCPI is

almost 55 percent higher for the state than Jackson

County (Table 21). Overall, from 1980 to 2000, Williamson County PCPI grew at a substantially lower

rate than the state and national economies. 

3.12.2 Impact of the Refuge Budget

Refuge budget expenditures contribute to local

and regional economies. Table 22 summarizes the

economic impact of both salary and non-salary budget expenditures. Separate input-output models

were used to estimate the impacts of local spending,

regional (in-state but not local), and out-of-state

spending for both salary and non-salary expenditures. These estimates are based on the annual

average Refuge budget from 1996 to 2000. 

Table 19: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Williamson County, 1980 and 2000

Sector 1980 

(thousands)

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

2000 

(thousands)

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Percent 

Change in 

Employment, 

1980-2000

Farming $1,985 0.30 $3,418 0.40 72.20

Mining $75,082 12.40 $2,655 0.30 -96.50

Construction $59,209 9.80 $56,674 7.20 -4.30

Manufacturing $111,770 18.50 $102,425 13.00 -8.40

Transportation/

Public Utilities

$56,286 9.30 $75,755 9.60 34.60

Wholesale Trade $29,358 4.90 $28,209 3.60 -3.90

Retail Trade $72,557 12.00 $92,471 11.70 27.40

Finance, Insurance 

and Real Estate

$16,200 2.70 $41,944 5.30 158.90

Services $77,965 12.90 $166,231 21.10 113.20

Government $103,644 17.20 $219,532 27.80 111.80

Total Employment 

Earnings

$604,056 100.00 $789,314 100.00 30.70

Illinois Total 

Employment 

Earnings

$194,155,230 100.00 $293,692,287 100.00 51.30

3. All dollar figures have been adjusted for inflation for year

2000 dollars.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

120

Table 20: Employment Earnings by Major Business Sector, Jackson County, 1980 and 2000

Sector 1980 

(thousands)

Percent of Total 

Employment

2000

(thousands)

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Percent 

Change in 

Employment, 

1980-2000

Farming $5,420 0.70 $12,347 1.30 127.80

Mining $51,687 6.90 $3,342 0.30 -93.50

Construction $43,395 5.80 $51,886 5.30 19.60

Manufacturing $45,965 6.20 $41,334 4.20 -10.10

Transportation/Public Utilities $57,067 7.60 $47,429 4.80 -16.90

Wholesale Trade $13,131 1.80 $11,373 1.20 -13.40

Retail Trade $93,030 12.50 $98,023 9.90 5.40

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $23,438 3.10 $30,692 3.10 30.90

Services $12,253 16.10 $234,441 23.80 95.00

Government $297,359 39.80 $454,432 46.10 52.80

Total Employment Earnings $749,284 100.00 $985,299 100.00 32.00

Illinois Total Employment Earnings $194,155,230 100.00 $293,692,287 100.00 51.30

Table 21: Williamson County and Jackson County Per Capita Income, 1980, 1990 and 2000

Percent Change

1980 1990 2000 1980-90 1990-2000 1980-2000

Williamson County $18,109 $19,698 $22,641 8.80 14.90 25.00

Jackson County $15,092 $17,559 $21,676 16.30 23.50 43.80

Illinois $22,625 $27,419 $31,856 21.20 16.20 40.10

United States $20,799 $27,127 $29,469 30.40 8.60 41.70

Table 22: Annual Economic Impact of Refuge Budget Expenditures

Expenditures Economic Output Jobs Labor Income

Salary Impacts

Two-county Study 

Area

$1,212,390 $1,625,313 25.2 $547,998

Illinois $166,888 $288,957 3.4 $106,369

United States $18,793 $32,539 0.4 $11,978

Total Salary Impacts $1,398,071 $1,946,809 29 $666,345

Non-salary Impacts

Two-county Study 

Area

$525,030 $691,622 7.8 $213,173

Illinois $61,605 $98,776 0.8 $33,718

United States $184,302 $295,457 2.5 $100,864

Total Non-salary 

Impacts

$770,937 $1,085,855 11.1 $347,755

Total Impacts $2,169,008 $3,032,664 40.1 $1,014,100
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

121

Table 23 shows the tax revenues generated by

budget expenditures for each of the three spending

areas and by salary and non-salary expenditures.

3.12.3 Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation

The Refuge has averaged between 1.1 and 1.2

million visits per year during the 1990s. During this

period, four major recreational activities – hunting,

fishing, boating and wildlife observation – comprised from 37 to 89 percent of total Refuge visits.

From 1995 to 2000, these activities averaged about

44 percent of all Refuge visits. Activities making up

the remaining Refuge visits include Visitor Center

visits, environmental education and tours.

Based on the average annual visitation over the 5-

year span between 1996-2000, 66 percent of all visits

were made by residents of the study area and 34

percent were made by non-residents (people residing outside the two-county study area). About 80

percent of Refuge visitors reside within 20 miles of

the Refuge. A significant portion of non-resident

visitors come from the St. Louis and Chicago metropolitan areas.

From 1996 to 2000, hunting visits averaged close

to 44,000 annually. Most of the hunting on the Refuge is migratory waterfowl hunting (62 percent), followed by deer hunting (26 percent) and small game

hunting (12 percent). Overall, about 74 percent of

annual hunting visits are made by non-residents.

Annually, non-residents make up about 85 percent

of deer hunters, 15 percent of small game hunters

and 80 percent of migratory waterfowl hunters. 

During the period from 1996 to 2000, annual fishing visits to the Refuge have averaged over 210,000.

Residents of the two-county area account for about

70 percent of total Refuge fishing visits. 

Boating use on the Refuge has increased from

73,334 visits in 1996 to 109,420 in 2000, an increase

of 49 percent. Residents make up about 60 percent

of annual boating use on the Refuge. 

Wildlife observation has increased from 93,692

annual visits in 1996 to 154,869 visits in 2000, an

increase of over 65 percent. Most of the wildlife

observation visits come from residents, comprising

80 percent of annual Refuge wildlife observation visitation. 

Camping and picnicking on the Refuge averages

193,400 visits annually. Residents comprise about 80

percent of annual camping and picnicking visitation. 

Recreation on the Refuge results in significant

expenditures for both travel-related goods and services and activity-related equipment purchases.

Table 24 shows expenditures by recreational activity along with estimates of the economic output,

employment and income associated with these

expenditures. The impacts were estimated using

regional input-output models4

 for each of the six

recreational activities. 

Table 23: Annual Tax Impacts of Refuge Expenditures

Federal Taxes State and Local Taxes Total Taxes

Salary Tax Impacts

Two-county Area $144,950 $114,805 $259,755

Illinois $30,631 $19,885 $50,516

United States $3,449 $2,239 $5,688

Total Salary Tax 

Impacts

$179,030 $136,929 $315,959

Non-salary Tax Impacts

Two-county Area $52,359 $27,325 $79,684

Illinois $9,352 $4,373 $13,725

United States $27,376 $13,802 $41,178

Total Non-salary Tax 

Impacts

$89,087 $45,500 $134,587

Total Tax Impacts $268,117 $182,429 $450,546

4. The economic impacts of recreational spending were

derived using IMPLAN, a regional input-output modeling

and software system. For additional information, see MIG,

Inc., IMPLAN System and Olson and Lindall, IMPLAN

Professional Software, Analysis and Guide.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

122

Total expenditures shows the total annual expenditures associated with the indicated recreational

activity. The figures include spending by both residents and non-residents in the two-county study

area.

Economic output shows the total industrial output generated by recreation-related expenditures.

Total output is the production value (alternatively,

the value of all sales plus or minus inventory) of all

output generated by recreation expenditures. Total

output includes the direct, indirect and induced

effects of these expenditures. Direct effects are simply the initial effects or impacts of spending money;

spending money in a grocery store for a fishing trip

or purchasing ammunition or a pair of binoculars

are examples of direct effects. The purchase of the

ammunition by a sporting goods retailer from the

manufacturer or the purchase of canned goods by a

grocery from a food wholesaler are examples of indirect effects. Finally, induced effects refer to the

changes in production associated with changes in

household income (and spending) caused by changes

in employment related to both direct and indirect

effects. More simply, people who are employed by

the grocery, by the food wholesaler, and by the

ammunition manufacturer spend their income on

various goods and services which in turn generate a

given level of output. The dollar value of this output

is the induced effect of the initial (or direct) recreation expenditures. 5

The economic impact of a given level of expenditures depends, in part, on the degree of self-sufficiency of the area under consideration. For

example, a county with a high degree of self-sufficiency (out-of-county imports are comparatively

small) will generally have a higher level of impact

associated with a given level of expenditures than a

county with significantly higher imports (a comparatively lower level of self-sufficiency). Consequently,

the economic impact of a given level of expenditures

will generally be less for rural and other less economically integrated areas compared with other,

more economically diverse areas or regions. 

Employment and labor income include direct,

indirect and induced effects in a manner similar to

total industrial output. Employment includes both

full-time and part-time jobs, with a job defined as

one person working for at least part of the calendar

year, whether one day or the entire year. Labor

income in the IMPLAN system consists of both

employee compensation and proprietor income

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1999). 

Table 25 shows recreation expenditures and economic impacts for non-resident visitors to the Refuge. 

The economic impacts from recreation expenditures estimated in this report are gross area-wide

(two-county area) impacts. Information on where

expenditures may occur locally and the magnitude

and location of resident and non-resident expenditures is not currently available. Generally speaking,

non-resident expenditures bring “outside” money

into the area and thus generate increases in real

income or wealth. Spending by residents is simply a

transfer of expenditures on one set of goods and services to a different set within the same area. In

order to calculate “net” economic impacts within a

Table 24: Economic Impacts of Refuge Recreation in Two-county Study Area

Activity Total Expenditures Economic 

Output

Employment Labor Income

Big game hunting $451,620 $581,414 11 $238,742

Small game hunting $168,260 $205,545 4 $75,604

Migratory waterfowl 

hunting

$1,163,229 $1,480,497 27 $624,816

Fishing $7,347,787 $9,260,444 181 $3,972,468

Boating $2,757,469 $3,459,091 84 $2,068,264

Wildlife observation $4,923,785 $6,088,532 118 $2,477,711

Camping $2,901,000 $3,655,260 72 $1,569,180

Refuge Total $19,713,150 $24,730,783 497 $11,026,785

5. More technically, direct effects are production changes

associated with the immediate effects ofchanges in final

demand (in this case, changes in recreation expenditures);

indirect effects are production changes in those industries

directly affected by final demand; induced effects are

changes in regional household spending patterns caused by

changes in regional employment (generated from the direct

and indirect effects) Taylor et al. 1993, Appendix E, p. E-1.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

123

given area derived from resident expenditures,

much more detailed information would be necessary

on expenditure patterns and visitor characteristics.

Since this information is not currently available, the

gross area-wide estimates are used as an upperbound for the net economic impacts of total resident

and non-resident spending in the two-county area.

The economic impacts of non-resident spending in

Table 22 represents a real increase in wealth and

income for the two-county area (for additional information, see Loomis p. 191 and U.S. Department of

Commerce pp. 7-9). 

3.12.4 Tax Impacts of Refuge Recreation Spending

Table 26 shows Federal, state and local tax revenue derived from Refuge-related recreational

spending in the two-county area by both residents

and non-residents. These estimates are based on tax

regulations and policies in effect in 1998. 

Table 27 shows tax revenue generated by nonresident recreation spending in the two-county area. 

3.12.5 Economic Impacts of Refuge Agriculture, 

Grazing, Timber Harvesting and Commercial Use

Several different types of commercial activities

take place on the Refuge. Commercial uses include:

(1) the leasing of Refuge land for an industrial park

and storage facilities; (2) the use of lakes within the

Refuge for boat docks and marina concessions; (3)

timber harvesting; (4) grazing; and (5) farming.

The industrial park currently has 14 firms leasing

space. These 14 firms employ 551 people. Annual

rental receipts total $506,051. Eleven buildings are

currently vacant, which if leased would employ

about 20 people and bring in about $55,000 in rental

revenue. 

The Refuge has three boat docks, four campgrounds and two marinas. Table 28 shows annual

concession revenue and fees paid for each of these

facilities. 

The Refuge’s forests are managed strictly for

wildlife conservation. Forest habitat management

activities, such as thinning, sometimes generate

merchantable timber as a by-product. Some types of

Table 25: Recreation Expenditures and Economic Impacts for Non-resident Visitors to the Refuge

Activity Total Expenditures Economic 

Output

Employment Labor Income

Big game hunting $383,877 $494,202 9 $202,931

Small game hunting $33,652 $41,109 1 $15,121

Migratory waterfowl hunting $930,583 $1,184,398 21 $499,853

Fishing $2,204,336 $2,778,133 54 $1,191,740

Boating $1,102,988 $1,383,636 33 $827,306

Wildlife Observation $984,757 $1,217,706 24 $495,542

Camping $580,200 $731,052 14 $313,836

Refuge Total $6,220,393 $7,830,236 156 $3,546,329

Table 26: Federal, State and Local Tax Revenue Derived From Refuge-related Recreational Spending by Residents and Non-residents

Federal Taxes State and Local Taxes Total Tax Revenue

Big game hunting $46,672 $42,306 $89,043

Small game hunting $13,013 $11,893 $24,924

Migratory waterfowl 

hunting

$115,180 $106,828 $222,171

Fishing $665,325 $604,459 $1,270,722

Boating $248,213 $175,679 $424,259

Wildlife Observation $393,536 $375,150 $769,244

Camping $232,080 $212,785 $444,865

Totals $1,714,019 $1,529,100 $3,243,119
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

124

timber the Refuge has sold include pine pulpwood,

pine sawtimber, and hardwood pulpwood. Since

1989, there have been about 35 timber sales which

produced $264,266 in stumpage receipts. Most of the

timber harvested has been pine pulpwood, amounting to over 10,000 tons. About 2,800 tons of pine sawtimber and 425 tons of hardwood pulpwood have

been harvested over the same period. On average

about 1,927 tons are harvested annually with a value

of $6,641. 

The Refuge currently allocates 863 acres to support 375 head of cattle and 1,726 animal unit months

3 (AUM) with a value of $172,500. We assume that

all cattle are yearlings, and are thus sold at the end

of each grazing period. The period for cattle grazing

on the fescue pastures runs from April 15 to September 30. Also, the grazing fee is $8.95 per AUM,

and is paid through a mowing credit of $2.53 per

AUM and by fertilizing the pasture.

 In recent years, about 5,200 acres annually have

been farmed on the Refuge. Crops include corn

(1,877 acres with a market value of $507,000), clover

(1,484 acres with a value of $320,000), soybeans

(1,179 acres with a value of $212,000) and hay (767

acres with a value of $164,905). Total market value

of crops grown on the Refuge is $1.2 million.

3.12.6 Comparison of Refuge-Related Economic 

Impacts to Study Area Economy

Current recreational and commercial use of the

Refuge generates a considerable amount of economic effects. However, compared with either of the

two counties individually or in total, the economic

effects generated by the Refuge are comparatively

minor. This is not to say that businesses in certain

sectors in specific locations may not be significantly

affected by major changes in Refuge management

policy; however, in general the Refuge plays a relatively minor role in the study area economy as

whole.

Tables 22 to 28 compare Refuge-related impacts

to the study area economy. Table 29 compares the

two major sources of Refuge economic impacts, recreation and Refuge budget expenditures, with the

two-county study area. Annual industrial output for

the study area (based on 1998 data) totals $4.35 billion. Refuge recreation and budget impacts total

$27.8 million, 0.64 percent of the study area total.

Similarly, Refuge recreation and budget impacts

account for 0.77 percent of total study area employment and 0.68 percent of study area employment

income. 

Table 27: Tax Revenue Generated by Non-resident Refuge Recreation Spending

Federal Taxes State and Local Taxes Total Tax Revenue

Big game hunting $39,671 $35,960 $75,687

Small game hunting $2,602 $2,378 $4,984

Migratory waterfowl 

hunting

$92,144 $85,462 $177,736

Fishing $199,598 $181,338 $381,217

Boating $99,285 $70,272 $169,704

Wildlife Observation $78,707 $75,030 $153,849

Camping $46,416 $42,557 $88,973

Totals $558,423 $492,997 $1,051,420

Table 28: Annual Concession Revenue and Fees Paid for Crab Orchard NWR Recreational Facilities

Recreational Facility Revenue Fees Paid

Devils Kitchen Marina and Campground $53,805 $1,076

Boat & Yacht Club $94,547 $9,454

Crab Orchard Campground $148,553 $14,682

Little Grassy Marina and Campground $97,582 $11,210

Playport Marina $97,625 NA

Images Marina $43,255 NA

Total $535,367 $36,422
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

125

Table 29: Recreation and Refuge Budget Expenditures Compared with Study Area

Area Industrial Output Employment Employment Income

Williamson County $2,280 million 30,745 $789 million

Jackson County $2,070 million 38,827 $985 million

Study Area Total $4,350 million 69,572 $1,770 million

Refuge Impacts $27.8 million 537 $12.0 million

Refuge Impacts as Percent 

of Study Area Total

0.64% 0.77% 0.68%

Table 30: Annual Number of Refuge Acres Farmed and Production Value Compared with the Study

Area

Area Acres1 Value2

Williamson County 92,289 $10.1 million

Jackson County 202,558 $32.6 million

Study Area Total 294,847 $42.7 million

Refuge Impacts 5,231 $1.2 million

Refuge Impacts as a 

Percent of Study 

Area Total

1.8% 3.00%

1. County data source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999.

2. Value is based on statewide average market prices.

Table 31: Annual Refuge Grazing and Value Compared with the Study Area

Area Total Head1 Value2

Williamson County 5,185 $2.2 million

Jackson County 7,900 3.9 million

Study Area Total 13,085 $6.1 million

Refuge Impacts 375 $172,500

Refuge Impacts as Percent of 

Study Area Total

2.90% 2.80%

1. County data source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999.

2. Value is total county sales based on 1997 Census of Agriculture.

Table 32: Annual Amount of Timber Harvest on the Refuge Compared with the Study Area1

Area Tons Harvested Value

Williamson County 6,090 $97,440

Jackson County 49,778 $796,448

Study Area Total 55,868 $893,888

Refuge Impacts 1,927 $6,641

Refuge Impacts as Percent of Study 

Area Total

3.45%

1. Value for Williamson and Jackson counties is based on the average price received for

hardwood stumpage ($140/mbf in Illinois, November 1999 to August 2000. Value for the

Refuge is based upon average stumpage receipts received by the Refuge.
Chapter 3:Affected Environment

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

126

Table 30 shows the annual number of acres

farmed on the Refuge and production value compared with the study area. Farming on the Refuge

typically accounts for less than 2 percent of total

acres farmed in the study area. If only Williamson

County is considered, the Refuge accounts for 5.7

percent of total acres farmed in the county. Farming

on the Refuge comprises about 3 percent of total

crop value in the study area. Compared with Williamson County only, Refuge crop value is 12 percent

of total county crop value. 

Table 31 shows Refuge grazing and value compared with the study area. The 375 head of cattle on

the Refuge constitute 2.9 percent of all cattle grazed

in the study area and 7.2 percent of all cattle grazed

in Williamson County. Grazing value on the Refuge

is 2.8 percent of the study area total and is 7.8 percent of total grazing value for Williamson County.

Table 32 shows the amount of timber harvested

on the Refuge compared with the study area. Average annual tons harvested on the Refuge is 1,927,

which is 3.4 percent of total tons harvested in the

study area and about 32 percent of total tons harvested in Williamson County. Williamson and Jackson counties harvest approximately 56,000 tons of

hardwoods annually, receiving about $900,000 annually. Timber value on the Refuge is 1 percent of the

study area total and 7 percent of total timber value

for Williamson County. 

Currently, the Refuge leases about 1.2 million

square feet of commercial and industrial building

space. As of March 2001, the Greater Marion, Illinois, area had industrial parks and sites that

included 2,231 acres (Regional Economic Development Corporation, 2002). 

3.12.7 Current Staff and Budget

3.12.7.1. Staff

The Refuge's staffing as of January 2003 is illustrated in Figure 38. 

3.12.8 Budget

Based on the annual average Refuge budget

between 1996 and 2000, the Refuge budget includes

$1.4 million in salaries and $770,937 in non-salary

expenditures. 

3.13 Partnerships

The Refuge has many partnerships with local,

state, and national organizations. These partnerships benefit the Refuge in many ways, including

fostering good community relations and enhancing

Refuge habitats and wildlife populations. The Refuge intends to continue partnerships such as the following:

Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing Days, Inc.

is a non-profit organization that partners with the

Refuge to promote hunting and fishing in the area.

The Refuge initiated this program in the early

1980s. SI Hunting and Fishing Days assumed the

lead for this activity in the early 1990s. Several thousand people now attend an annual weekend event,

which is held at John A. Logan College.

Take Pride in America has been organized and

worked with the Refuge since 1988. Take Pride in

America has built courtesy docks for boat landings

at all three lakes. Take Pride in America organized

the construction of bass-rearing ponds and maintains Take Pride in America Point (formerly known

as Hogan's Point) for fish-offs.

The Crab Orchard Waterfowl Association has

provided funds for the construction of moist soil

units on the Refuge. Quail Unlimited has provided

native grass seed for Refuge prairie restoration.

Southern Illinois University, Touch of Nature,

the Friends of Crab Orchard NWR and the Refuge's Visitor Services Program have partnered to

provided environmental education opportunities for

local schools. 

With the help of the following partners, the Refuge has been able to provide one of the most successful Kids Fishing Derby events in the area: 

# University of Illinois Extension

# Illinois DNR

# Southern Illinois National Hunting and Fishing

Days

# Timberline Fisheries

# Zimmer Radio Group

# WalMart

# Silkworm Inc.

# Marion Pepsi-Cola

# Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club

The Refuge has many dedicated groups and volunteers who assist with a variety of tasks. The

Friends of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,

John A. Logan College, University of Southern Illinois, Southern Illinois Audubon Society, Williamson

County Tourism Bureau, and Marion U.S. Penitentiary are just a few of the organizations that contribute time to the Refuge.
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

127

Figure 38: Crab Orchard NWR Current Staffing Chart
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

128

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives. It

provides the scientific and analytic basis for the

comparisons of the alternatives. It describes the

probable consequences, impacts, and effects of each

alternative on the topics discussed in Chapter 3. The

discussion of each alternative begins with a summary of the alternative and the management actions

that would be initiated under each alternative. It is

these management actions that would result in the

impacts or effects that are the subject of this chapter. The sections of this chapter are organized as follows: Section 4.2 describes the effects and impacts

common to all alternatives, Section 4.3 describes

Alternative A by impact topic, Section 4.4 describes

Alternative B, Section 4.5 describes Alternative C,

Section 4.6 describes Alternative D, and Section 4.7

describes Alternative E.

Note that Alternative A (No Action) represents

anticipated conditions if the current programs and

trends at the Refuge of recent years were to continue for the next 15 years, the planning horizon for

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Alternative

A serves as a baseline for comparison with the consequences of the other alternatives and thus is often

referenced when discussing Alternatives B through

E.

4.1.1 Quantifying Effects of Alternatives 

on Wildlife Species

We used a modeling process developed by USGS

scientists (Rohweder et al. 2002) to examine the relative effects of different alternatives on selected

wildlife that use the Refuge. For each species of

interest, habitat potential for each land cover type

was given a rank of 0, 1, 2 or 3 (no, low, medium, and

high potential, respectively). This resulted in a

weighted average Potential Species Occurrence

(PSO) score for each species or group of species for

the year 2000 and for each alternative in 2015 and

2100. For example, if the entire Refuge were high

potential habitat for a given species, it would receive

a PSO score of 3.0. If half of the Refuge were

medium potential habitat for a given species, and

half were low, it would receive a PSO score of 1.5.

Habitat potential ranks were based on the integrated life cycle needs of each species as determined

by FWS biologists (Appendix N). Refuge land cover

types were identified and quantified by USGS scientists (Hop 2001). The year 2000 land cover type data
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

129

were manipulated using Geographic Information

System (GIS) to develop the 2015 and 2100 land

cover alternatives.

In order to assess the broad impacts of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, one mammal species

and 29 birds were chosen to represent several

important habitat types found on the Refuge

(Table 33). We selected the species because they are

Region 3 conservation priority species (USFWS

2002) that use the major habitat types on the Refuge. Potential Species Occurrence scores were calculated for Bald Eagle (threatened), Indiana bat

(endangered), five groups of species (all 30 species,

nine forest birds, four grassland birds, five shrubland birds, and seven species of waterfowl).

Potential Species Occurrence scores for 2000

ranged from 0.14 for grassland birds to 1.39 for forest birds and the projected effects of the different

alternatives are quite variable (Table 34). Bald

Eagle and waterfowl PSO scores remain nearly the

same as 2000 scores under all alternatives. This is

because most of the habitats used by Bald Eagles

and waterfowl will remain available in quantities

similar to those found in 2000. Potential Species

Occurrence scores for forest birds and Indiana bat

increase under all alternatives as a result of planned

forest enhancement activities and the succession of

young forests and fallow areas into more mature

forest habitat. Grassland and shrubland bird PSO

scores decrease under all alternatives as a result of

succession of open grass and shrub habitats to forest habitat. The amount of Refuge habitat for grassland and shrubland birds is relatively limited, so

losses of these habitats will have larger effects on

PSO scores. 

Potential Species Occurrence scores are rough

estimates of the effects of different alternatives and

focus more on habitat quantity than quality. Factors

not considered in this modeling process will also

affect the value of a given habitat to wildlife. For

example, much of the Refuge's forests are relatively

young and their value to wildlife will change as they

continue to mature. Alternatives B, C, D and E

would manage for large blocks of forest, which

should result in better nesting habitat for area-sensitive forest birds because predation and nest parasitism would be reduced. All five alternatives also

call for conversion of pine plantations to hardwoods

that are more valuable to wildlife. Some alternatives

also plan for improved wildlife management of pastures and hay fields: delayed mowing of hay to

reduce the rate of nest destruction, conversion of

fescue pastures to more desirable warm- and coolseason grasses, and removal of woody vegetation to

make grassland more attractive to grass nesting

birds. These proposed management activities would

enhance these habitats for many wildlife species,

but this is not reflected in the PSO scores.

4.1.2 Effects on Archaeological and 

Cultural Values

The activities that are most positive for cultural

resources are those that reduce or eliminate activities on the Refuge. In general, recreation activities

and invasive species control have little potential to

affect cultural resources and are envisioned as having a neutral effect on cultural resources. However,

non-motorized use of trails may have a negative

impact on cultural resources by increasing visitor

traffic to sensitive cultural areas. Cultural resources

are sensitive to ground disturbing activities. Activities that may have a negative impact on cultural

resources include timber harvesting, grazing, farming, and construction of new trails or facilities. Fire

suppression activities can also damage archaeological sites if new roads and firelines are constructed

while combating wildland fires.

The impacts of the alternatives on cultural

resources were evaluated with the assumption that

significant, but as yet unidentified, cultural

resources may occur on the Refuge. Under any

alternative, site specific actions such as construction

of facilities will be subject to additional environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which affords protection to

significant cultural resources as prescribed by the

National Historic Preservation Act and other applicable regulations and guidelines. Although avoidance is the preferred approach, mitigation of effect

is an acceptable treatment and development activities may, therefore, result in a net loss of resources. 

Livestock grazing can have a negative impact on

cultural resources by encouraging erosion, trampling and displacement of artifacts. All alternatives

would reduce the possible negative impacts of grazing on cultural resources by reducing the erosion

around water. The possible trampling and displacement of artifacts, if it is occurring, would continue,

but be limited to areas delineated as pastures.

Farming, like grazing, can have a negative effect on

cultural resources through excavation and displacement of artifacts. Farming would remain essentially

the same under all alternatives. Farming would

have a small possible negative impact on cultural
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

130

Table 33: Resource Conservation Priority Species Used to Assess the Broad Impacts of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Species Refuge 

Breeder

Habitat Regional Concerns Refuge 

Abundance

Double-crested Cormorant N Lakes and adjacent forests Nuisance Common

Canada Goose (Resident) Y Wetlands, agricultural fields Recreation/economic 

value

Common

Canada Goose (Migrant) N Wetlands, agricultural fields Recreation/economic 

value

Abundant

Wood Duck Y Wetlands, bottomland forests Recreation/economic 

value

Common

American Black Duck N Wetlands Recreation/economic 

value

Uncommon

Mallard Y Wetlands, bottomland forest Recreation/economic 

value

Common

Blue-winged Teal N Wetlands Recreation/economic 

value

Common

Northern Pintail N Wetlands Recreation/economic 

value, rare-declining

Uncommon

Canvasback N Lakes, wetlands Recreation/economic 

value

Uncommon

Bald Eagle Y Lakes, forests Bald Eagle Protection Act Uncommon

Red-shouldered Hawk Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

American Woodcock Y Wet meadows, wet shrubs Recreation/economic 

value, rare/declining

Uncommon

Chuck-will’s-widow Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Whip-poor-will Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Red-headed Woodpecker Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Northern Flicker Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Acadian Flycatcher Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Loggerhead Shrike (migrans) Y Grasslands, shrublands Rare/declining Occasional

Bell’s Vireo Y Shrublands Rare/declining Occasional

Wood Thrush Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Blue-winged Warbler Y Shrublands Rare/declining Occasional

Prairie Warbler Y Shrublands Rare/declining Uncommon

Cerulean Warbler Y Forests Rare/declining Rare

Worm-eating Warbler Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Louisiana Waterthrush Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Kentucky Warbler Y Forests Rare/declining Uncommon

Field Sparrow Y Shrublands, grasslands Rare/declining Uncommon

Grasshopper Sparrow N Grasslands Rare/declining Occasional

Dickcissel Y Grasslands Rare/declining Common

Eastern Meadowlark Y Grasslands Rare/declining Common

Indiana bat N Forests, caves Endangered Unknown
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

131

resources under all alternatives. The industrial pro

grams on the Refuge are not expected to change

markedly under any alternative and the effect on

cultural resources is expected to be neutral. Fire

suppression and management activities are

expected to be consistent across alternatives and

the possible impact on cultural resources is

expected to be neutral.

Forest management activities, such as and thinning and reforestation of old farm fields, can have a

negative effect on cultural resources through site

disturbance. The five alternatives include slight

variations on the acres affected by these activities.

The effect of forest management activities on cultural resources is seen as being essentially equivalent across all alternatives with the potential of

having a slightly negative effect on cultural

resources. In the long term, the forest habitat will

have few ground disturbing activities applied to it

and cultural resource sites will be protected. Overall, the effect on cultural resources by forest management activities is seen as neutral.

4.2 Effects Common to All 

Action Alternatives

4.2.1 Threatened and Endangered 

Species

In a broad interpretation, each alternative would

accomplish the purposes of the Refuge. Federally

listed threatened and endangered species would be

protected under each alternative. We are conducting a Section 7 review concurrent with the review of

the Draft EIS. The Section 7 review will examine

the proposed actions of the preferred alternative.

Table 34: Potential Species Occurrence Scores for Threatened and Endangered Species or

Groups for the Year 2000 and For Each Alternative in 2015 and 21001

2000 2015 2100

Species Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Bald Eagle 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.56

Indiana bat 0.58 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.64 0.63 0.67 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.68

All Species 

Scored

0.74 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.81

Forest Birds2 1.39 1.50 1.51 1.49 1.52 1.51 1.65 1.66 1.63 1.67 1.66

Grassland 

Birds3

0.14 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Shrubland 

Birds4

0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Waterfowl5 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.59

1. Alternative A is No Action; Alternative B is Reduced Habitat Fragmentation, Wildlife-dependent Recreation; Alternative C is

Open Land Management, Consolidate and Improve Recreation; Alternative D is Forest Land Management, Consolidate and

Improve Recreation; and Alternative E is Reduce Habitat Fragmentation, Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred

Alternative).

2. Acadian Flycatcher, Cerulean Warbler, Chuck-will’s-widow, Kentucky Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Red-shouldered

Hawk, Whip-poor-will, Wood Thrush, and Worm-eating Warbler.

3. Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, Field Sparrow, and Grasshopper Sparrow.

4. Bell’s Vireo, Blue-winged Warbler, Field Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, and Prairie Warbler.

5. American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Canada Goose, Canvasback, Mallard, Northern Pintail, Wood Duck.

Source:

Hop, Kevin D. 2001. Crab Orchard NWR land cover and land use spatial database (2000) project report, December 2001. U.S.

Geological Survey report, LaCrosse, Wis., 29 pp.

Rohweder, Jason J., Timoth J. Fox, Kevin P. Kenow, Carl E. Korschgen, and Henry CC. DeHaan. 2002. GIS tools for national

wildlife refuge comprehensive conservation plans; users manual. U.S. Geological Survey report, LaCrosse, Wis., 74 pp.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

132

4.2.2 Cooperative Fishery Management

Under each alternative the Refuge would cooperate with the State of Illinois to maintain a recreational fishery in the Refuge's lakes and ponds.

4.2.3 Canada Geese

Under each alternative, the Refuge would provide sufficient habitat for wintering Canada geese

(6.4 million goose-use-days) to support historic population levels and provide opportunities for wildlife

observation and photography and Refuge hunting

programs.

4.2.4 Communication and Community 

Support

Under each alternative the Refuge's relationship

with the community would improve through

improved communication and community participation. The volunteer opportunities and Refuge support groups would be expected to increase and

result in increased support for the Refuge and its

programs.

4.2.5 Wilderness

The area designated as Wilderness would

increase under each alternative. The Wilderness

would be managed similarly under each alternative.

Because the areas that would be designated as Wilderness are already managed as Wilderness, there

would be no change from the current condition.

4.2.6 Climate Change Impacts 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies

under its direction that have land management

responsibilities to consider potential climate change

impacts as part of long range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth's atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface

temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon

sequestration constitutes the primary climaterelated impact to be considered in planning. The

U.S. Department of Energy's “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999)

defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be

emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert –

are effective both in preventing carbon emission and

acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy report's

conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce

or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the

heart of any long range plan for national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in this Comprehensive

Conservation Plan would preserve or restore land

and water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts

to mitigate human-induced global climate changes.

4.2.7 Prescribed Fire

We have included detail here about the effects of

prescribed fire to fully document the Refuge’s

recent Fire Management Plan in compliance with

the National Environmental Policy Act.

4.2.7.1. Social Implications

A prescribed burn on the Refuge will benefit the

public in creating recreational opportunities

through increased wildlife populations for hunting

and observation. If a wildland fire occurs on or near

the Refuge, the areas that were prescribed burned

and the fire-breaks intended for prescribed burning

will help in controlling the fire.

Smoke from a Refuge fire could impair visibility

on roads and become a hazard. All efforts will be

taken to assure that smoke does not impact smoke

sensitive areas such as roads and local residences.

The impact of smoke can be reduced through management actions, which include: use of traffic control, signing, altering ignition techniques and

sequence, halting ignition, suppressing the fire, and

use of local law enforcement officers to assist with

control traffic. Burning will be done only when the

smoke will not be blown across the community or

when the wind is sufficient to prevent heavy concentrations. 

Combustion of fuels during prescribed fire operations may temporarily impact air quality, but the

impacts are mitigated by small burn unit size, direction of wind, and distance from population centers.

In the event of wind direction change, mitigative

measures will be taken to assure public safety and

comfort. Refuge staff will work with neighboring

agencies and State air quality personnel to address
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

133

smoke issues that require additional mitigation. The

Prescribed Fire Plan describes specific measures to

deal with smoke management problems for each

unit.

Any smoke from the Refuge may cause some

public concern. This concern will be reduced

through a concerted effort by Refuge personnel to

inform the local citizens about the prescribed burning program, emphasizing the benefits to wildlife

and the safety precautions that are taken. Interpretive programs, explaining the prescribed burning

program, may also be conducted on and off the Refuge.

4.2.7.2. Cultural and Archaeological Resources

There may be archaeological sites within prescribed burn units. When these units are burned, it

is doubtful that the fire will have any adverse impact

on the sites. The fire will be only a temporary disturbance to the vegetation in the area and in no way

destroy or reduce the archaeological value, since

artifacts are buried beneath the surface. No known

sites will be impacted by prescribed burning operations.

Constructing firebreaks usually involves some

shallow ground disturbance that could damage or

destroy these resources. If a firebreak is needed on

undisturbed ground, the area will be surveyed prior

to construction to protect any cultural or archaeological resources.

4.2.7.3. Flora

The prescribed burning program will have a visible impact on vegetation and the land. Immediately

after a fire much of the land will be blackened.

There will be few grasses or ground forbs remaining

and most of the brush will be scorched. Trees may

be scorched. Because of wet ground conditions or

discontinuous fuel, there may be areas within the

burn unit that are untouched by the fire.

In spring, grasses and forbs will begin to grow

within a few days of the burn. The enriched soil will

promote rapid growth such that after two or three

weeks the ground will be covered. In some cases,

young trees will re-sprout. Some of the less fire

resistant trees will show signs of wilting and may

succumb. After one season of regrowth, most signs

of the prescribed burn will be difficult to detect

without close examination. 

Other signs of the burn will remain for longer

periods. The firebreaks will be maintained for use in

containing wildland fires and future prescribed

burns. Vehicle tracks through the burn are visible

on the freshly burned ash and may be longer lived if

the vehicle created ruts in the ground. Travel across

the burn area will be kept to a minimum. Vehicle

travel is necessary in some instances, such as lighting the fire lines or quickly getting water to an

escape point. A fire plow will be used only in the

event that an escape occurs and cannot be controlled

by any other method. The trench of the plow would

be repaired by filling, which would eliminate it from

view after several years.

4.2.7.4. Listed Species

All prescribed fires will be at least 0.5 mile from

known active Bald Eagle nests. Prescribed fires will

also occur outside of the breeding season of Indiana

bats. We are conducting a Section 7 review concurrent with the review of the Draft EIS. The Section 7

review will examine the prescribed fire program.

4.2.7.5. Soils

The effect of fire on soil is dependent largely on

the fire intensity and duration. On areas with high

fuel loads, a slow backing fire is usually required for

containment and desirable results. The intense

heats generated by a slow backing fire will have a

greater effect on the soils than fast, cooler headfires. The cool, moist soils of wetter areas in the

burn units or areas with little fuel will be minimally

affected by the fire.

The degree of impact to the soil is a function of

the thickness and composition of the organic mantle.

In cases where only the top layer of the mantle is

scorched or burned, there will be no effect on the

soil. This usually occurs in the forested areas of the

burn units.

On open grassland sites, the blackening of the

relatively thin mantle will cause greater heat

absorption and retention from the sun. This will

encourage earlier germination during the spring

growing season.

Nutrient release occurs as a result of the normal

decomposition process. Fire will speed up the nutrient release process. The rate and amount of nutrients released will be dependent on the fire duration

and intensity as well as the amount of humus, duff

and other organic materials present in the mantle.

The increase, immediately after a burn, of calcium,

potash, phosphoric acid and other minerals will give

the residual and emergent vegetation a short term

boost. 
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

134

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

There is no evidence to show that the direct heating of soil by a fire of low intensity above it has any

significant adverse affect. Fire of this type has little

total effect on the soil, and in most cases would be

beneficial.

4.2.7.6. Escaped Fire

The possibility exists that prescribed fire may

escape to the surrounding area. An escape can be

caused by factors that may, or may not, be preventable. Inadequate firebreaks, too few personnel,

unpredicted changes in weather conditions, peculiar

fuel type, and insufficient knowledge of fire behavior are factors that can lead to a loss of control. An

escaped fire can turn into a very serious situation.

On the Refuge's wildlands, an escaped fire would

cause less severe damage than on land where buildings, equipment, and land improvements could be

damaged. Many of the prescribed burn areas are

well within the Refuge and of minimal threat to private or other improved lands. We will exercise

extreme care, careful planning, and adherence to

the unit prescription when we conduct all prescribed

burns. We will place an extra emphasis on control

when burning areas that are near developed areas

or the Refuge boundary.

If a prescribed fire jumps a firebreak and burns

into unplanned areas, there is a high probability of

rapid control with minimal adverse impact. The network of firebreaks and roads will greatly assist in

rapid containment. In most cases, all of the Refuge

fire fighting equipment will be immediately available at the scene and nearby water sources identified. The Lake Egypt Fire Protection District will

always be notified of a prescribed burn. Thus, maximum numbers of experienced personnel and equipment will be immediately available for wildland fire

suppression activities.

4.3 Alternative A: Current 

Management/No Action

4.3.1 Impacts on Resources

4.3.1.1. Land cover

Under this alternative, the primary change in

land cover of the Refuge over the next 15 years

would be a decrease in fallow herbaceous fields

(about 1,500 acres) and an increase in mixed hardwood upland forest (about 2,000 acres). Over the

longer term, 100 years, the primary change would

occur in the forests as pine plantations, shrubland,

and red-cedar forests succeed to hardwood forest.

Other changes in the shorter and longer terms are

the succession of fallow and old fields to shrubland

and forest cover types. The acres of land cover at

the Refuge in 2000 and the acres projected for 2015

and 2100 under each alternative, along with the

change from 2000, are shown in Table 35. The distribution of land cover for the years 2000, 2015, and

2100 are shown in Figure 21 on page 85, Figure 6 on

page 34, and Figure 7 on page 35, respectively.

4.3.1.2. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO score

(habitat potential) for Bald Eagles would remain the

same (Table 34 on page 131). The amount of open

water (feeding) habitat would remain the same

(Table 35). Forest (nesting) habitat would increase

about 8 percent by the end of the 15-year planning

period and 10 percent by the year 2100 (Table 36).

These increases would result mostly from the maturation of existing forests and the succession of fallow fields and shrub lands into forest. The majority

of new forest habitat would probably be far enough

away from open water to limit its potential as nesting habitat for Bald Eagles. Nesting habitat would

improve somewhat as existing forest continues to

mature resulting in more trees that are large

enough to support a nest.

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO score

for Indiana bats would increase by 9 percent by the

end of the 15-year planning period and 16 percent

by the year 2100 (Table 34 on page 131). Forest habitat would increase about 8 percent by the end of the

15-year planning period and 10 percent by the year

2100 (Table 36). These increases would result

mostly from the maturation of existing forests and

the succession of fallow fields and shrub lands to forest. 
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

135

Management (No Action) 

Table 35: Areas of Land Cover at Crab Orchard NWR in 2000 and Acres Projected for 2015 and 2100 Under Each Altfrom 2000 Shown in Parentheses (Land Cover for Alternative E is the Same as Alternative B)

2000 2015 21

Land Cover Alt. A

(No Action

Alts. B and E

(Preferred)

Alt. C

(Open 

Land)

Alt. D

(Forest)

Alt. A

(No Action)

Alts. B and 

E

(Preferred)

Agricultural Field 4,540 4,540 (0) 4,412 (-128) 4,751 

(+211)

4,302 (-238) 4,540 (0) 4,412 (-128) 

Aquatic Herbaceous Marsh 365 365 (0) 365 (0) 365 (0) 365 (0) 365 (0) 365 (0) Bald-cypress Plantation, Swamp Forest 44 44 (0) 44 (0) 44 (0) 44 (0) 44 (0) 44 (0) Buttonbush Swamp Shrubland 81 81 (0) 81 (0) 81 (0) 81 (0) 81 (0) 81 (0) Cattail Marsh 25 25 (0) 25 (0) 25 (0) 25 (0) 25 (0) 25 (0) Common Reed Marsh 7 7 (0) 7 (0) 7 (0) 7 (0) 7 (0) 7 (0) Developed Land 1,138 1,138 (0) 1,138 (0) 1,138 (0) 1,138 (0) 1,138 (0) 1,138 (0) Early Successional Oak Forest (reforested)

5 5 (0) 0 (-5) 0 (-5) 0 (-5) 0 (-5) 0 (-5) 

Eastern Red-cedar, Mixed Hardwood Forest (old field)

1,006 1,006 (0) 1,006 (0) 1,006 (0) 1,006 (0) 0 (-1,006) 0 (-1,006) 

Eastern Red-cedar Forest (old field) 71 71 (0) 71 (0) 71 (0) 71 (0) 0 (-71) 0 (-71) Fallow Herbaceous Field 1,567 62 (-1,505) 172 (-1,395) 212 (-1,355) 174 (-1,393) 62 (-1,504) 172 (-1,394) Forest Regeneration Herbaceous Land 168 0 (-168) 0 (-168) 0 (-168) 0 (-168) 0 (-168) 0 (-168) Mixed Hardwood Bottomland Forest 1,907 1,977 (+70) 2,042 (+135) 1,982 (+75) 2,042 

(+135)

1,977 (+69) 2,042 

(+135)

Mixed Hardwood Upland Forest 18,923 20,908 

(+1,985)

21,148 (+2,225)

20,703 (+1,780)

21,297 (+2,374)

25,777 (+6,854)

25,869 (+6,946)

Open Water 9,082 9,082 (0) 9,082 (0) 9,082 (0) 9,082 (0) 9,082 (0) 9,082 (0) Perennial Grass Crops 1,725 1,725 (0) 1,564 (-161) 1,659 (-66) 1,513 (-212) 1,725 (0) 1,564 (-160) Pine Plantation / Mixed Hardwood Forest

1,633 1,633 (0) 1,633 (0) 1,633 (0) 1,633 (0) 0 (-1,633) 0 (-1,633) 

Pine Plantation Forest 1,665 1,665 (0) 1,665 (0) 1,665 (0) 1,665 (0) 0 (-1,665) 0 (-1,665) Restored native Grassland 240 240 (0) 261 (+21) 261 (+21) 260 (+20) 240 (0) 261 (+21) Upland Mixed Shrubland (old field) 872 489 (-383) 347 (-525) 379 (-493) 358 (-514) 0 (-872) 0 (-872) Wet Herbaceous Meadow 389 389 (0) 389 (0) 389 (0) 389 (0) 389 (0) 389 (0) Willow Wet Shrubland 3 3 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

136

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

4.3.1.3. Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO score

for area-sensitive forest birds would increase by 8

percent by the end of the 15-year planning period

and 19 percent by the year 2100 (Table 34 on

page 131). Forest habitat for area-sensitive forest

birds, such as Acadian Flycatcher, Wood Thrush,

and Worm-eating Warbler, would increase about 8

percent by the end of the 15-year planning period

and 10 percent by the year 2100. Most of these

increases would result from the maturation of existing forests and the succession of fallow fields and

shrub lands into forest.

To evaluate the potential effects of changing forest cover on area-sensitive forest species, we measured the number of acres of upland hardwood

forest (our most abundant, natural forest type) that

were more than 100 meters from the edge of other

land cover. This provides a measure of forest core

area: the interior portion of the forest that is far

enough away from the forest edge to have decreased

rates of nest predation and nest parasitism. Under

this alternative, the amount of upland hardwood forest core area would increase about 31 percent over

the 15-year planning period and 189 percent by the

year 2100. Most of the increase will come from the

conversion of pine plantations and the succession of

red-cedar habitat to upland hardwood forest. Some

of the increase in upland hardwood core area will be

a result of fallow fields and shrublands succeeding

to forest habitat. 

4.3.1.4. Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO for

waterfowl would decrease by 2 percent by the end of

the 15-year planning period and then remain stable

through the year 2100 (Table 34). Habitat for Wood

Ducks would improve as forests mature and

increase in coverage. Habitat for Canada Geese

would decrease slightly, mostly due to succession of

fallow fields to shrub land (Table 35 and Table 36)

and small decreases in row crop and hay field acreages (Table 2 on page 41). The amount of potential

food for wintering Canada Geese would decrease by

3 percent, but there would still be an amount adequate for providing 6.4 million goose-use-days

(Table 3 on page 41). Current goose management

activities would continue: seasonal closure of the

east end of Crab Orchard Lake, management of

existing moist soil management units, and annual

fall mowing of the shorelines of selected ponds. The

lakes, ponds, moist soil units, and other Refuge wetlands would continue to provide habitat for shorebirds and other water birds.

4.3.1.5. Grassland Birds

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO score

for grassland birds, such as Dickcissel and Eastern

Meadowlark, would decrease by 36 percent by the

Table 36: Predicted Difference in Land Cover by Alternative for 2000, 2015 and 2100

2000 2015 2100 2015 2100 2015 2100 2015 2100

Land Cover Alt. A 

No Action

Alt. A 

No Action

Alts. 

B and E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Alts. 

B and E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Alt. C 

Open Land

Alt. C 

Open Land

Alt. D 

Forest

Alt. D 

Forest

Area of Forest (acres) 25,254 27,309 27,798 27,609 27,995 27,103 27,378 27,758 28,116

Percent of Refuge 

Forested

56 60 61 61 62 60 60 61 62

Percent of Non-Open 

Water Refuge 

Forested

69 75 76 76 77 75 75 76 77

Total Core of Area of 

Upland (acres)

4,300 5,741 11,824 6,155 12,117 5,709 11,616 6,185 12,156

Percent of Refuge in 

Upland Hardwood 

Core Area

9 13 26 14 27 13 26 14 27

Percent of Non-Open 

Water Refuge in 

Upland Hardwood 

Core Area

12 16 33 17 33 16 32 17 33
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

137

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

end of the 15-year planning period and 43 percent

by the year 2100 (Table 34 on page 131). Most of

these decreases would result from the succession of

fallow fields to shrub land and forest (Table 35 on

page 135). Nesting conditions for grassland birds

would be improved by the prohibition of mowing in

clover and hay fields until August 1 of each year.

4.3.1.6. Shrubland Birds

Under Alternative A (No Action), the PSO score

for shrub land birds, such as Bell's Vireo and Field

Sparrow, would decrease by 26 percent by the end

of the 15-year planning period and 35 percent by the

year 2100 (Table 34). Most of these decreases would

result from the succession of shrub land to forest

(Table 35). 

4.3.1.7. Water Quality

Working with farmers on the Refuge to establish

buffer strips and keep stock away from riparian

areas and bodies of water would affect water quality

in this alternative. We expect that sedimentation in

Crab Orchard Lake would decrease a small amount

over the next 15 years. The resulting changes in the

water chemistry would be minor. The water quality

in the other lakes and streams on the Refuge would

remain unchanged. Investigation by CERCLA and

remediation of contaminated sites should result in

improved water quality in portions of Crab Orchard

Lake.

4.3.1.8. Wilderness

Under Alternative A (No Action) the pine plantations (229 acres) and pine-hardwood stands (96

acres) in the Wilderness would be thinned to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. Thinning would be conducted in several

phases over a 10- to 15-year period to mimic the natural process of succession where pines are gradually

replaced by hardwoods. Individual pines would be

killed by cutting, girdling or injecting herbicide. No

trees would be removed from the site. Treatments

would be conducted so that the results would appear

natural as much as possible. However, trees along

heavily used trails may need to be felled to avoid

personal injury to visitors, in which case this zone

may appear unnatural for several years. Eventual

removal of all the non-native pines would restore the

natural vegetative cover of the area and enhance

wilderness characteristics.

In conjunction with thinning the pine and pinehardwood stands, prescribed burning would be conducted during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood

regeneration. Control lines would be established by

hand tools where necessary, using natural firebreaks as much as possible. Fire is a natural force in

the ecosystem that should be reintroduced to provide many beneficial effects with minimal impacts.

Under Alternative A unauthorized sections of the

River to River Trail would continue to pass through

the Crab Orchard Wilderness. In addition, people

would continue to ride horses and walk on other

existing unauthorized trails and develop new ones.

Trail erosion would continue and likely worsen

because of increased foot and horse traffic and the

lack of a hardened surface. Horses depositing dung

along the trails may introduce invasive and exotic

plants in the surrounding natural communities. An

increased number of trail users, especially hikers,

would express dissatisfaction with their trail experience.

The Wilderness would still be accessible to boaters from Devils Kitchen Lake using gas motors of 10

horsepower or less. The lake is not designated Wilderness, but the southern fingers of the lake extend

far into the Wilderness. 

4.3.2 Impacts on Public Uses

4.3.2.1. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

Under Alternative A (No Action), wildlife-dependent recreational use levels would continue at the

level experienced in 2000 with a slight increase over

time due to population growth in the surrounding

communities. Because the facilities would be gradually improved under this alternative, the quality of

the recreational experience for visitors would gradually improve over the next 15 years. Goose hunting

opportunities on and around the Refuge would

remain unchanged.

4.3.2.2. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation

Camping

Four campgrounds would continue operation

under this alternative. The facilities would be

improved gradually over the next 15 years. The

quality of the facilities and the camping experience

would continue to be below the level available in

nearby state park campgrounds. 

Swimming

The opportunities and quality of experiences

would remain unchanged from present conditions.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

138

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Picnicking

The opportunities and quality of experiences

would gradually improve over the next 15 years as

the current facilities are gradually improved.

Motorboating/sailing

Current management would continue under this

alternative. Spatial and temporal zoning on Crab

Orchard Lake would continue. Motors on Devils

Kitchen and Little Grassy Lakes would continue to

be limited to ten horsepower or less.

Water-skiing

The opportunities and quality of experiences

would remain unchanged from present conditions.

Conflicts would continue at the present level

between users on Crab Orchard Lake.

Marinas

The capacity and condition of the marinas remain

unchanged under this alternative.

Group Camps

Under this alternative camps and camp administration would remain unchanged from current conditions.

Private Clubs

Under this alternative clubs and their administration would remain unchanged from current conditions.

Horseback Riding

Under this alternative trails would continue to

develop independent of plans and regulations. Trail

erosion would continue and likely increase. The

introduction of exotic plants would increase. An

increased number of hikers would express dissatisfaction with their trail experience.

4.3.3 Volunteers and Support Groups

Under this alternative volunteer support and

support from friends groups would increase gradually over the next 15 years.

4.3.4 Impacts on Industrial Use

Under this alternative the industrial operations

on the Refuge would remain unchanged from current conditions.

4.3.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use

Under Alternative A (No Action), there would be

few changes in agricultural operations on the Refuge when compared to current conditions. There

would be little planned change in the number of

acres farmed and grazed (Table 2 on page 41). Mowing of clover and hay fields would be prohibited until

August 1 of each year.

4.3.6 Impact on Archaeological and 

Cultural Values

The impacts on archaeological and cultural values

under Alternative A would remain unchanged from

present conditions.

4.3.7 Boundary Modification

Under this alternative the existing boundaries of

the Refuge would remain the same. We expect

development to continue on inholdings and lands

adjacent to the Refuge. There would be increased

challenges to accomplishing the Refuge's wildlife

conservation purpose.

4.4 Alternative B, Reduced 

Habitat Fragmentation: 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Emphasis With 

Land Exchange

4.4.1 Impacts on Resources

4.4.1.1. Land Cover

Under this alternative, the primary change in

land cover of the Refuge over the next 15 years

would be a decrease in fallow herbaceous fields

(about 1,400 acres) and shrubland (about 500 acres)

and an increase in mixed hardwood upland forest

(about 2,200 acres). Over the longer term, 100 years,

the primary change would occur in the forests as

pine plantations, shrubland, and red-cedar forests

succeed to hardwood forest. Other changes in the
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

139

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

shorter and longer terms are the succession of fallow and old fields to shrubland and forest cover

types. There would also be a reduction in land used

for row crops (about 100 acres) and hay fields (about

200 acres). The acres of land cover at Crab Orchard

NWR in 2000 and the acres projected for 2015 and

2100 under each alternative, along with the change

from 2000, are shown in Table 35 on page 135. The

distribution of land cover types for the years 2000,

2015, and 2100 are shown in Figure 21 on page 85),

Figure 9 on page 42, and Figure 10 on page 43,

respectively. If the land exchange occurred, the forest land cover would be slightly more than is shown

in the tables.

None of these changes would be large compared

to the No Action Alternative. The predicted difference in land cover for Alternative A and Alternative

B in 15 years is depicted in Figure 39.

4.4.1.2. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative B, the PSO score (habitat

potential) for Bald Eagles would be the same as in

Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131). The amount of

open water (feeding) habitat would be the same as in

Alternative A (Table 35 on page 135). The amount

of forest (nesting) habitat would be 1 percent larger

than in Alternative A (Table 36 on page 136). 

Relative to Alternative A, the PSO score for Indiana bats would be the same over the 15-year planning period and be 1 percent larger by the year 2100

(Table 34). 

4.4.1.3. Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species

Under Alternative B, the PSO score for area-sensitive forest birds would be 1 percent larger than

under Alternative A (Table 34). Increases in forest

habitat would be 1 percent larger than in Alternative A (Table 35). Relative to Alternative A, the

amount of core area habitat would be 7 percent

larger by the end of the 15-year planning period and

2 percent larger by the year 2100 (Table 36). Management of two portions of the Refuge would focus

on reducing forest fragmentation by reforestation of

490 acres of open habitats and burning and thinning

pine plantations to encourage succession to more

desirable hardwood forest.

4.4.1.4. Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species

Under Alternative B, the PSO score for waterfowl would be the same as in Alternative A (Table 34

on page 131). The amount of food producing habitat

would be 1 percent less than under Alternative A

(Table 2 on page 41). Relative to Alternative A,

there would be 16 percent less potential food for

wintering Canada Geese, but there would still be an

amount adequate for providing 6.4 million gooseuse-days (Table 3 on page 41). Most of the additional decrease in potential goose food results from

conversion of pasture cover from fescue to native,

warm-season grasses.

4.4.1.5. Grassland Birds

Under Alternative B, the PSO score for grassland birds would be 11 percent lower by the end of

the 15-year planning period and be the same by the

year 2100, when compared to Alternative A

(Table 34 on page 131). As in Alternative A, nesting

conditions for grassland birds would be improved by

the prohibition of mowing in clover and hay fields

until August 1 of each year. Under Alternative B,

nesting conditions for grassland birds would be

improved by changes in grazing operations, including the conversion of pasture cover from fescue to

native, warm-season grasses. Under Alternative B,

124 acres of linear forest habitat and 8 miles of

hedge rows would be removed to enhance nesting

habitat for grassland birds.

4.4.1.6. Shrubland Birds

Under Alternative B, the PSO score for shrub

land birds would be the same by the end of the 15-

year planning period and 7 percent lower by the

year 2100, when compared to Alternative A

(Table 34). Under Alternative B, some potential

shrub land bird habitat (124 acres of linear forest

habitat and 8 miles of hedge rows) would be

removed to enhance nesting habitat for grassland

birds.

4.4.1.7. Water Quality

In addition to working with farmers on the Refuge to establish buffer strips and keep stock away

from riparian areas and bodies of water, under this

alternative the Refuge staff would work with landowners in the watershed beyond the Refuge boundaries. We would expect less sedimentation in Crab

Orchard Lake under this alternative than under

Alternative A over the next 15 years. Investigation

by CERCLA and remediation of contaminated sites

should result in improved water quality in portions

of Crab Orchard Lake, similar to Alternative A. The

water quality in the other lakes and streams on the

Refuge would also improve compared to Alternative

A. The high quality water of Devils Kitchen Lake

would be better protected under this alternative

than under Alternative A.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

140

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

Figure 39: Differences in Land Cover, Crab Orchard NWR (Alternative A (No Action) / 

Alternative B and Alternative E (Preferred Alternative), 2015
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

141

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

4.4.1.8. Wilderness

Under Alternative B the pine plantations (229

acres) and pine-hardwood stands (96 acres) in the

Wilderness would be thinned to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. Thinning

would be conducted in several phases over a 10- to

15-year period to mimic the natural process of succession where pines are gradually replaced by hardwoods. Individual pines would be killed by cutting,

girdling or injecting herbicide. No trees would be

removed from the site. Treatments would be conducted so that the results would appear natural as

much as possible. However, trees along heavily used

trails may need to be felled to avoid personal injury

to visitors, in which case this zone may appear

unnatural for several years. Eventual removal of all

the non-native pines would restore the natural vegetative cover of the area and enhance wilderness

characteristics.

In conjunction with thinning the pine and pinehardwood stands, prescribed burning would be conducted during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood

regeneration. Control lines would be established by

hand tools where necessary, using natural firebreaks as much as possible. Fire is a natural force in

the ecosystem that should be reintroduced to provide many beneficial effects with minimal impacts.

Under Alternative B the proposed River to River

Trail route through the Crab Orchard Wilderness

would become an officially designated trail for

horseback riding and hiking. The trail would require

substantial rehabilitation and regular maintenance

to protect the fragile soils from increased foot and

horse traffic. Horses depositing dung along the trail

may introduce invasive and exotic plants in the surrounding natural communities. Since equestrians

would be restricted to the River to River Trail,

horseback riding on trails elsewhere in the Wilderness, and the associated impacts, would be eliminated.

Gas boat motors would be prohibited on the

southern part of Devils Kitchen Lake. There would

be a decline in visits, particularly for big game hunting, in the Wilderness bordering the shores of Devils Kitchen Lake because of the greater difficulty of

access.

4.4.2 Impacts on Public Uses

4.4.2.1. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

As a function of increased opportunities, accessibility, and improved facilities, under this alternative

wildlife-dependent recreational use levels and quality of experiences would increase more than in

Alternative A. Because the opportunities for teachers and students to use the Refuge would increase, a

secondary effect would be a long-term increase in

the community's conservation ethic. An increase in

wildlife observation and photography would contribute to a minimal increase in wildlife disturbance.

Goose hunting opportunities around the Refuge

would remain the same as under Alternative A.

4.4.2.2. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation

Camping 

One concession-operated campground on Little

Grassy Lake would continue under this alternative.

The facilities would be improved to industry standards within 5 years. The campground at Devils

Kitchen would be discontinued and the area re-vegetated. The campground on Crab Orchard Lake,

owned and managed by Southern Illinois University, would be improved. The quality of the facilities

and the camping experience would be at the level

available in nearby state park campgrounds. In

comparison to the No Action Alternative, the campgrounds would be improved more rapidly under this

alternative. The traditional users of the Devils

Kitchen Campground would need to find alternative

campgrounds, most likely at Giant City and Ferne

Clyffe State Parks or the Little Grassy Campground. At Little Grassy Campground, the opportunity to occupy a campsite indefinitely would be

discontinued as a 14-day stay limit was implemented. People who are accustomed to using a particular campsite for the entire season would be

displaced. There would be greater opportunity and

equity among visitors using the campground and

the selection of prime sites.

Swimming

There would be increased swimming opportunities and higher quality of experiences in the Crab

Orchard Lake area under this alternative. The concepts of Southern Illinois University include a water

park, which would provide better opportunities compared to the No Action Alternative. There would be

no developed beaches for the general public on

other parts of the Refuge. Swimming would continue at the group camps and the campground on

Little Grassy Lake. Under this alternative, some
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

142

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

members of the local community would perceive a

better fulfillment of their concept of the recreation

purpose for the area, although the purpose would be

achieved by Southern Illinois University rather

than the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Picnicking

There would be increased picnicking opportunities and higher quality experiences in the Crab

Orchard Lake area under this alternative. The

opportunities for picnicking on other parts of the

Refuge would improve to industry standards within

five years as facilities were improved. Opportunities

for picnicking on the Refuge would be provided to

support wildlife-dependent recreation. The purpose

would be achieved through actions by Southern Illinois University and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Motorboating/sailing

Because gas motors would be prohibited south of

the southernmost boat ramp on Devils Kitchen

Lake, visitors to the lake would experience a quieter

environment. Boaters who wanted to travel in the

southern half of Devils Kitchen Lake would have to

rely on electric trolling motors, paddling, or rowing

for mobility. Boating use is not expected to change

significantly on Devils Kitchen Lake.

Water-skiing

Because additional no-wake zones would be

implemented under this alternative compared to

Alternative A, anglers would have a better experience on Crab Orchard Lake. Conflict between

anglers and personal watercraft users/waterskiers

would be reduced. There would be fewer acres of

water available for water-skiing under this alternative. 

Marinas

Under this alternative the marinas on Crab

Orchard Lake would be part of the land exchange

with Southern Illinois University. The marinas at

Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen Lakes would be

operated as concessions and would remain

unchanged in quality and capacity. The marina facilities and related amenities on Crab Orchard Lake

would increase under this alternative. The community interest in more developed facilities would be

better met than under the No Action Alternative.

There would be some increase in the local economy

from increased tourist dollars. Students would

receive training for careers in recreation management. There would be more intensive use on Crab

Orchard Lake with a possible change in the nature

of water-based recreation. Traditional users may

feel more crowded under this alternative than under

the No Action Alternative.

Group Camps

Campers will receive environmental education

and the Refuge will be more actively involved in

environmental education programming.

Private Clubs

Under this alternative the private clubs – The

Haven and the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club –

would be part of the land transfer to Southern Illinois University. The expectation would be that the

current use of The Haven would be accommodated

at SIU facilities such as Touch of Nature or at the

present site. The Boat & Yacht Club would continue

its current operations under SIU ownership.

Horseback Riding

Horseback riding would be regulated under this

alternative. Trail erosion and vegetative impacts

would be reduced compared to Alternative A. The

introduction of exotic species would be limited to a

smaller area than in Alternative A. Hikers would

have an improved trail experience compared to

Alternative A.

4.4.3 Volunteer and Support Groups

Under this alternative volunteer support and

support from friends groups would increase more

over the next 15 years than in Alternative A.

4.4.4 Impacts on Industrial Use

Under this alternative, tenants would be

expected to bring the leased facilities up to prescribed health and safety standards prior to moving

into the facility. Therefore, initial costs to tenants

would be greater than under Alternative A. 

4.4.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use

Under Alternative B, agricultural operations on

the Refuge would change little from current conditions. Relative to Alternative A, there would be 100

fewer acres of land farmed for row crops and 200

fewer acres mowed for hay. As in Alternative A,

mowing of clover and hay fields would be prohibited

until August 1 of each year.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

143

Alternative B: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation/Wildlife-dependent Recreation With Land Exchange

4.4.6 Impacts on Archaeological and 

Cultural Values

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would

have a neutral effect on cultural resources. The

wildlife-dependent recreation component of the visitor services program would expand, but the majority of the expansion would not be related to ground

disturbing activities. Horse traffic may increase erosion where trails pass through archaeological sites.

The proposed plan will require horses to stay on a

designated trail, which will protect any areas with

sensitive resources. Under Alternative B, horseback

use would be restricted to designated trails with

possible unknown effect on cultural resources. Overall, the change in management of horseback use is

viewed as having a slightly positive effect on cultural

resources.

Little or no impacts to cultural resources would

occur as a result of the land exchange proposed in

Alternative B. Although there is the potential for

more ground disturbing activities as Southern Illinois University develops recreation facilities on the

exchanged lands, Federal agencies must ensure that

the significant values of federally owned historic

properties will be preserved or enhanced. The Fish

and Wildlife Service cannot dispose of historic properties unless the conservation of those resources are

ensured by another agency or entity.

4.4.7 Boundary Modification

Under this alternative the authorized boundaries

of the Refuge would expand. Over the long-term the

Refuge would acquire additional property or property rights from willing sellers.

Acquired lands would contribute to the goals of

the CCP by reducing habitat fragmentation, removing disruptions to public access, reducing disturbance to wildlife, and reducing potential

interference with management activities. Acquiring

inholdings creates the potential to restore habitats

and further reduce fragmentation, particularly in

the forested southwest portion of the Refuge. The

Refuge contributes to a large block of forest in

southern Illinois that includes contiguous lands

managed by Southern Illinois University (Touch of

Nature), State of Illinois (Giant City State Park),

and U.S. Forest Service (Shawnee National Forest).

The reduced fragmentation would benefit areasensitive forest birds, such as pileated woodpecker,

yellow-billed cuckoo, and Kentucky warbler. The

increased forested area also would provide more

potential habitat for the endangered Indiana bat. If

the inholdings were acquired, there would be

increased opportunity for the public to pursue wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge. Because

maintaining a boundary requires money and staff

time, acquiring inholdings would lessen the demand

on the Refuge budget and staff as boundaries internal to the Refuge are eliminated.

Because developed property is often accompanied by increased human activity and pets, which

can disturb wildlife, acquisition of inholdings and

potentially developed property up to the well

defined boundary of a road would lead to potentially

less disturbance of wildlife. Some Refuge management activities, prescribed burning and hunting, for

example, benefit from well defined boundaries. By

moving the Refuge boundary to a road and acquiring inholdings, management, particularly burning

and hunting programs, would be made more efficient and safer.

Currently, if a landowner wishes to sell or

exchange land that is outside the authorized boundary of the Refuge, the Service must complete an

Glenn Smart
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

144

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

analysis for the individual parcel and complete environmental documents related to the transaction.

This tract-by-tract analysis is inefficient and does

not provide for an overall, cumulative analysis of the

land transactions. Under this alternative the entire

boundary modification is evaluated so that delays in

land transactions, which may be detrimental to the

seller, should be reduced.

Land acquired by the Refuge would be taken off

the county tax rolls. However, payments in lieu of

taxes (revenue sharing) would be made to the

respective counties. These payments are expected

to be nearly equivalent to taxes. Eventually a larger

block of unfragmented forest would exist with

increased benefit to area sensitive forest species

compared to Alternative A.

The consequences of the land exchange portion of

the boundary modification are discussed under the

recreation, economic, and cumulative effects consequences sections of this chapter. As proposed, a land

exchange would result in a loss to federal government (based on the appraisal value of the land). The

loss might be as much as $20 million.

4.5 Alternative C: Open Land 

Management, Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation

4.5.1 Impacts on Resources

4.5.1.1. Land Cover

Under this alternative, the primary change in

land cover of the Refuge over the next 15 years

would be a decrease in fallow herbaceous fields

(about 1,400 acres) and shrubland (about 500 acres)

and an increase in mixed hardwood upland forest

(about 1,800 acres). Over the longer term, 100 years,

the primary change would occur in the forests as

pine plantations, shrubland, and red-cedar forests

succeed to hardwood forest. Other changes in the

shorter and longer terms are the succession of fallow and old fields to shrubland and forest cover

types. There would also be an increase in land used

for row crops (about 200 acres) and a decrease in

hay fields (about 100 acres). The acres of land cover

at Crab Orchard NWR in 2000 and the acres projected for 2015 and 2100 under each alternative,

along with the change from 2000, are shown in

Table 35 on page 135. The distribution of land cover

for the years 2000, 2015, and 2100 are shown in

Figure 21 on page 85, Figure 15 on page 58, and

Figure 16 on page 59, respectively.

The predicted difference in land cover for Alternative A and Alternative C in 15 years is depicted in

Figure 40.

4.5.1.2. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative C, the PSO score (habitat

potential) for Bald Eagles would be 1 percent

greater than under Alternative A (Table 34 on

page 131). The amount of open water (feeding) habitat would be the same as in Alternative A (Table 35

on page 135). The amount of forest (nesting) habitat would be less than 1 percent smaller than in

Alternative A (Table 36 on page 136).

Relative to Alternative A, the PSO score for Indiana bats would be 2 percent smaller by the end of

the 15-year planning period and the same by the

year 2100 (Table 34). 

4.5.1.3. Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species

Under Alternative C, the PSO score for area-sensitive forest birds would be 1 percent smaller than

under Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131). The

amount of forest habitat would be less than 1 percent smaller than in Alternative A (Table 35). Relative to Alternative A, the amount of core area

habitat would be 1 percent smaller by the end of the

15-year planning period and 2 percent smaller by

the year 2100 (Table 36 on page 136).

4.5.1.4. Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species

Under Alternative C, the PSO score for waterfowl would be the same by the end of the 15-year

planning period and 2 percent smaller by the year

2100 than Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131). The

amount of food-producing habitat would be 2 percent greater than under Alternative A (Table 2 on

page 41). Relative to Alternative A, there would be 7

percent less potential food for wintering Canada

Geese, but there would still be an amount adequate

for providing 6.4 million goose-use-days (Table 3 on

page 41). Most of the additional decrease in potential goose food results from conversion of pasture

cover from fescue to native, warm-season grasses.

4.5.1.5. Grassland Birds

Under Alternative C, the PSO score for grassland birds would be the same as under Alternative A

(Table 34). As in Alternative A, nesting conditions

for grassland birds would be improved by the prohibition of mowing in clover and hay fields until
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

145

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 40: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative C 

(Open Land Management), 2015
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

146

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

August 1 of each year. Under Alternative C, nesting

conditions for grassland birds would be improved by

changes in grazing operations, including the conversion of pasture cover from fescue to native, warmseason grasses. Under Alternative C, 124 acres of

linear forest habitat and 8 miles of hedge rows

would be removed to enhance nesting habitat for

grassland birds. 

4.5.1.6. Shrubland Birds

Under Alternative C, the PSO score for shrub

land birds would be the same by the end of the 15-

year planning period and 7 percent larger by the

year 2100, when compared to Alternative A

(Table 34). Under Alternative C, some potential

shrub land bird habitat (124 acres of linear forest

habitat and 8 miles of hedge rows) would be

removed to enhance nesting habitat for grassland

birds. 

4.5.1.7. Water Quality

Same as Alternative A (page 137).

4.5.1.8. Wilderness

Under Alternative C the pine plantations (229

acres) and pine-hardwood stands (96 acres) in the

Wilderness would not be artificially thinned to promote more rapid establishment and growth of native

hardwoods. Eventually, all the non-native pines

should die naturally, thus restoring the native vegetative cover of the area and enhancing its wilderness

character. However, it is estimated that this purely

natural process could take 30 to 60 years – or perhaps longer if pines were to regenerate from seed.

The continued presence of non-native pines would

have long-term (but decreasing) negative impacts

on ecosystem integrity and wilderness character.

The pine and pine-hardwood stands in the Wilderness would not be prescribed burned to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood

regeneration. Fire is a natural force in the ecosystem which can provide many beneficial effects with

minimal impacts. Without the use of fire the forest

would likely have a greater proportion of sugar

maple and a smaller component of oaks. Since oaks

generally provide higher quality wildlife habitat

than sugar maple, exclusion of fire would reduce the

overall quality of habitat.

Under Alternative C the proposed River to River

Trail route through the Crab Orchard Wilderness

would become an officially designated trail for

horseback riding and hiking. The trail would require

substantial rehabilitation and regular maintenance

to protect the fragile soils from increased foot and

horse traffic. Horses depositing dung along the trail

may introduce invasive and exotic plants in the surrounding natural communities. Since equestrians

would be restricted to the River to River Trail,

horseback riding on trails elsewhere in the Wilderness, and the associated impacts, would be eliminated.

Gas boat motors would be prohibited on the

southern part of Devils Kitchen Lake. There would

be a decline in visits, particularly for big game hunting, in the Wilderness bordering the shores of Devils Kitchen Lake because of the greater difficulty of

access.

4.5.2 Impacts on Public Uses

4.5.2.1. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

As a function of somewhat increased opportunities, accessibility, and improved facilities, under this

alternative wildlife-dependent use levels and quality

of experiences would increase more than in Alternative A, but less than in Alternative B for hunting,

fishing, observation and photography. As in Alternative B, the quality of the interpretive experience

would increase. The improvements that would be

made under this alternative would be implemented

at a pace between that in Alternative A and B. Thus,

the increases in use and quality of experiences

would not be as rapid as under Alternative B.

Because the opportunities for teachers and students

to use the Refuge would increase, a secondary effect

would be a long-term increase in the community's

conservation ethic. An increase in wildlife observation and photography would contribute to a minimal

increase in wildlife disturbance. Goose hunting

opportunities around the Refuge would remain the

same as under Alternative A.

4.5.2.2. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation

Camping

Three concession-operated campgrounds on the

Refuge would continue under this alternative. In an

effort to speed the improvement in the quality of

facilities, the size of the campgrounds would be

reduced. Limited resources would thus be directed

at improving fewer facilities. The facilities would

gradually be improved to standards comparable to

others in the area over the next 10 years. The quality of the facilities and the camping experience

would continue at a level below that available in

nearby state park campgrounds for the next 10

years. In comparison to the No Action Alternative,
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

147

Alternative C: Open Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

there would be fewer camping opportunities, but

they would be brought to standards comparable to

others in the area in fewer years. The opportunity to

occupy a campsite indefinitely would be discontinued as a 14-day stay limit was implemented. People

who are accustomed to using a particular campsite

for the entire season would be displaced. There

would be greater opportunity and equity among visitors using the campground and the selection of

prime sites.

Swimming

Same as Alternative A (page 137).

Picnicking

Same as Alternative A (page 138). 

Motorboating/sailing

Same as Alternative A (page 138).

Water-skiing 

There would be fewer acres of water available for

water-skiing under this alternative than Alternative

A. Because all bays on Crab Orchard Lake would be

closed to water-skiing under this alternative and

there would be additional no-wake zones, anglers

would have a better experience on Crab Orchard

Lake and conflict between anglers and personal

watercraft users and waterskiers would be reduced,

compared to Alternative A. 

Marinas 

The marinas at Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen

Lakes would be operated as concessions and would

remain unchanged in quality and capacity compared

to the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative

the former Images Marina slips would be moved

and consolidated at the Playport Marina. The

present Images Marina site would become a multilane public boat ramp. The changes would result in a

consolidated marina operation run as a concession

on Crab Orchard Lake. Boat access to Crab

Orchard Lake would be increased, improved, and

made safer compared to the No Action Alternative.

The amount of use on Crab Orchard Lake would not

change significantly compared to the No Action

Alternative.

Group Camps 

Same as Alternative B (page 142).

Private Clubs 

Under this alternative, after 2 years the Crab

Orchard Boat & Yacht Club would become a public,

non-member facility operated as a concession. The

Boat & Yacht Club tradition would end. The social

atmosphere at the Club would become less personal.

 Horseback Riding 

Same as Alternative B (page 142).

4.5.3 Volunteer and Support Groups

Same as Alternative B (page 142).

4.5.4 Impacts on Industrial Use

Under this alternative existing tenants would

continue at their option as long as they met the conditions of their lease. Leases would not be granted

to any new tenants. Because there would be fewer

leases from loss by attrition, there would be less

rental revenue for the Refuge. The demand for cold

storage facilities would increase in the local area.

The local industrial parks would experience less

competition from the federal government under this

alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.

The total employment in the local area would not

change. The industrial areas on the Refuge would be

consolidated. Former industrial areas would be

reclaimed, which would result in an increase in wildlife habitat compared to the No Action Alternative. 

4.5.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use

Under Alternative C, agricultural operations on

the Refuge would change little from current conditions. Relative to Alternative A, there would be 300

more acres of land farmed for row crops. As in

Alternative A, mowing of clover and hay fields

would be prohibited until August 1 of each year.

4.5.6 Impacts on Archaeological and 

Cultural Values

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C would

have a slightly positive effect on cultural resources.

Grazing, farming, timber harvest, fire suppression,

and revegetation of fields are all essentially the

same or are only slightly modified. A positive program change includes the increased control of

horseback riding. Because there would be less

development of recreation facilities under Alternative C, there would be fewer ground disturbing

activities and less potential effect on cultural

resources.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

148

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

4.5.7 Boundary Modification

Under this alternative the authorized boundary

of the Refuge would expand as in Alternative B, but

without the land exchange with SIU. The consequences would be similar to Alternative B.

4.6 Alternative D: Forest Land 

Management, Consolidate and 

Improve Recreation 

4.6.1 Impacts on Resources

4.6.1.1. Land Cover

Under this alternative, the primary change in

land cover of the Refuge over the next 15 years

would be a decrease in fallow herbaceous fields

(about 1,400 acres) and shrubland (about 500 acres)

and an increase in mixed hardwood upland forest

(about 2,400 acres). Over the longer term, 100 years,

the primary change would occur in the forests as

pine plantations, shrubland, and red-cedar forests

succeed to hardwood forest. Other changes in the

shorter and longer terms are the succession of fallow and old fields to shrubland and forest cover

types. There would also be a decrease in land used

for row crops (about 200 acres) and a decrease in

hay fields (about 200 acres). The acres of land cover

at Crab Orchard NWR in 2000 and the acres projected for 2015 and 2100 under each alternative,

along with the change from 2000, are shown in

Table 35 on page 135. The distribution of land cover

types for the years 2000, 2015, and 2100 are shown

in Figure 21 on page 85, Figure 17 on page 66 and

Figure 18 on page 67, respectively. 

The predicted difference in land cover for Alternative A and Alternative D in 15 years is depicted in

Figure 41. 

4.6.1.2. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative D, the PSO score (habitat

potential) for Bald Eagles would be the same as

under Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131). The

amount of open water (feeding) habitat would be the

same as in Alternative A (Table 35 on page 135).

Relative to Alternative A, the amount of forest

(nesting) habitat would be 2 percent greater by the

end of the 15-year planning period and 1 percent

greater by the year 2100 (Table 36 on page 136).

Relative to Alternative A, the PSO score for Indiana bats would be 2 percent greater by the end of

the 15-year planning period and by the year 2100

(Table 34 on page 131). 

4.6.1.3. Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species

Under Alternative D, the PSO score for area-sensitive forest birds would be 1 percent greater than

under Alternative A (Table 34). Relative to Alternative A, the amount of forest habitat would be 2 percent greater by the end of the 15-year planning

period and 1 percent greater by the year 2100

(Table 36 on page 136). Relative to Alternative A,

the amount of core area habitat would be 1 percent

greater by the end of the 15-year planning period

and 3 percent greater by the year 2100 (Table 36).

4.6.1.4. Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species

Under Alternative D, the PSO score for waterfowl would be 2 percent smaller by the end of the 15-

year planning period and the same by the year 2100

as in Alternative A (Table 34). The amount of food

producing habitat would be 3 percent less than

under Alternative A (Table 2 on page 41). Relative

to Alternative A, there would be 7 percent less

potential food for wintering Canada Geese, but

there would still be an amount adequate for providing 6.4 million goose-use-days (Table 3 on page 41).

Most of the additional decrease in potential goose

food results from conversion of pasture cover from

fescue to native, warm-season grasses.

4.6.1.5. Grassland Birds

Under Alternative D, the PSO score for grassland birds would be 11 percent less by the end of the

15-year planning period and the same by the year

2100 as under Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131).

As in Alternative A, nesting conditions for grassland

birds would be improved by the prohibition of mowing in clover and hay fields until August 1 of each

year. Under Alternative D, 15 acres of linear forest

habitat and 2 miles of hedge rows would be removed

to enhance nesting habitat for grassland birds.

4.6.1.6. Shrubland Birds

Under Alternative D, the PSO score for shrub

land birds would be the same during the 15-year

planning period and 7 percent larger by the year

2100, when compared to Alternative A (Table 34).

Under Alternative D, some potential shrub land

bird habitat (15 acres of linear forest habitat and 2

miles of hedge rows) would be removed to enhance

nesting habitat for grassland birds.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

149

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

Figure 41: Predicted Difference in Land Cover, Alternative A (No Action) / Alternative D 

(Forest Land Management), 2015
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

150

Alternative D: Forest Land Management / Consolidate and Improve Recreation

4.6.1.7. Water Quality

Same as Alternative A (page 137).

4.6.1.8. Wilderness

Under Alternative D the pine plantations (229

acres) and pine-hardwood stands (96 acres) in the

Wilderness would be thinned to promote establishment and growth of native hardwoods. Thinning

would be conducted in several phases over a 10- to

15-year period to mimic the natural process of succession where pines are gradually replaced by hardwoods. Individual pines would be killed by cutting,

girdling or injecting herbicide. No trees would be

removed from the site. Treatments would be conducted so that the results would appear natural as

much as possible. However, trees along heavily used

trails may need to be felled to avoid personal injury

to visitors, in which case this zone may appear

unnatural for several years. Eventual removal of all

the non-native pines would restore the natural vegetative cover of the area and enhance wilderness

characteristics.

In conjunction with thinning the pine and pinehardwood stands, prescribed burning would be conducted during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood

regeneration. Control lines would be established by

hand tools where necessary, using natural firebreaks as much as possible. Fire is a natural force in

the ecosystem that should be reintroduced to provide many beneficial effects with minimal impacts.

Under Alternative D horseback riding would not

be permitted anywhere on the Refuge. Therefore,

the River to River Trail would not be officially

routed through the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

Existing trails in the Wilderness would continue to

be used by hikers, but the trails likely would become

overgrown with vegetation without horse traffic.

Invasive and exotic plants would not be introduced

in the surrounding natural communities by horses

depositing dung.

The Wilderness would still be accessible to boaters from Devils Kitchen Lake using gas motors of 10

horsepower or less. The lake is not designated Wilderness, but the southern fingers of the lake extend

far into the Wilderness. 

4.6.2 Impacts on Public Uses

4.6.2.1. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

Same as Alternative C for hunting, fishing, and

wildlife observation and photography. Same as

Alternative B for interpretation and environmental

education.

4.6.2.2. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation

Camping 

Same as Alternative C (page 146).

Swimming 

Same as Alternative A (page 137).

Picnicking 

Same as Alternative A (page 138).

Motorboating/sailing 

Because gas motors would be prohibited on Devils Kitchen Lake, visitors to the lake would experience a quieter environment. Boaters who wanted to

travel on Devils Kitchen Lake would have to rely on

electric trolling motors, paddling, or rowing for

mobility. There would be some shift in the anglers,

in particular, using the lake as some current anglers

would choose not to fish at the lake under the new

restriction and new anglers would be drawn to the

lake because of the quiet setting. Overall, boating on

the lake would decrease.

Water-skiing

Same as Alternative C (page 147).

Marinas

Same as Alternative C (page 147).

Group Camps

Same as Alternative B (page 142).

Private Clubs

Same as Alternative C (page 147).

Horseback Riding

Under this alternative horseback riding would be

excluded from the Refuge. Horseback riders on the

River to River Trail would continue to travel a less

scenic route bypassing the Refuge. There would be

less trail erosion and fewer introductions of exotic

plants than in Alternative A. Hikers on the trails in

the Crab Orchard Wilderness would walk on a

smoother tread and some hikers would report a better experience than under Alternative A.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

151

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

4.6.3 Volunteer and Support Groups

Same as Alternative B (page 142).

4.6.4 Impacts on Industrial Use

Same as Alternative C (page 147).

4.6.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use

Under Alternative D, agricultural operations on

the Refuge would change little from current conditions. Relative to Alternative A, there would be 200

fewer acres of land farmed for row crops and 200

fewer acres of land mowed for hay. Farming in

fields smaller then 5 acres would be discontinued.

As in Alternative A, mowing of clover and hay fields

would be prohibited until August 1 of each year.

4.6.6 Archaeological and Cultural 

Values

Alternative D is similar to Alternative C, except

for some slight modifications that make this alternative slightly more positive toward cultural

resources. The prohibition of horseback use on the

Refuge would lessen slightly the potential effect on

cultural resources.

4.6.7 Boundary Modification

Same as Alternative C (page 148).

4.7 Alternative E, Reduced 

Habitat Fragmentation, 

Consolidate and Improve 

Recreation (Preferred 

Alternative)

4.7.1 Impacts on Resources

4.7.1.1. Land Cover

Under this alternative, the primary change in

land cover of the Refuge over the next 15 years

would be a decrease in fallow herbaceous fields

(about 1,400 acres) and shrubland (about 500 acres)

and an increase in mixed hardwood upland forest

(about 2,200 acres). Over the longer term, 100 years,

the primary change would occur in the forests as

pine plantations, shrubland, and red-cedar forests

succeed to hardwood forest. Other changes in the

shorter and longer terms are the succession of fallow and old fields to shrubland and forest cover

types. There would also be a reduction in land used

for row crops (about 100 acres) and hay fields (about

200 acres). The acres of land cover at Crab Orchard

NWR in 2000 and the acres projected for 2015 and

2100 under each alternative, along with the change

from 2000, are shown in Table 35 on page 135. The

distribution of land cover types for the years 2000,

2015, and 2100 are shown in Figure 21 on page 85,

Figure 9 on page 42 and Figure 10 on page 43,

respectively. 

None of these changes would be large compared

to the No Action Alternative. The predicted difference in land cover for Alternative A and Alternative

E in 15 years is depicted in Figure 39 on page 140.

4.7.1.2. Threatened and Endangered Species

Under Alternative E, the PSO score (habitat

potential) for Bald Eagles would be the same as in

Alternative A (Table 34 on page 131). The amount of

open water (feeding) habitat would be the same as in

Alternative A (Table 35 on page 135). The amount

of forest (nesting) habitat would be 1 percent larger

than in Alternative A (Table 36 on page 136). 

Relative to Alternative A, the PSO score for Indiana bats would be the same over the 15-year planning period and be 1 percent larger by the year 2100

(Table 34). 

4.7.1.3. Area-sensitive Forest Bird Species

Under Alternative E, the PSO score for area-sensitive forest birds would be 1 percent larger than

under Alternative A (Table 34). Increases in forest

habitat would be 1 percent larger than in Alternative A (Table 35). Relative to Alternative A, the

amount of core area habitat would be 7 percent

larger by the end of the 15-year planning period and

2 percent larger by the year 2100 (Table 36). Management of two portions of the Refuge would focus

on decreasing forest fragmentation by reforestation

of 490 acres of open habitats and burning and thinning pine plantations to encourage succession to

more desirable hardwood forest.

4.7.1.4. Waterfowl and Other Water Bird Species

Under Alternative E, the PSO score for waterfowl would be the same as in Alternative A

(Table 34). The amount of food producing habitat

would be 1 percent less than under Alternative A

(Table 35). Relative to Alternative A, there would be

16 percent less potential food for wintering Canada

Geese, but there would still be an amount adequate
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

152

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

for providing 6.4 million goose-use-days (Table 3 on

page 41). Most of the additional decrease in potential goose food results from conversion of pasture

cover from fescue to native, warm-season grasses.

4.7.1.5. Grassland Birds

Under Alternative E, the PSO score for grassland birds would be 11 percent lower by the end of

the 15-year planning period and be the same by the

year 2100, when compared to Alternative A

(Table 34 on page 131). As in Alternative A, nesting

conditions for grassland birds would be improved by

the prohibition of mowing in clover and hay fields

until August 1 of each year. Under Alternative E,

nesting conditions for grassland birds would be

improved by changes in grazing operations, including the conversion of pasture cover from fescue to

native, warm-season grasses. Under Alternative E,

124 acres of linear forest habitat and 8 miles of

hedge rows would be removed to enhance nesting

habitat for grassland birds.

4.7.1.6. Shrubland Birds

Under Alternative E, the PSO score for shrub

land birds would be the same by the end of the 15-

year planning period and 7 percent lower by the

year 2100, when compared to Alternative A

(Table 34). Under Alternative E, some potential

shrub land bird habitat (124 acres of linear forest

habitat and 8 miles of hedge rows) would be

removed to enhance nesting habitat for grassland

birds. 

4.7.1.7. Water Quality

In addition to working with farmers on the Refuge to establish buffer strips and keep stock away

from riparian areas and bodies of water, under this

alternative the Refuge staff would work with landowners in the watershed beyond the Refuge boundaries. We would expect less sedimentation in Crab

Orchard Lake under this alternative than under

Alternative A over the next 15 years. Investigation

by CERCLA and remediation of contaminated sites

should result in improved water quality in portions

of Crab Orchard Lake, similar to Alternative A. The

water quality in the other lakes and streams on the

Refuge would also improve compared to Alternative

A. The high quality water of Devils Kitchen Lake

would be better protected under this alternative

than under Alternative A.

4.7.1.8. Wilderness

Under Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) the

pine plantations (229 acres) and pine-hardwood

stands (96 acres) in the Wilderness would be

thinned to promote establishment and growth of

native hardwoods. Thinning would be conducted in

several phases over a 10- to 15-year period to mimic

the natural process of succession where pines are

gradually replaced by hardwoods. Individual pines

would be killed by cutting, girdling or injecting herbicide. No trees would be removed from the site.

Treatments would be conducted so that the results

would appear natural as much as possible. However,

trees along heavily used trails may need to be felled

to avoid personal injury to visitors, in which case

this zone may appear unnatural for several years.

Eventual removal of all the non-native pines would

restore the natural vegetative cover of the area and

enhance wilderness characteristics.

In conjunction with thinning the pine and pinehardwood stands, prescribed burning would be conducted during the dormant season (November

through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle to enhance

habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood

regeneration. Control lines would be established by

hand tools where necessary, using natural firebreaks as much as possible. Fire is a natural force in

the ecosystem that should be reintroduced to provide many beneficial effects with minimal impacts.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

153

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative E the proposed River to River

Trail route through the Crab Orchard Wilderness

would become an officially designated trail for

horseback riding and hiking. The trail would require

substantial rehabilitation and regular maintenance

to protect the fragile soils from increased foot and

horse traffic. Horses depositing dung along the trail

may introduce invasive and exotic plants in the surrounding natural communities. Since equestrians

would be restricted to the River to River Trail,

horseback riding on trails elsewhere in the Wilderness, and the associated impacts, would be eliminated.

Because gas boat motors would be prohibited on

the southern part of Devils Kitchen Lake, visitors to

the lake would experience a quieter environment.

There would be a decline in visits, particularly for

big game hunting, in the Wilderness bordering the

shores of Devils Kitchen Lake because of the

greater difficulty of access.

4.7.2 Impacts on Public Uses

4.7.2.1. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

As a function of somewhat increased opportunities, accessibility, and improved facilities, under this

alternative wildlife-dependent recreational use levels and quality of experiences would increase more

than in Alternative A, but less than in Alternative B

for hunting, fishing, observation and photography.

As in Alternative B, the quality of the interpretive

experience would increase. The improvements that

would be made under this alternative would be

implemented at a pace between that in Alternative

A and B. Thus, the increases in use and quality of

experiences would not be as rapid as under Alternative B. Because the opportunities for teachers and

students to use the Refuge would increase, a secondary effect would be a long-term increase in the

community's conservation ethic. An increase in wildlife observation and photography would contribute

to a minimal increase in wildlife disturbance. Goose

hunting opportunities around the Refuge would

remain the same as under Alternative A.

4.7.2.2. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation

Camping

Three concession-operated campgrounds on the

Refuge would continue under this alternative. In an

effort to speed the improvement in the quality of

facilities, the size of the campgrounds would be

reduced. Limited resources would thus be directed

at improving fewer facilities. The facilities would

gradually be improved to standards comparable to

others in the area over the next 10 years. The quality of the facilities and the camping experience

would continue at a level below that available in

nearby state park campgrounds for the next 10

years. In comparison to the No Action Alternative,

there would be fewer camping opportunities, but

they would be brought to standards comparable to

others in the area in fewer years. The opportunity to

occupy a campsite indefinitely would be discontinued as a 14-day stay limit was implemented. People

who are accustomed to using a particular campsite

for the entire season would be displaced. There

would be greater opportunity and equity among visitors using the campground and the selection of

prime sites.

Swimming

The opportunities and quality of experiences

would remain unchanged from present conditions.

Picnicking

The opportunities and quality of experiences

would gradually improve over the next 15 years as

the current facilities are gradually improved.

Motorboating/sailing

Because gas motors would be prohibited south of

the southernmost boat ramp on Devils Kitchen

Lake, visitors to the lake would experience a quieter

environment. Boaters who wanted to travel in the

southernmost portions of Devils Kitchen Lake

would have to rely on electric trolling motors, paddling, or rowing for mobility. Boating use is not

expected to change significantly on Devils Kitchen

Lake.

Water-skiing

There would be fewer acres of water available for

water-skiing under this alternative than Alternative

A. Because all bays on Crab Orchard Lake would be

closed to water-skiing under this alternative and

there would be additional no-wake zones, anglers

would have a better experience on Crab Orchard

Lake and conflict between anglers and personal

watercraft users and waterskiers would be reduced,

compared to Alternative A. 

Marinas

The marinas at Little Grassy and Devils Kitchen

Lakes would be operated as concessions and would

remain unchanged in quality and capacity compared

to the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative

the former Images Marina slips would be moved

and consolidated at the Playport Marina. The
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

154

Alternative E: Reduced Habitat Fragmentation / Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative)

present Images Marina site would become a fourlane boat ramp operated under concession. The

changes would result in a consolidated marina operation run as a concession on Crab Orchard Lake.

Boat access to Crab Orchard Lake would be

increased, improved, and made safer compared to

the No Action Alternative. The amount of use on

Crab Orchard Lake would not change significantly

compared to the No Action Alternative.

Group Camps

Campers will receive environmental education

and the Refuge will be more actively involved in

environmental education programming.

Private Clubs

Under this alternative, after 2 years the Crab

Orchard Boat & Yacht Club would become a public,

non-member facility operated as a concession. The

Boat & Yacht Club tradition would end. The social

atmosphere at the Club would become less personal. 

Horseback Riding

Horseback riding would be regulated under this

alternative. Trail erosion and vegetative impacts

would be reduced compared to Alternative A. The

introduction of exotic species would be limited to a

smaller area than in Alternative A. Hikers would

have an improved trail experience compared to

Alternative A.

4.7.3 Volunteer and Support Groups

Under this alternative volunteer support and

support from friends groups would increase more

over the next 15 years than in Alternative A.

4.7.4 Impacts on Industrial Use

Under this alternative, tenants would be

expected to bring the leased facilities up to prescribed health and safety standards prior to moving

into the facility. Therefore, initial costs to tenants

would be greater than under Alternative A. 

4.7.5 Impacts on Agricultural Use

Under Alternative E, agricultural operations on

the Refuge would change little from current conditions. Relative to Alternative A, there would be 100

fewer acres of land farmed for row crops and 200

fewer acres mowed for hay. As in Alternative A,

mowing of clover and hay fields would be prohibited

until August 1 of each year.

4.7.6 Impacts on Archaeological and 

Cultural Values

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative E would

have a neutral effect on cultural resources. The

wildlife-dependent recreation component of the visitor services program will expand, but the majority

of the expansion will not be related to ground disturbing activities. Horse traffic may increase erosion where trails pass through archaeological sites.

The proposed plan will require horses to stay on a

designated trail, which will protect any areas with

sensitive resources. Under Alternative A horseback

use would continue with ill-defined restrictions and

with possible unknown effect on cultural resources.

Overall, the change in management of horseback

use is viewed as having a slightly positive effect on

cultural resources.

4.7.7 Boundary Modification

Under this alternative the authorized boundaries

of the Refuge would expand. Over the long-term the

Refuge would acquire additional property or property rights from willing sellers.

If acquired, the lands would contribute to the

goals of the CCP by reducing habitat fragmentation,

removing disruptions to public access, reducing disturbance to wildlife, and reducing potential interference with management activities. Acquiring

inholdings creates the potential to restore habitats

and further reduce fragmentation, particularly in

the forested southwest portion of the Refuge. The

Refuge contributes to a large block of forest in

southern Illinois that includes contiguous lands

managed by Southern Illinois University (Touch of

Nature), State of Illinois (Giant City State Park),

and U.S. Forest Service (Shawnee National Forest).

The reduced fragmentation would benefit areasensitive forest birds, such as pileated woodpecker,

yellow-billed cuckoo, and Kentucky warbler. The

increased forested area also would provide more

potential habitat for the endangered Indiana bat. If

the inholdings were acquired, there would be

increased opportunity for the public to pursue wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge. Because

maintaining a boundary requires money and staff

time, acquiring inholdings would lessen the demand

on the Refuge budget and staff as boundaries internal to the Refuge are eliminated.

Because developed property is often accompanied by increased human activity and pets, which

can disturb wildlife, acquisition of inholdings and
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

155

potentially developed property up to the well

defined boundary of a road would lead to potentially

less disturbance of wildlife. Some refuge management activities, prescribed burning and hunting, for

example, benefit from well defined boundaries. By

moving the refuge boundary to a road and acquiring

inholdings, management, particularly burning and

hunting programs, would be made more efficient

and safer. 

Currently, if a landowner wishes to sell or

exchange land that is outside the authorized boundary of the Refuge, the Service must complete an

analysis for the individual parcel and complete environmental documents related to the transaction.

This tract-by-tract analysis is inefficient and does

not provide for an overall, cumulative analysis of the

land transactions. Under this alternative the entire

boundary modification is evaluated so that delays in

land transactions, which may be detrimental to the

seller, should be reduced.

Land acquired by the Refuge would be taken off

the county tax rolls. However, payments in lieu of

taxes (revenue sharing) would be made to the

respective counties. These payments are expected

to be nearly equivalent to taxes. Eventually a larger

block of unfragmented forest would exist with

increased benefit to area sensitive forest species

compared to Alternative A.

4.8 Summary of Economic 

Effects of Alternatives

4.8.1 Economic Effects of Recreation

4.8.1.1. Introduction

This section estimates the economic effects of

implementing the action alternatives and potentially

changing the scope and magnitude of public use on

the Refuge. 

Economic effect categories include changes in: 

# activity days; 

# net economic value (consumer surplus); 

# total expenditures; 

# economic output; 

# employment; and 

# employment income (these categories are

defined and discussed in Chapter 2, Study

Area Economic Profile). 

The dollar values and employment figures in

Table 37 and Table 38 are for the two-county study

area as a whole. The first column summarizes current conditions; the next three columns show the net

change from Alternative A (decreases are shown

with a minus sign [ - ]). Note that the figures shown

in the last three columns are net, one-time changes

to the current situation; they are not accumulative

in the sense that $10,000 indicates a $10,000 increase

each year over the time span of the project. For

example, say net economic value under Alternative

A is $100,000 and under Alternative B is $10,000.

This indicates that the implementation of Alternative B would increase net consumer surplus to

$110,000 per year, not that Alternative B would

result in an annual increase of $10,000 each year, so

that year 1 would be $110,000, year 2 would be

$120,000, etc. 

4.8.1.2. Hunting

There would be essentially no change in hunting

use on the Refuge from implementation of any of

the four action alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D

and E would implement controlled hunts to maintain the quality of the hunting experience on the

Refuge, which may increase the number of hunters

in the restricted use area during the hunting season.

However, this is not expected to change the overall

annual use of the Refuge for hunting.

Table 37 shows a comparison of the annual economic effects of the No Action alternative with the

four action alternatives. The economic effects shown

for Alternative A encompass big game, small game

and migratory waterfowl hunting. 

4.8.1.3. Fishing

Analysis of Alternative B is based on the assumption that four new facilities are added to increase

access to Refuge fisheries. Alternative B would also

enhance fisheries habitat to improve the fishing

experience on the Refuge. Consequently, a 5 percent increase in Refuge fishing activity is anticipated with implementation of Alternative B.

Alternatives C, D and E are expected to have similar impacts as Alternative A. (Table 38)

4.8.1.4. Wildlife Observation and Photography

Analysis of Alternative B assumes four major

effects that would increase wildlife observation

activities on the Refuge by about 10 percent annually: 

# the number of photo blinds will increase from

two to four; 
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

156

# the number of observation platforms increases

from one to three; 

# several additional wildlife observation sites are

to be established on the Refuge; and

# an annual wildlife photography contest will be

initiated. 

Alternatives C, D and E are similar to Alternative B with the exception that additional wildlife

observation sites are not part of Alternatives C, D

and E. Consequently, it is anticipated that Alternatives C, D and E would result in a 2.5 percent annual

increase in wildlife observation and photography on

the Refuge (Table 39). 

Table 37: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Hunting in the Study Area

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No 

Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D 

and E

Activity Days 43,679 0 0

Net economic value $1,005,964 0 0

Total expenditures $1,783,109 0 0

Economic Output $2,267,456 0 0

Employment 

(number of jobs)

41.2 0 0

Labor Income $939,162 0 0

Table 38: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Fishing in the Study Area

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D 

and E

Activity Days 210,478 10,572 0

Net economic value $3,472,887 $174,438 0

Total Expenditures $7,347,787 $369,069 0

Economic output $9,260,444 $465,138 0

Employment 

(number of jobs)

180.5 9 0

Labor income $3,972,468 $198,073 0

Table 39: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Observation

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D and E

Activity days 110,105 11,323 2,831

Net economic value $1,613,258 $165,905 $41,480

Total expenditures $4,923,785 $506,353 $126,560

Economic output $6,088,532 $626,134 $156,547

Employment 

(number of jobs)

118 12 3

Labor income $2,477,711 $251,971 $62,993
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

157

4.8.1.5. Boating

The major effects of implementing Alternatives

B, C, D or E are the potential changes to available

facilities and the number of available marina slips

(Table 40). 

4.8.1.6. Facilities and Marina Slips

Alternative B would transfer three marinas to

SIU. It is assumed that SIU would manage these

marinas in a manner consistent with current operations and facility capacity. Under Alternatives C, D

and E, Images Marina and Playport Marina would

be consolidated at the Playport site. The Boat &

Yacht Club marina would be maintained as a concession-operated facility after 2 years..

Alternative B would generally improve the quality of the boating experience on the Refuge and

improve boating access and associated parking.

Consequently, it is anticipated that Alternative B

would result in a 5 percent annual increase in boating activity on the Refuge. Implementation of Alternatives C, D and E would not result in any net

change from Alternative A for the next 10 years.

4.8.1.7. Camping / Day Use

Alternative B would keep 130 sites at Little

Grassy Campground, close Devils Kitchen Campground eliminating 45 sites, and transfer Crab

Orchard Campground to SIU. Consequently there

would be a net loss of 45 sites (assuming SIU continues to operate Crab Orchard Campground at current use levels). Little Grassy Campground would

be brought up to public health and other use and

design standards comparable to Illinois State Parks

standards. The Devils Kitchen Campground is currently under-utilized; eliminating these sites would

not materially affect the amount of camping taking

place on the Refuge. It is expected that campground

quality improvements and other infrastructure

improvements would result in a higheroverall campground utilization rate compared with Alternative

A. Alternatives C, D and E would not materially

affect campground usage on the Refuge (Table 41). 

Table 40: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Boating

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D and E

Activity days 92,997 $4,856 0

Net economic value $2,462,486 $128,583 0

Total expenditures $2,757,469 $143,986 0

Economic output $3,459,091 $180,622 0

Employment 

(number of jobs)

83.6 4.4 0

Labor income $2,068,264 $108,856 0

Table 41: Comparison of Annual Economic Effects of Alternatives on Camping and Picnicking

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D and 

E

Activity days 193,400 9,000 0

Net economic value 

($28.36/day)

$5,484,824 $252,240 0

Total expenditures 

($15/day)

$2,901,000 $135,000 0

Economic output $3,655,260 $170,100 0

Employment 

(number of jobs)

71.3 3.3 0

Labor income $1,569,180 $72,626 0
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

158

4.8.1.8. Summary of Recreation Economic Effects

Implementation of any of the action alternatives

would increase the economic effects of public use of

the Refuge compared with Alternative A. Public use

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, boating, camping and picnicking. A major assumption

behind the economic effects estimates is that

enhancing the quality of the recreational experience

on the Refuge (whether by enhancements to the

physical and biological environment or by enhancements to facilities or by increasing convenient

access to the Refuge) provides an incentive for

longer, more frequent or new recreational visits to

the Refuge. Compared to the No Action Alternative,

Alternative B would increase Refuge recreational

visitation by about 5 percent while Alternatives C, D

and E would result in a 0.5 percent increase overall.

(Table 42) 

4.8.2 Economic Effects of Commercial 

Use

4.8.2.1. Introduction

This section discusses the economic impacts of

the action alternatives on the Refuge's commercial

uses. Commercial uses include agriculture, grazing,

timber harvesting, and industry. As noted in the

previous section that discussed public uses on the

Refuge, the changes depicted in the summary tables

represent net, one-time changes from the baseline. 

4.8.2.2. Agriculture

An analysis of each alternative as it affects agriculture is described below. Each alternative's

impact on acreage is assumed to be distributed to

the same proportions of the 2001 baseline (41 percent corn, 33 percent clover, and 26 percent soybeans). Value per acre is the average crop value for

the two-county study area. Impacts are summarized

in Table 43. Under Alternative A, only changes to

the management of hay fields would occur. Hay

would not be mowed until after August 1, which

would result in a decrease from two hay cuttings to

one hay cutting. We establish the one hay cutting as

the baseline for the analysis. 

Under Alternatives B and E, various additional

conservation practices would be emphasized on certain fields. Because hay and clover would not be

mowed until after August 1, we assumed only one

cutting of hay. Buffers would be adjusted where

erosion is a problem. Furthermore, the rate charged

for hay would be updated to account for inflation.

Some farmed lands would be removed, other acres

would be reclaimed. The net change of land use for

crops (corn, soybeans, and clover) would be an

increase of 90 acres, thereby increasing corn, clover,

and soybeans by 37, 29, and 23 acres respectively

(Table 43). There would be no change to hay acreage. Assuming a proportional increase in harvest,

total crop value would increase to about $1.07 million. Although crop acreage will increase, we do not

expect an increase in the number of cooperators.

However, economic output and labor income should

increase accordingly with the increase in agricultural output.

Similar to the previous alternative, Alternative C

would also emphasize adding new conservation

practices. There would be no change in hay acreage,

but this alternative would still result in a net

increase of 212 acres to the farming program. An

increase in production would result in a 4 percent

increase in total value from the 2001 baseline. As in

Alternative B, crop acreage will increase but we do

not expect an increase in the number of cooperators.

Again, economic output and labor income should

increase in accordance with the increase in agricultural output.

Table 42: Summary of Economic Effects of Alternatives on Public Use

Change from Alt. A

Category Alt. A

(No Action)

Alt. B Alts. C, D and 

E

Activity days 650,659 35,751 2,831

Net economic value $14,039,419 $721,166 $41,480

Total expenditures $19,713,150 $1,154,408 $126,560

Economic output $24,730,783 $1,441,994 $156,547

Employment 

(number of jobs)

494.6 28.7 3

Labor income $11,026,785 $631,526 $62,993
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

159

Unlike the above alternatives, Alternative D

would not emphasize new conservation practices. A

limited amount of soybeans could be planted in 2

successive years. Also, the rate charged for hay

would be updated to account for inflation. Alternative D would result in 239 fewer acres in the farming

program for corn, clover and soybeans. There would

also be a decrease in hay acreage by 267 acres. The

net decrease in crop and hay acreage would result in

a decline of total sales by about $83,000 annually.

Hay would be impacted the most, as a 35 percent

decrease in hay sales. We expect this decrease in

sales to have only a minor impact on the region

because $83,000 represents less than 1 percent of

the region's agricultural value for these four crops. 

4.8.2.3. Grazing

The Refuge currently allocates about 1,000 acres

to support about 375 head of cattle and about 1,726

animal unit months (AUM). We assume that all cattle are yearlings, and are thus sold at the end of

each grazing period. The period for cattle grazing

on the fescue pastures normally runs from April 15

to September 30. Also, the grazing fee is $8.95 per

AUM, and is paid through mowing credits of $2.53

per AUM and fertilizing.

Alternatives B, C and E would emphasize conservation by implementing limited rotational grazing to

provide vegetation structure that supports grassland birds. Although rotational grazing would also

enhance the quality of the forage, 10 percent fewer

head of cattle would be permitted on the pastures.

There would be no impact on total pasture acres.

The grazing period would increase by one month in

the fall. Thus, cooperators would be less dependent

upon other grazing areas off the Refuge. Grazing

fees and mowing credits would be updated to

account for inflation. Cooperators may be slightly

impacted because they would need to graze 37 head

of cattle elsewhere. (This impact would be distributed evenly among the 10 cooperators.) If the cooperators choose not to graze elsewhere and to

decrease the total head by 37, then total sales would

decrease by about $17,000. The impacts are depicted

in Table 44. 

Optimizing cattle production in pastures would be

the focus of Alternative D. Rather than increasing

grasses with high wildlife value (as in Alternatives

B, C and E), grasses with high forage production

would be increased to benefit cattle. Forage would

increase to support more cattle on the pastures, but

there would be no change to the total acres of pasture. As in the other alternatives, the grazing period

would increase by one month in the fall. Thus, cooperators would be less dependent upon other grazing

areas off the Refuge. Grazing fees and mowing credits would be updated to account for inflation. Cooperators would benefit by being able to graze slightly

more cattle and having better forage. The local

economy would benefit by a slight increase of

approximately $17,000 in economic output. . 

4.8.2.4. Timber Harvesting

Timber harvesting is one habitat management

tool used on portions of the forest to support the

Refuge's wildlife conservation purpose. In the past,

the Refuge has sold pine and hardwood timber for a

variety of products. The amount of revenue generTable 43: Comparison of Annual Average Crop Values in Study Area

Change from Alternative A

2001 Baseline

(Alt. A)

Alts. B and E

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

(Open Land)

Alternative D

(Forest)

Acres Value1 Acres Value Acres Value Acres Value

Corn 1,877 $506,784 -53 -$14,288 87 $23,553 -99 $26,679

Clover2 1,484 $319,153 -42 -$8,998 69 $14,833 -78 -$16,801

Soybeans 1,179 $212,146 -33 -$5,981 55 $9,860 -62 -$11,168

Hay3 767 $82,453 -167 -$17,953 0 $0.0 -267 -$28,703

Total Impact 5,307 $1,120,536 -295 -$47,220 211 $48,246 -506 -$83,350

1. Value is depicted in year 2000 dollars.

2. The price per ton for hay is used as a proxy for clover.

3. We assume that the two-county study aea has two hay cuttings per year. We further assume that the hay revenue is equally distributed between the two

cuttings. Therefore, 50 percent of the value per acre in the two-county study area is attributable to the value per acre for one hay cutting at the Refuge.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

160

ated from timber sales has varied greatly from year

to year. The average annual revenue for the years

1983 to 1998 was $17,600. 

The Refuge would continue thinning treatments

in pine stands under each alternative. Under Alternatives B and E, removal of the pine overstory

would also occur in some cases. The amount of revenue from future timber sales is expected to be similar to that of the recent past. Refuge timber sales

would continue to have a negligible effect on the

local economy as a whole. Table 45 depicts the

impacts of each alternative on timber harvests and

pine and hardwood forest cover.

4.8.2.5. Industry

This section discusses the impacts of the alternatives on industry within the Refuge's boundaries.

There would be minimal effect on munitions manufacturing operations, explosive storage areas, and

other industrial facilities. Alternatives B, C, D and

E would place more emphasis on building and

grounds maintenance performed by the lessee.

Because maintenance is already stated in the lease,

we do not consider this change as an increase in

costs to the tenant. As the buildings and infrastructure continue to age, the number of industrial leases

will decrease in each of these alternatives. For

example, structures would be eliminated as they

become obsolete, and the tenant's lease would

expire at such time. Alternatives C and D would not

lease a structure to a new tenant if the current tenant does not renew the lease. We assume that Alternatives B and E would result in a 5 percent decrease

annually in leased space, and Alternatives C and D

would result in a 10 percent decrease annually.

Besides these changes, the Refuge would continue

to provide facilities for the existing tenants at fair

market value rental rates. These changes are not

expected to increase costs to industrial tenants on

the Refuge. Furthermore, the local economy would

not be negatively affected because companies would

be expected to move to the industrial parks nearby.

Impacts are shown in Table 46.

Table 44: Comparison of Economic Effects of Grazing at Crab Orchard NWR

Change from Alternative A

Alt. A Alt. B and Alt. 

E

Alt. C Alt. D

Total Acres 1,000 0 0 1,000

Total Head 375 -37 -37 38

No. of Months 5.5 1 1 1

Total Value1 $172,500 -$17,020 -$17,020 $17,480

1. Total value is equal to Total Head multiplied by the average price per head in the five-county area.

Value is depicted in 2000 dollars.

Table 45: Impacts of Each Alternative on Timber Harvesting and Pine and Hardwood Forest Cover

Alternative A Alternatives B and E Alternative C Alternative D

Forest Cover 

(acres)

Annual 

Harvest (tons)

Forest Cover

(acres)

Annual 

Harvest (tons)

Forest Cover 

(acres)

Annual 

Harvest (tons

Forest Cover 

(acres)

Annual 

Harvest (tons)

Pine 2,497 1,803 -726 +524 -1,471 +1,062 -726 +524

Hardwood 832 123 726 107 1,471 217 726 107

Total Annual 

Impact

3,329 1,926 0 -417 0 -844 0 -417

Total Annual 

Value1

$6,641 -$1,657 -$3,355 -$1,657

1. Total annual value is stated in year 2000 dollars. The price for pine and hardwood is averaged based upon past sales. The change in annual value is overestimated by about 18 percent.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

161

4.9 Summary of Impacts of 

Alternatives

The previous sections described the consequences of management actions under the five alternatives. Table 47 on page 192 summarizes the

effects for each alternative organized by the issues

discussed in Chapter 1. The effects are summarized

in short phrases to ease comparison among alternatives. The effects listed under Alternative B assume

that a land exchange takes place and incorporate

the combined effects of lands managed by the Service and former Refuge lands that would be managed by SIU. Thus, the effects for increased

developed recreation reflect increases that would

occur on SIU lands under Alternative B.

4.10 Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those

that cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments

can be reversed, given sufficient time and resources.

There are no irreversible commitments of resources

under any alternatives. Land use changes proposed

under the alternatives would be irretrievable. Modifications would affect a maximum of 4,265 acres of

net change in the preferred action alternative.

4.11 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by

President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus

Federal attention on the environmental and human

health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed

Federal agencies to develop environmental justice

strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policies,

and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially

affecting human health and the environment, and to

provide minority and low-income communities

access to public information and participation in

matters relating to human health or the environment.

None of the alternatives disproportionately place

an adverse environmental, economic, social, or

health impacts on minority or low-income populations.

4.12 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects are effects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Potential cumulative effects for the alternatives are described

below. The discussion considers the interaction of

activities at the Refuge with other actions occurring

over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference.

4.12.1 Cumulative Effects Resulting 

from Habitat Management Actions

4.12.1.1. Forest

In 1820 an estimated 38 percent of Illinois was

wooded. During the 1800s forest land was converted

to agriculture. By the early 1900s about 8 percent of

the original forest remained; today less than 1 percent remains. As Illinois farmers switched from animal to row crop production in the mid-1900s,

abandoned pastures reverted to woods. The Illinois

forests are estimated to have increased 41 percent

since 1926. The current Illinois forest is about 31

percent as large as the state's original wooded acreage, about 12 percent of the area of the state.

Although the amount of woods has increased in

Illinois, the average size of wooded parcels is

decreasing. An analysis of 13 counties in south cenTable 46: Impacts of the Alternatives on Industry

Change from Alternative A

Alt. A Alt. B and 

Alt. E

Alt. C Alt. D

Square Feet Leased 1.2 million -0.06 million -0.12 million -0.06 million
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

162

tral Illinois found that the vast majority of woods

were smaller than one acre in size. The average forest ownership in Illinois is about 20 acres. The fragmentation of forest is of concern because smaller

tracts do not support the same species and ecological processes associated with large tracts.

Acres of forest would increase and forest fragmentation would decrease, to varying degrees,

under all alternatives. The increase in forest acreage would be larger in Alternatives B, D, and E than

in Alternative C. The decrease in fragmentation

would increase the quantity and quality of habitat

available for area-sensitive forest species on the

Refuge. The three counties – Williamson, Jackson,

Union – that contain the Refuge are among the top

10 forested counties in Illinois. Because the Refuge

is adjacent to other protected lands managed by the

U.S. Forest Service and the State of Illinois, which

also contain blocks of forest, the Refuge will contribute to a cumulatively large area of forest. This

larger forest area would result in greater benefits

for area-sensitive forest species.

4.12.1.2. Grassland

In 1820, at least 60 percent of Illinois was some

type of grassland. Much of Illinois' original prairie

was converted to agriculture during the 1800s. In

1978, the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (White,

1978) found that only 0.01 percent of original prairie

survived in a high-quality condition. For a time the

conversion of some of the prairie to hay fields and

pastures enhanced habitat for certain birds such as

dickcissel and prairie chicken. But conversion to row

crops has led to the decline of this type of grassland,

as well. Today about 18 percent of Illinois is covered

in rural grassland-pastures, fallow fields, and greenways.

Although Williamson County is in the top 10 Illinois counties ranked by percentage of area in grassland with 32.7 percent, the counties with the largest

rural grassland acreages are in the northern and

west-central part of Illinois. The Conservation

Reserve Program has set aside more than 600,000

acres of highly erodible agricultural land in Illinois

since 1985 and planted much of it to grassland habitat. Still, populations of many species of grassland

birds have continued to decline. Research has shown

that many species of grassland birds require large

blocks of habitat to nest successfully and they do

poorly in areas where habitat is broken into small,

isolated blocks.

Prairie restoration in Illinois consists of preserving the isolated tracts and restoration of other

tracts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) includes grasslands and prairie as priority

habitat types in Illinois. The Illinois Department of

Natural Resources Strategic Plan, 2003-2008

includes a goal for protecting and restoring wildlife

habitat, but does not give target acres for any particular habitat.

None of the alternatives evaluated for the comprehensive conservation plan would measurably

contribute to or detract from the cumulative number of acres of grasslands in Illinois. The core area

acres of Refuge grasslands – the area free of an

edge effect – remains the same or increases only

slightly under any alternative. We plan to maintain

the restored native grassland that exists on the Refuge, but we do not plan to increase the grasslands

significantly in an area that was historically forest.

Over the next 100 years, habitat for grassland

birds will decrease about 43 percent under all alternatives (Table 34 on page 151). This will be a result

of succession of fallow areas that contain some

grassland to habitats dominated by shrubs or trees

with little, if any, grassland. Areas currently managed as grasslands (prairies, permanent hay fields,

and clover fields) will continue to be managed as

open habitats that will provide habitat for grassland

birds. Under all alternatives, mowing in permanent

hay and clover fields will be delayed until August 1

in order to protect nesting grassland birds and their

nests. Additional measures meant to enhance habitat for grassland birds will be taken in the action

alternatives. In Alternatives B, C, and E, grassland

bird habitat will be improved by converting fescue

pastures to native warm season grasses. In Alterna-
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

163

tive D and especially in Alternatives B, C, and E,

grassland bird habitat will be improved by removing

fencerows and other linear woody habitat.

4.12.2 Cumulative Effects Resulting 

from Recreation Changes

Under Alternative B, Southern Illinois University would begin to manage existing facilities and

develop new recreation facilities adjacent to the

northwest portion of the Refuge. The increased

development that SIU has proposed would contribute to an increased 'critical mass' of recreation

opportunities in Southern Illinois. The new development, in conjunction with other developed recreation opportunities in the area, would lead to

improved quality of opportunities and a greater

attraction to tourists. By increasing the grouping of

high-quality, developed recreational opportunities,

more people would see Southern Illinois as an

attractive destination for a recreational trip. The

increased attractiveness of concentrated recreational opportunities would have an economic effect

greater than that of a lone enterprise. The development envisioned under Alternative B would contribute to the expanding development along the

Highway 13 corridor between Marion and Carbondale. The increased development would likely

change the social and economic culture as more people visit and move into the community.

Under Alternatives B, C and E, the Refuge would

formally designate a horseback riding trail through

the Crab Orchard Wilderness as part of the Riverto-River Trail. By officially designating the Refuge

portion, the entire trail would likely be more attractive to trail users and be used more.

4.12.3 Cumulative Effects Resulting 

from Agricultural Management

Under all alternatives the size of the agricultural

program on the Refuge is largely unchanged. Agricultural areas outside the Refuge will likely face the

pressure of land conversion to industrial and residential uses. By maintaining agricultural acreage on

the Refuge, when combined with the agriculture in

nearby areas, agriculture will likely persist in the

economic and social culture of the area longer than

if the Refuge did not have an agricultural program. 
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

164

Table 47: Summary of Effects of Alternatives Described in Chapter 4 

Alternative A:

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis With 

Land Exchange

Alternative C:

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D:

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Threatened and Endangered Species

Bald Eagle Minor increase in 

nesting habitat.

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat.

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat, 

alternative with 

highest habitat 

values.

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat.

Minor increase in 

nesting habitat.

Indiana bat Minor increase in 

potential habitat.

Minor increase in 

potential habitat.

Minor increase in 

potential habitat, 

alternative with 

lowest habitat 

values.

Minor increase in 

potential habitat, 

alternative with 

highest habitat 

values.

Minor increase in 

potential habitat.

Resident Fish & 

Wildlife

Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal Impacts Minimal impacts Minimal impacts

Canada Geese Minor decrease in 

habitat, 

alternative with 

highest 

production of 

potential goose 

food.

Minor decrease in 

habitat, this and 

Alternative E 

have lowest 

production of 

potential goose 

food.

Minor decrease in 

habitat.

Minor decrease in 

habitat, higher 

production of 

potential goose 

food than 

Alternative C.

Minor decrease in 

habitat, this and 

Alternative B 

have lowest 

production of 

potential goose 

food.

Waterbirds Minimal impacts. Minor increase in 

habitat.

Minor increase in 

habitat.

Minimal impacts. Minor increase in 

habitat.

Grassland Birds Decrease in 

habitat (37%), 

improved nesting 

conditions.

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

much improved 

nesting 

conditions.

Decrease in 

habitat (36%), 

much improved 

nesting 

conditions.

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

improved nesting 

conditions.

Decrease in 

habitat (43%), 

much improved 

nesting 

conditions.

Area-sensitive Forest 

Birds

Increase in 

habitat (8%).

Increase in 

habitat (9%) 

improved nesting 

conditions.

Increase in 

habitat (7%).

Increase in 

habitat (9%), 

improved nesting 

conditions.

Increase in 

habitat (9%) 

improved nesting 

conditions.

Shrubland Birds Decrease in 

habitat (26%).

Decrease in 

habitat (26%).

Decrease in 

habitat (26%).

Decrease in 

habitat (26%).

Decrease in 

habitat (26%).

Invasive Species Most species 

increase.

Most species 

increase.

Most species 

increase.

Most species 

increase.

Most species 

increase.

Agricultural Uses No acerage 

change, minor 

restriction in 

agricultural 

practices.

Minor acreage 

decrease, 

changes in some 

agricultural 

practices.

Minor acreage 

increase, changes 

in some 

agricultural 

practices, 

alternative with 

largest amount of 

agricultural land.

Minor acreage 

decrease, 

addition of 

practices 

beneficial to 

agriculture, 

alternative with 

least amount of 

agricultural land.

Minor acreage 

decrease, 

changes in some 

agricultural 

practices.
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

165

Wilderness Minor increase in 

Wilderness 

designation.

Minor increase in 

Wilderness 

designation.

Minor increase in 

Wilderness 

designation.

Minor increase in 

Wilderness 

designation.

Minor increase in 

Wilderness 

designation.

Industrial Uses Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minor decreases 

in facilities.

Minor decreases 

in facilities.

Minimal impacts.

Hunting Minimal impacts. Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Fishing Minimal impacts. Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Wildlife Viewing & 

Photography

Minimal impacts. Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Interpretation and 

Environmental 

Education

Minimal impacts. Increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Minor increase in 

opportunities and 

quality.

Swimming No change. Increased 

opportunities 

provided by SIU.

Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts.

Camping Minimal impacts; 

14-day stay limit.

Improved 

facilities provided 

by SIU; 14-day 

stay limit on 

Refuge.

Fewer campsites, 

improved 

facilities, 14-day 

stay limit.

Fewer campsites, 

improved 

facilities, 14-day 

stay limit.

Fewer campsites, 

improved 

facilities, 14-day 

stay limit.

Picnicking Minor 

improvements.

Increased 

opportunities 

provided by SIU.

Minor 

improvements.

Minor 

improvements.

Minor 

improvements.

Motor boating /Sailing Minimal impacts. Minor 

restrictions in use 

(zoning); 

restricted use on 

Devils Kitchen 

Lake.

Minor 

restrictions in use 

(zoning).

Minor 

restrictions in use 

(zoning); 

prohibited use on 

Devils Kitchen

Minor 

restrictions in use 

(zoning); 

restricted use on 

Devils Kitchen 

Lake.

Water-skiing Minimal impacts. Reduction in area 

open to skiing.

Reduction in area 

open to skiing.

Reduction in area 

open to skiing.

Reduction in area 

open to skiing.

Marinas Minimal impacts. Improved 

facilities provided 

by SIU.

Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts.

Table 47: Summary of Effects of Alternatives Described in Chapter 4 (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis With 

Land Exchange

Alternative C:

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D:

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 4:Environmental Consequences

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

166

Group Camps Minimal impacts. Increased costs 

to camps, limits 

on expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education.

Increases costs to 

camps, limits on 

expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education.

Increased costs 

to camps, limits 

on expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education.

Increased costs 

to camps, limits 

on expansion, 

increased 

environmental 

education.

Private Clubs Minimal impacts. SIU 

management.

Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 

2 years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of 

public.

Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 

2 years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of 

public.

Tradition of Boat 

& Yacht Club 

would end. After 

2 years the 

opportunities at 

site would be 

available to wider 

segment of 

public.

Horseback Riding Minimal impacts. More restricted 

opportunities.

More restricted 

opportunities.

No horseback 

riding.

More restricted 

opportunities.

Water Quality Minimal impacts. Minor 

improvements.

Minor 

improvements.

Minimal impacts. Minor 

improvements.

Communication with 

Community

Improved. Improved. Improved. Improved. Improved.

Volunteer Program Minimal impacts. Improved. Improved. Improved. Improved.

Cultural Resources No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. No impacts.

Economics Minimal impacts. Most positive 

impact.

Minimal positive 

impacts.

Minimal positive 

impacts.

Minimal positive 

impacts.

Fire Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts.

Environmental Justice No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

No 

disproportionate 

impacts on 

minority or lowincome 

populations.

Climate Change Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Minimal 

mitigation of 

human-induced 

global climate 

changes.

Air Quality Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts. Minimal impacts.

Table 47: Summary of Effects of Alternatives Described in Chapter 4 (Continued)

Alternative A:

Current 

Management

(No Action)

Alternative B:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Wildlifedependent 

Recreation 

Emphasis With 

Land Exchange

Alternative C:

Open Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative D:

Forest Land 

Management, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

Alternative E:

Reduced 

Habitat 

Fragmentation, 

Consolidate 

and Improve 

Recreation

(Preferred 

Alternative)
Chapter 5:List of Preparers

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

167

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Mike Brown, Wildlife Biologist, FWS, Crab Orchard

NWR

Doyle Case, former Contract Compliance Specialist,

FWS, Crab Orchard NWR

James Caudill, Economist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Daniel W. Doshier, former Refuge Manager, FWS,

Crab Orchard NWR

Richard Frietsche, former Refuge Manager, FWS,

Crab Orchard NWR

Cheryl R. Groom, former Park Ranger, FWS, Crab

Orchard NWR

Erin Henderson, Economist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, FWS, Division of Refuge Operations, Branch of Conservation Planning, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Jon Kauffeld, Refuge Supervisor, FWS, Regional

Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Beth Kerley, Contract Compliance Specialist, FWS,

Crab Orchard NWR

Jerry Kuykendall, former Supervisory Park Ranger,

FWS, Crab Orchard NWR

John N. Mabery, former Refuge Operations Specialist, FWS, Crab Orchard NWR

Thomas Magnuson, former Fish and Wildlife Biologist, FWS, Division of Refuge Operations,

Branch of Ascertainment, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Jody Mays, former Park Ranger, Crab Orchard

NWR

E. Leanne Moore, Senior Operable Unit Specialist,

FWS, Ecological Services, Contaminants

Thomas A. Palmer, Forester, FWS, Crab Orchard

NWR

Dennis Pinigis, Crab Orchard Superfund Coordinator, FWS, Ecological Services, Contaminants

Kimberly M. Rawnsley, former Biological Science

Technician, FWS, Crab Orchard NWR

Bill Reynolds, Public Service Administrator, Illinois

Department of Natural Resources

Jonathan Schafler, former Supervisory Park Ranger,

FWS, Crab Orchard NWR

John Schomaker, Refuge Planning Specialist, FWS,

Division of Refuge Operations, Branch of Conservation Planning, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Charles Surprenant, former Project Leader, FWS,

Carterville Fishery Resources Office

Chad Stinson, former Fish and Wildlife Biologist,

FWS, Carterville Fishery Resources Office

James Neil Vincent, Park Ranger, FWS, Crab

Orchard NWR

Richard Whitton, District Biologist, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Chapter 6:Consultation and Coordination

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

168

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination

This chapter summarizes the consultation and

coordination that occurred and was used to identify

issues, alternatives, proposed action, and the Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public participation process is described in detail in Chapter

One of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Also included in the present chapter is a list of all

organizations and persons who have been sent a

copy of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and Draft Comprehensive Plan or Summary. Each

Draft Summary contains a postage paid comment

card and information on how to obtain a copy of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

6.1 Summary of Public 

Involvement

We began asking for public comments regarding

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan in October,

2000. Three public, open house meetings were held.

At the open houses, on the Service's Region 3 website, and via the media, we encouraged people to tell

us in written comments how they wanted the Refuge to be managed. Hundreds of letters and comments were received. We invited approximately

sixty stakeholders who had demonstrated a longstanding interest in the Refuge to three focus group

meetings in January 2001. Thirty-nine people

attended the focus group meetings. In September

2001, we described four alternative management

concepts to the public in a project update, which we

mailed to 1,400 persons on the Refuge's mailing list

and posted on the Service's website. We invited people to comment on the concepts. We received 62 letters, 39 e-mail messages, and 527 form letters

commenting on the alternatives. We also received a

petition supporting gasoline motors on Devils

Kitchen Lake.

6.2 List of Agencies, 

Organizations and Individuals 

Receiving a Draft Document

Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and/or Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary were provided to Federal, state, and

local agencies and elected officials, businesses, organizations, and media.

6.2.1 Elected Officials

Federal

# Sen. Richard Durbin

# Sen. Barack Obama

# Rep. Jerry Costello

# Rep. John Shimkus

State

# Gov. Rod Blagojevich

# Sen David Luechtefeld

# Sen. Gary Forby

# Rep. Mike Bost

# Rep. John Bradley

# Rep. Brandon Phelps

# Rep. Dan Reitz

Local

# Robert Butler, Mayor, City of Marion

# Mark Clerk, Board of Trustees, Village of De

Soto

# Joe Eggemeyer, Mayor, City of Chester

# Brad Cole, Mayor, City of Carbondale

# Robert Barnett, Williamson County Board of

Commissioners
Chapter 6:Consultation and Coordination

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

169

# Paul Gage, Mayor, City of Vienna

# Ron Williams, Mayor, City of Murphysboro

# Frank Jeters, Mayor, Village of Energy

# Vernon Kee, Mayor, City of Johnston City

# Dennis Stewart, Board of Trustees, Village of

Dowell

# Charles Mausey, Mayor, City of Carterville

# Pam McGriff, Jackson County Board of

Commissioners

# Victor Ritter, Mayor, City of Herrin

# Union County Commissioners

# William Wiggs, Mayor, City of Crainville

# Bob Ellis, Mayor, City of West Frankfort

6.2.2 Organizations

Federal

# Federal Bureau of Investigation, Carbondale,

Illinois

# Shawnee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service,

Harrisburg, Illinois

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Chicago, Illinois

# U.S. Penitentiary, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Prisons, Marion, Illinois

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National

Conservation Training Center Conservation

Library

State

# Director, Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, Springfield, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Ferne Clyffe State Park, Goreville, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Fisheries, Springfield, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Giant City State Park, Makanda, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Little Grassy Fish Hatchery, Makanda, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Office of Resource Conservation, Springfield,

Illinois

# Illinois Department of Employment Security,

Marion, Illinois

# Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Benton, Illinois 

# Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

Springfield, Illinois

# Illinois Forest Resource Center, Simpson,

Illinois

# Illinois Historic Preservation Agency,

Springfield, Illinois

Agencies/Organizations

# Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento,

California

# Boy Scouts Of America, Greater St. Louis Area

Council, Saint Louis, Missouri

# Camp Carew, Southeastern Illinois Presbytery,

Cobden, Illinois

# Carbondale Convention & Tourism Bureau,

Carbondale, Illinois

# Carterville Chamber of Commerce, Carterville,

Illinois

# Chief, Carterville Fire Department, Carterville,

Illinois

# Chief, Lake Egypt Fire Protection District,

Marion, Illinois

# Chief, Williamson County Fire Protection

District, Energy, Illinois

# Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, Marion,

Illinois

# Crab Orchard Waterfowl Association, Marion,

Illinois

# Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

# Ducks Unlimited Inc., Washington, D.C.

# Environmental Defense, New York, New York

# Friends of Crab Orchard Refuge Inc., Marion,

Illinois

# Girl Scouts of Shagbark Council, Herrin, Illinois

# Great Lakes Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited

Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

# Greater Egypt Regional Planning &

Development Commission, Carbondale, Illinois

# Greater Marion Area Chamber Of Commerce,

Marion, Illinois

# Heartwood Inc., Wood River, Illinois

# Herrin Chamber of Commerce, Herrin, Illinois

# Illinois Federation for Outdoor Resources,

Marion, Illinois

# Illinois Trappers Association, Modoc, Illinois

# Little Grassy United Methodist Camp,

Makanda, Illinois
Chapter 6:Consultation and Coordination

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

170

# Lower Kaskaskia Stakeholders, Inc., Red Bud,

Illlinois

# Midwest Regional Rep, Wildlife Management

Institute, Pratt, Kansas

# National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C.

# National Rifle Association, Fairfax, Virgina

# National Trappers Association, Inc., New

Martinsville, West Virginia

# National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor,

Michigan

# National Wildlife Refuge Association,

Washington, D.C.

# Natural Resources Defense Council,

Washington, D.C.

# PEER Refuge Keeper, Aurora, Nevada

# Regional Association of Concerned

Environmentalists, Brookport, Illinois

# River to River Trail Society, Harrisburg,

Illinois

# Shawnee Resource Conservation &

Development Area, Marion, Illinois

# Sierra Club – Midwest Office, Madison,

Wisconsin

# Southern Illinois Hunting & Fishing Days Inc.,

Carterville, Illinois

# Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, Marion,

Illinois

# Southern Illinois Tourism Council, Carterville,

Illinois

# Southern Illinois Tourism Development Office,

Marion, Illinois

# Southernmost Tourism Bureau, Ullin, Illinois

# Take Pride In America Committee, Herrin,

Illinois

# The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia

# The Haven, Egyptian Past Commanders Club,

Du Quoin, Illinois

# The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

# Wilderness Watch, Missoula, Montana

# Williamson County Emergency Management

Agency, Marion, Illinois

# Williamson County Farm Bureau, Marion,

Illinois

# Williamson County Tourism Bureau, Marion,

Illinois

Libraries

# Carbondale Public Library, Carbondale, Illinois

# Carterville Public Library, Carterville, Illinois

# Chester Public Library, Chester, Illinois

# Du Quoin Public Library, Du Quoin, Illinois

# Herrin City Library, Herrin, Illinois

# Johnston City Public Library, Johnston City,

Illinois

# Jonesboro Public Library, Jonesboro, Illinois

# Marion Carnegie Library, Marion, Illinois

# Mitchell Carnegie Library, Harrisburg, Illinois

# Sallie Logan Public Library, Murphysboro,

Illinois

# Stinson Memorial Library, Anna, Illinois

# Vienna Public Library, Vienna, Illinois

# West Frankfort Public Library, West

Frankfort, Illinois

Businesses

# Ameren CIPS, Marion, Illinois

# Burns Goose Club, Carbondale, Illinois

# Bush Hunting Club, Carbondale, Illinois

# Cherokee Timber, Inc., Marion, Kentucky

# Cooksey's Bait Shop, Marion, Illinois

# Country Kitchen Hunting Club, Marion, Illinois

# Crab Orchard Campground, Carbondale,

Illinois

# Crab Orchard Hunting Club, Evansville,

Indiana

# D & M Hunting Club; Crab Orchard Waterfowl

Association, Marion, Illinois

# Devils Kitchen Boat Dock and Campground,

Carbondale, Illinois

# Diagraph Corporation, Herrin, Illinois

# Dooley Brothers Inc., Peoria, Illinois

# Dyno Nobel Midwest Inc., Quincy, Illinois

# Ensign-Bickford Co., Marion, Illinois

# Ferrell's Hunting Club, Carterville, Illinois

# General Dynamics, Ordnance and Tactical

Systems, Marion, Illinois

# Glenn's Goose Hunting Club, Henderson,

Kentucky

# Hanley Industries Inc., Alton, Illinois

# Honkers Corner Goose Club, Carterville,

Illinois
Chapter 6:Consultation and Coordination

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

171

# Honkers Corner Goose Club, Saint Peters,

Missouri

# Hospital & Physician Publishing Inc., Marion,

Illinois

# KRA Corporation/Fish and Wildlife Division,

Bethesda, Maryland

# Maytag Herrin Laundry Products, Herrin,

Illinois

# Mead-Westvaco Corporation, Wickliffe,

Kentucky

# Orpack-Stone Corporation, Herrin, Illinois

# Pin Oak Motel, Carterville, Illinois

# Propellex Corporation, Edwardsville, Illinois

# Shell Oil Pipeline Co., Marion, Illinois

# Silent Wings Hunting Club, Creal Springs,

Illinois

# Spectra Pyrotechnics Corporation, Carlyle,

Illinois

# Supergan's Hunting Club, Carterville, Illinois

# Union Planters Bank, Carbondale, Illinois

# Verizon, Marion, Illinois

# Winn-Star Inc., Marion, Illinois

News Media

# American News Service, Benton, Illinois

# Marion Daily Republican, Marion, Illinois

# Southern Illinoisan, Carbondale, Illinois

Individuals

# All individuals on record as requesting a copy of

the draft EIS. All interested individuals not on

record that request a copy of the EIS once its

availability is announced and it is distributed to

the above list.

# All individuals on the project mailing list, who

have not requested a EIS, will receive a Draft

EIS/CCP Summary.

Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

173

Appendix A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies 

and Implementation

Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

175

Appendix A: Goals, Objectives 

Strategies and Implementation

The purpose of this appendix is to make it easier

for the reader to understand the preferred alternative and what will be required to implement it. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service policy directs that certain

elements be included in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Most of those elements are included in the

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Elements dealing with

the implementation of the plan, not included in the

Draft CCP/EIS, are included in this appendix. Also

included are the goals, objectives and strategies

common to all alternatives and those specific to

Alternative E that we plan to pursue over the next

15 years. Numbers in parentheses following some

strategies indicate that the project is included in the

Refuge’s Refuge Operations Needs System

(RONS). Appendix K contains a list of the priority

RONS projects. Following public review and comment of the Draft CCP/EIS, we will publish a Final

EIS and a stand-alone CCP made up of the EIS

Chapter 1, the selected alternative from Chapter 2,

Chapters 3, 5, 6 and the appendices.

Listed in the following pages are the goals, objectives and strategies that we plan to pursue over the

next 15 years. Numbers in parentheses following

some strategies indicate that the project is included

in the Refuge's Refuge Operations Needs System

(RONS). Appendix K is a list of the priority RONS

projects.

1. Goals, Objectives and Strategies

1.1. Wildlife Conservation Goals

Goal 1. Canada Geese

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support

6.4 million goose-use-days annually, in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

1.1 Objective

Provide enough food for wintering Canada

geese to support 6.4 million goose-use-days.

Strategies:

1. Provide 1,840 acres of corn, 960 acres of

winter wheat, and 1,600 acres of clover

annually, averaged over a 5-year period. 

2. Enhance and create enough moist-soil habitat to have the capability to actively manage

500 acres of moist-soil habitat annually.

(02006)

3. Continue prohibition of boating on Crab

Orchard Lake east of Wolf Creek Road during the goose wintering season.

4. Mow the shorelines of selected ponds in the

fall.

5. Ensure technical support of the agricultural

program (02007) 

6. Remove woody fence rows and roadside

vegetation (02008)

7. Remove trees from explosives storage bunkers and replace with grass. (02009)

Goal 2. Forest, Early Successional and Grassland Birds

Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional

and grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as

identified in Partners in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

2.1 Objective

Manage two portions of the Refuge as large forest blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds.

The first area (about 13,000 acres) extends from

the southern end of Grassy Bay east to Caney

Creek, and south including the wilderness area.

The second area (about 1,700 acres) extends

from the federal prison north and includes the

Crab Orchard Creek bottomlands. This will

include about 490 acres of reforestation of open

habitat to consolidate large blocks of forest habitat.

Strategies:

1. Conduct reforestation activities that may

include site preparation (mechanical clearing and/or applying herbicides to unwanted

vegetation), planting hardwood tree seedlings, and follow-up mechanical or chemical

treatments. 

2. Conduct periodic prescribed burning to

encourage oak-hickory forest.

3. Thin non-native pine plantations (02001)

4. Increase pest plant control efforts (97001)

5. Reduce forest fragmentation (97009)

6. Enhance forest management (97008)

7. Conduct Indiana bat surveys (98027)
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

176

2.2 Objective

Accelerate succession of all (about 3,300 acres)

pine plantations to native hardwood forest. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct prescribed burning in pine plantations during the dormant season (November through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle

to enhance habitat conditions and promote

desirable hardwood regeneration. 

2. Increase pest plant control efforts. (97001)

3. Enhance forest management. (97008)

4. Thin non-native pine plantations. (02001)

5. Conduct Indiana bat surveys. (98027)

2.3 Objective

Maintain about 300 acres in early successional

habitat.

Strategies:

1. Maintain about 200 acres of early successional habitat with burning and mowing.

(02005)

2. Maintain about 100 acres of 30-foot-wide

borders of native warm-season grasses in

row crop fields in the open area of the Refuge.

3. Increase pest plant control efforts. (97001)

2.4 Objective

Maintain 260 acres of native, warm-season

grassland to benefit area sensitive grassland

birds.

Strategies:

1. Remove woody fencerows and roadside

vegetation (02008).

2. Control or eliminate invasive species.

(97001)

2.5 Objective

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 700 acres of

hay fields, and about 1,600 acres of clover fields

with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds. 

Strategies:

1. Remove woody fencerows and roadside

vegetation adjacent to grasslands (02008).

2. Convert fescue pastures to native, warmseason grasses and more desirable cool-season grasses. (02002)

3. Maintain grassland structure desirable to

breeding grassland birds through grazing

and prescribed burning.

4. Control or eliminate invasive species.

(97001)

5. Mow hay and clover fields after August 1.

6. Increase technical support of agricultural

program. (02007)

7. Remove trees from explosives storage bunkers and replace with grass. (02009)

Goal 3. Ducks, Shorebirds, and Other Waterbirds

Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and

other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird

Conservation Plan.

3.1 Objective

Provide 450 to 500 acres of moist-soil habitat

during fall, winter, and spring for migrating

shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds.

Strategies:

1. Construct new moist-soil units for a total of

50 to 70 acres of additional moist-soil habitat. (02006)

2. Maintain dikes on existing units.

3. Repair and maintain water control structures on existing units.

4. Increase pest plant control efforts (97001)

 Goal 4. Threatened and Endangered Species

Maintain or enhance populations of federal and, where compatible, state threatened and endangered species that occur

at or near Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

4.1 Objective

Assure that federally listed species, state-listed

species and federally proposed species and their

habitats are protected.

Strategies:

1. No disturbance of bald eagles will take

place during critical periods within protective zones as described in the 1983 Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan,

Appendix E. Management Guidelines for

Breeding Areas. Areas are designated

closed through signing and brochures.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

177

2. Forest management activities, such as thinning and prescribed burning, will require

close coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services personnel.

These activities may require standard surveys to determine whether Indiana bats are

present in a given forest unit and/or forest

management activities may be scheduled

outside of the season when Indiana bats are

likely to use Refuge forests.

Goal 5. Resident Fish and Wildlife

Maintain or enhance resident fish and wildlife populations

consistent with management activities for federal trust

resources in cooperation with the Illinois DNR.

5.1 Objective

Manage Refuge fisheries with emphasis on

mixed-species, warmwater sport fishing.

Strategy:

1. Continue cooperative management of Refuge fisheries with Illinois DNR. Continue

managing fish populations and habitat

through activities such as: setting length

and creel limits, seasonal closures of spawning bed areas, habitat enhancements,

annual surveys, and fish stocking.

5.2 Objective

Manage Refuge resident wildlife populations at

levels that allow opportunities for sport hunting

of game species.

Strategies:

1. Continue managing the Refuge agriculture

program with methods that benefit resident

game species, such as: leave 25 percent of

the corn crop unharvested, plant winter

wheat in soy bean fields each fall, use low

tillage planting techniques, keep fields in

clover 2 years out of the 5-year rotation,

delay mowing until after August 1, and use

no insecticides.

2. Incorporate beneficial practices such as

those suggested in the Northern Bobwhite

Conservation Initiative: convert cool-season

to warm-season grasses and burn and thin

pine plantations.

3. Allow controlled hunting for turkey and

deer in the restricted use portion of the

Refuge.

Goal 6. Water Quality

Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

6.1 Objective

Improve the quality of water within the watershed of the Refuge. 

Strategies:

1. Cooperate with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to monitor water quality.

Identify landowners and land uses in the

watershed. Provide educational and technical assistance to landowners with particularly sensitive riparian areas. Work with

municipalities and developers to enhance

on-site storm water retention.

2. Work with farmers to establish buffer

strips and keep livestock away from

streams and ponds. Continue using current

soil and water protection measures in the

Refuge farm program: use no insecticides,

use only Service-approved herbicides, use

minimum tillage practices, and use winter

cover crops.

3. Continue cleanup of contaminated sites.

Ensure Refuge industrial operations conform to prescribed environmental standards.

Goal 7. Wilderness:

The Service will manage the Crab Orchard Wilderness according to Service policy and the Wilderness Act of 1964.

7.1 Objective:

Meet the guidelines of Service policy for wilderness management.

Strategies:

1. Recommend the designation of two parcels

totaling about 120 acres as Wilderness.

2. Revise and implement the Crab Orchard

Wilderness Management Plan within 5

years of approval of the CCP.

3. Explore opportunities with the U.S. Forest

Service for cooperative management of the

adjacent Panther Den Wilderness.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

178

1.2. Recreation/Public Use Goals

Goal 8. Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography, Interpretation and Environmental Education:

Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors and students will enjoy high quality experiences

through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and

their management.

8.1 Objective

Increase the quality of hunting opportunities to

a level where 75 percent of hunters experience

uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and

satisfaction with their overall experience. Instill

a sense of awareness among hunters of the Refuge as a component of the National Wildlife

Refuge System and of hunting as a wildlife

management tool. 

Strategies:

1. In the public hunting area of the Refuge,

continue the policy of providing hunting

opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and federal regulations.

2. In the restricted use area of the Refuge,

maintain current hunting opportunities by

permit during shotgun deer and spring

shotgun turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun

deer season hunting opportunities for youth

and persons with disabilities and, within 3

years of the plan's approval, provide these

groups with opportunities for spring shotgun turkey season hunting when populations warrant.

3. Within 10 years and in cooperation with a

partner organization, improve all hunting

blinds used in the controlled goose hunting

program. Administer goose hunts in the

controlled area through an agreement with

a partner organization. 

4. Over the life of the plan, promote ethical

hunting behavior and increase hunter

adherence to federal and state regulations

through effective informational brochures

and signs. Increase the visibility of Refuge

law enforcement.

5. Over the life of the plan, enhance public

understanding of Refuge hunting opportunities, ethical behaviors, the role of hunting

in wildlife management, and the Refuge as

a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System by increasing the quality of

maps, signs, and wording within brochures. 

8.2 Objective

Increase the quality of fishing opportunities to a

level where 75 percent of anglers experience

uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and

satisfaction with their overall experience. At

least 75 percent of anglers understand the

issues, strategies, and policies involved in Refuge fisheries management and conservation. 

Strategies:

1. In the public fishing areas, continue the policy of providing fishing opportunities based

on state and federal regulations.

2. Continue current policies on tournaments

and fish-offs conducted on the Refuge. Continue current policies on limited closures of

Refuge waters east of Wolf Creek Road. 

3. Continue to provide bank and boat fishing

opportunities in accordance with state and

federal regulations. Maintain existing Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking

facilities. Study the feasibility for and construct accessible fishing facilities at Little

Grassy and Devils Kitchen lakes within 4

years of the plan’s approval.

4. Over the life of the plan, promote Refuge

fishing opportunities and encourage conservation practices, such as catch-and-release

fishing, through the development and maintenance of high-quality maps, signs, brochures and the Refuge web page. 

5. Ensure that the fishing public clearly

understands fish consumption advisories

through signs and brochures.

6. Over the life of the plan, provide insight to

anglers regarding Refuge strategies,

issues, and policies for fisheries management and conservation by redesigning and

developing more effective informational

signs and brochures. Increase angler

awareness of the Refuge as a component of

the National Wildlife Refuge System by

improving the quality and content of maps,

signs, and brochures.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

179

8.3 Objective

Ensure that viewing and photography opportunities meet the needs of 95 percent of Refuge

visitors. Establish and maintain viewing and

photography opportunities for all major Refuge

habitat types and optimum seasons. 

Strategies:

1. Continue popular, established programs

and tours like the October Discovery Auto

Tours, January Eagle Tours, and Spring

Wildflower Walks that enhance visitor

experience, bring visitors in closer proximity to resources, and provide optimum seasonal opportunities for observation and

photography.

2. Within 2 years of this plan's approval,

develop an observation/photography brochure for the Refuge that will include a calendar of established tours, programs, and

events; information on identified and recommended viewing and photography areas;

guidelines to enhance viewing enjoyment;

and a Refuge map delineating trails, blinds,

platforms, and identified viewing areas. 

3. Within 2 years of this plan's approval,

improve the existing photography/observation blinds and platform by adding camouflage as needed to enhance viewing

opportunities. Maintain existing blinds and

platforms. Position interpretive and identification panels in or near blinds and platform to promote understanding and

appreciation of natural and cultural

resources. Enhance panels to promote

awareness of Crab Orchard as a component

of a National Wildlife Refuge System. 

4. Within 5 years of this plan's approval, add

additional blinds/platforms, including interpretive and identification panels, where

needed to ensure observation and photography opportunities in all major Refuge habitat types. Maintain all identified viewing

and photography sites.

5. Over the life of this plan and in cooperation

with other partners, encourage utilization

of the Refuge for birding and other wildlife

observation through development of informational materials, programs, trails, tours,

and special events. Promote the Refuge as a

site for quality wildlife observation and photography through participation in selected

community and regional birding, nature,

and photography festivals and events. 

6. Within 8 years of this plan's approval, identify and create a Refuge birding trail that

may include enhancement and coordination

of existing trails, viewing areas and signs,

and creation of a birding trail brochure and

map.

7. Over the life of this plan, expand the Refuge

web site to promote wildlife and cultural

resource observation and photography.

Include updates on Refuge and area sightings of rare birds and other wildlife; profiles

of selected seasonally-occurring and resident species; suggested optimal viewing

times and locations; and current Refuge

programs, facilities, tours, and other opportunities for observation and photography. 

8.4 Objective

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge interpretive program so that 70 percent of visitors

gain a better understanding of three primary

concepts: (1) the value and unique purposes of

the Refuge, (2) the Refuge as a component of

the national network of refuges, and (3) the significance and mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts. Encourage

visitors to adopt ethical behaviors and to take

positive actions that support Refuge goals and

the Refuge System mission.

Strategies:

1. Within 3 years of the plan's approval,

develop the interpretation portion of the

Visitor Services Plan outlining a comprehensive, multifaceted approach emphasizing selected themes and key Refuge

resources. Themes will be selected based on

importance to Refuge and System goals and

relevance to surrounding communities. All

interpretive materials, tours, and programs will focus on one or more of these

Refuge themes, along with the three basic

concepts of the Refuge and Refuge System.

Refuge interpretive themes may be in a storyline form that includes three or more

themes. Themes may include: Exploring

the Diversity of Wildlife, Understanding

the Past, Protecting the Balance, and Communicating Visitor Opportunities.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

180

2. Within 4 years of the plan's approval, renovate and replace damaged and outdated

interpretive and information panels on Refuge kiosks, wayside exhibits, trails, ramps,

structures and other facilities. Ensure all

panels comply with Service standards.

3. In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and

other partners, conduct a variety of high

quality interpretive programs annually.

Continue popular and established interpretive programs and special events, such as

the Families Understanding Nature program and National Wildlife Refuge Week.

Ensure interpretive programming remains

current and dynamic by continually creating new programs, incorporating new ideas,

updating information, and revitalizing

ongoing programs. Focus each interpretive

program on one or more Refuge themes. 

4. Over the life of the plan and in cooperation

with Friends of Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge and other partners, revise

Refuge interpretive brochures, handouts,

and other written materials as needed to

improve consistency and to meet Service

standards.

8.5 Objective

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge environmental education program so that 75 percent of participants gain a better understanding

and appreciation of the resources, purposes,

and value of the Refuge and the Refuge System.

Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts and encourage participants to

take positive actions on the Refuge and in their

community that support Refuge goals and the

Refuge System mission.

Strategies:

1. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop the environmental education portion of the Visitor Services Plan, outlining a

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach

structured to be compatible with state

learning standards and national environmental education guidelines. Emphasize

key Refuge resources, the Refuge, the

National Wildlife Refuge System, and

selected Refuge themes. These themes will

be based on importance to Refuge and System goals and relevance to surrounding

communities. All environmental education

materials, facilities, and programs will focus

on one or more of these Refuge themes,

along with the basic concepts of the Refuge

and the Refuge System. Refuge themes

may be in a storyline form that incudes

three or more themes. Themes may include:

exploring the diversity of wildlife, understanding the past, protecting the balance,

and communicating visitor opportunities.

2. Within 3 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with Friends of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, create an array of environmental education kits, each focusing on one or more

aspects of Refuge themes. Educational kits

will include interactive materials and a

detailed instructional and activity guide

designed with a clear, consistent format and

coordinated with state learning standards.

Develop and maintain a multi-faceted environmental education resource library, available for use by educators and in Refuge

educational programs, comprised of books,

videos, posters, audio tapes, written materials, and environmental education kits. 

3. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, establish

an environmental education complex that

incorporates an outdoor amphitheater with

educational displays, a set of associated

trails, the Refuge Visitor Center, and an

educator's trail specifically designed to

facilitate environmental education activities and function as an outdoor classroom. 

4. Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in

cooperation with other partners, create an

Educator's Guide to Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge that provides an orientation, guidelines, grade-level and state learning standards information, maps, and sitespecific activities that focus on one or more

Refuge themes. Incorporate input from

area educators to ensure the Refuge guide

meets area teachers' needs.

5. In cooperation with other partners, conduct

or host annual teacher workshops that

encourage area educators to incorporate

environmental education into their curriculum and to utilize Refuge materials, staff,

and resources, both in the classroom and

during field trips. 
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

181

6. Continue currently-offered environmental

education programs done by request,

including on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Over the life of the plan, expand

the environmental education program to

include additional on-site and off-site programs, special educational events, group

camp programs, and special interest group

programs. Develop pre- and post-visit activities in addition to on-site activities.

7. Over the life of the plan, establish partnerships with selected local schools, agencies,

and nonprofit organizations to more effectively develop and expand environmental

education programs. Involve volunteers in

educational programs and explore the

potential for environmental education

interns through Southern Illinois University and John A. Logan College. Explore

the potential for creating a grant program

to help area schools with field trip expenses.

8. Conduct an annual review of the Refuge

environmental education program. Invite

feedback from area educators. Revise as

necessary.

Goal 9. Customer Service:

Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit

to an area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

 9.1 Objective

Improve Refuge signs, kiosks, and facilities so

that 90 percent of visitors feel welcome and

secure, enjoy their visit, and recognize the area

as a national wildlife refuge.

Strategies:

1. Within 3 years of the plan's approval, revise

information on existing kiosks, trailhead

and other identification markers, boundary

signs, and other such signs as necessary to

meet Service standards.

2. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, create

and install additional kiosks where needed

at Refuge access points to ensure that all

visitors are greeted and informed that they

are entering a national wildlife refuge.

3. Verify annually that visitors are welcomed

and treated courteously by staff and volunteers. Confirm customer service standards

during employee and volunteer orientations. Provide visitors with opportunities

for feedback through suggestion cards, verbal reports, written mail, and e-mail

through the Refuge web page. Address customer service issues promptly and professionally according to Service standards.

4. Within 2 years of the plan's approval,

develop a Refuge brochure with detailed

information on accessible facilities, trails,

programs, and recreational opportunities at

the Refuge.

5. Conduct semi-annual safety inspections of

all Refuge facilities and reaffirm compliance with Service standards.

6. Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that

clearly identify public hunting areas.

Increase awareness among non-hunting visitors of hunting areas and seasons through

effective signs and brochures.

7. Respond to notification of safety problems

and unsafe situations promptly and in

accordance with Service standards.

Increase visibility of Refuge law enforcement, particularly during periods of heavy

visitation.

Goal 10. Outreach:

Visitors, cooperators, tenants, and local residents will understand Refuge goals, issues and activities. Service personnel

will understand the expectations and concerns of the general

public by being receptive to their feedback.

10.1. Objective

The positive attitude toward Refuge management will increase among visitors, cooperators,

tenants, and local residents throughout the life

of this plan.

Strategies:

1. Issue press releases, hold Refuge open

houses and hold regularly scheduled

forums.

2. Within 2 years of this plan's approval, create and maintain a “listening log” of written

and oral input from the public submitted to

the Refuge. Review this log quarterly and

address voiced community concerns.

3. Provide annual reports on the “State of the

Refuge.” Distribute these reports upon

request at the Visitor Center and by mail

and post the current year's report on the

Refuge website.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

182

4. Continue to permit selected annual and special events that are sponsored by nonprofit

organizations, provided they do not damage

Refuge resources or interfere with wildlifedependent recreation.

Goal 11. Volunteers and Support Groups:

Volunteers and Refuge support groups will be stewardship

partners and strong advocates for the Refuge.

11.1 Objective

Improve Refuge support for volunteer and

Friends of Crab Orchard activities to a point

where 95 percent of volunteers and Friends

members feel like valued contributors to the

success of Refuge programs and endeavors.

Strategies:

1. Continue to manage volunteer and support

programs in accordance with Service guidelines detailed in “A Guidebook for Working

with Volunteers.” Maintain an active liaison

with support groups and partners.

2. Provide in-depth initial training to Refuge

volunteers that will enable them to effectively and efficiently complete projects and

responsibilities. Encourage involvement in

diverse volunteer activities that match volunteer interests. Ensure volunteers and

Friends members are treated professionally and courteously by Refuge staff.

3. Continue demonstrating Refuge appreciation for volunteer contributions and

Friends support annually through a Volunteer Appreciation Banquet. Present awards

for service hours in accordance with Service

guidelines.

Goal 12. Other Land- and Water-based Recreation:

Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge when the

Refuge was established.

12.1 Objective

Improve the quality of boat launches, marinas,

beaches, picnic areas, and campground to industry standards within the life of the CCP.

Strategies: 

1. Maintain picnicking at the Refuge recreational areas of Greenbriar, Wolf Creek,

Harmony Trail, Cambria Neck, Playport

Marina and the Visitor Center. Explore the

option of concession-operated picnic shelters at Little Grassy and Crab Orchard

Campgrounds.

2. Explore the potential for a bicycle route

within the restricted area of the Refuge.

The route would run along old railroad

beds. 

3. Continue current policies on swimming at

Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy, and Crab

Orchard Lakes.

4. With in 10 years of the plan's approval,

upgrade boat ramps and associated parking

at Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy and Crab

Orchard lakes.

5. Modify current policies on lake zoning on

Crab Orchard Lake with additional nowake zones (See Figure 11 on page 51.

6. Horseback use on the Refuge would be confined to designated trails only (see Figure

12, page 66) and erosion due to trail use

would be actively controlled through maintenance and/or seasonal closures. 

7. Camping at Devils Kitchen would be discontinued to allow the Service to upgrade

Crab Orchard and Little Grassy Campgrounds to standards comparable to others

in the area.

8. Within 2 years of the plan's approval, consolidate Playport and Images marinas on

Crab Orchard Lake. Images marina slips

will be moved to Playport marina. Within 5

years of the plan's approval, remove the

building at Images Marina and develop the

area into a large access area to the lake with

a comfort station.

9. After 2 years of the completion of the CCP,

the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club will

be converted to a concession contract. 

10. Implement the zoning of motorized boating

at Devils Kitchen Lake. Gas motors would

be prohibited south of the southernmost

boat ramp on Devils Kitchen Lake.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

183

Goal 13. Protection:

Protect the integrity of Refuge biological and cultural

resources and the health and safety of visitors, industrial

workers, farmers, and Service staff.

13.1 Objective

Refuge lands and waters are safe for fish, wildlife, plants, and people.

Strategy:

1. Work with USEPA, Illinois EPA, Departments of Interior and Justice, and responsible parties to remediate contaminated sites.

Where contamination is left in place, or

where there is potential for undiscovered

contamination that may pose a risk from

exposure, institutional controls may be formulated. An institutional control plan would

be written by the CERCLA staff and made

available to Refuge management for implementation.

13.2 Objective

Visitors will feel safe on the Refuge and illegal

harvest of fish and wildlife will be reduced.

Strategy:

1. Maintain full-time law enforcement staff.

13.3 Objective

Manage or eliminate invasive species on the

Refuge.

Strategy:

1. Write and implement an Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) Plan following guidance developed by the Service's “Promises

Invasive Species Team.” The IPM plan will

address target species, control methods,

mapping and monitoring.

13.4 Objective

Protect the cultural, historic, and pre-historic

resources of federally-owned lands within the

Refuge.

Strategy:

1. Implement the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Cultural Resources within

the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

(Godfrey and Stubbs 2001).

Goal 14. Agriculture:

Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands

that help attain wildlife conservation goals.

14.1 Objective

Continue farming operations on about 4,400

acres of row crops with greater emphasis on

conservation practices.

Strategy:

1. Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in

support of agricultural operations. Address

erosion with buffer strips. Identify and

drop farmed wetlands from the farm program. Permit cooperators to harvest corn

remaining in the field in the spring. Emphasize Johnsongrass control. Prohibit mowing

of clover in the crop rotation until after

August 1. Enlist technical support from

Natural Resource Conservation Service

and University of Illinois Extension.

14.2 Objective

Continue farming operations on about 700 acres

of hay fields with greater emphasis on conservation practices.

Strategy:

1. Prohibit mowing of hay until after August 1.

Maintain an updated rate charge for hay.

14.3 Objective

Enhance nesting habitat for grassland birds

while maintaining or increasing the value for

grazing on about 1,000 acres of pastures.

Strategy:

1. Convert fescue pastures to other cool-season grasses and native warm-season

grasses with higher wildlife value. Divide

existing pastures into three or four paddocks with a paddock of cool-season grass

and two or three paddocks of native warmseason grasses. Rotate cattle among the

paddocks during the grazing season. Enlist

technical support from Natural Resource

Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension.

Goal 15. Industrial Goal

Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation infrastructure, which conforms to prescribed safety,

health, environmental and maintenance standards, that is utilized by compatible tenants.

15.1 Objective

Consolidate the areas occupied by industry.
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

184

Strategies:

1. Update Industrial Policy. Maintain the current infrastructure to support existing facilities.

2. Remove buildings that are no longer suitable for occupancy for reasons of contamination, safety or lack of structural integrity

and restore to natural habitats. 

2. Plan Implementation

2.1. New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action

for the future management of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. It will require considerable staff commitment as well as funding commitment to actively manage the wildlife habitats and

add and improve public use facilities. The Refuge

will continually need appropriate operational and

maintenance funding to implement the objectives in

this plan.

A full listing of unfunded Refuge projects and

operational needs can be found in Appendix K. In

the appendix, the highest priority Refuge projects

are described briefly.

2.2. Staffing

Reforestation, aggressive control of invasive species, an increase in the number of acres managed as

moist soil units, and improvements to the open land

units will require additional staff and operating

funds. A person with expertise in agriculture and

invasive species will be added to the biological program staff. Also, a person with expertise in Geographic Information Systems will be needed to

assist the biological staff with mapping and record

keeping for invasive species control and other habitat work. A seasonal tractor operator will need to be

hired to help accomplish the habitat work. To

improve the quality of services, the Refuge will add

a position in the visitor information center to assist

with administrative duties.

The completion of the consolidation of the former

Playport and Images Marinas will require moving

the remainder of the docks from the Images area,

removal of the concession building and construction

of a boat ramp.

Meeting the goals and objectives of this plan will

require a 15 percent increase in the Refuge's current operations and maintenance budget.

2.3. Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element

for the successful accomplishment of Crab Orchard

NWR goals, objectives and strategies. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the

partnerships of federal, state and local agencies,

non-governmental organizations and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to managing Refuge resources extends beyond social and political

boundaries and requires a foundation of support

from many organizations and people. The Refuge

will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.

Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing Days, Inc.

is a non-profit organization that partners with the

Refuge to promote hunting and fishing in the area.

The Refuge initiated this program in the early

1980s. SI Hunting and Fishing Days assumed the

lead for this activity in the early 1990s. Several thousand people now attend this annual weekend event,

which is held at John A. Logan College.

Take Pride in America has been organized and

worked with the Refuge since 1988. Take Pride in

America has built courtesy docks for boat landings

at all three lakes. Take Pride in America organized

the construction of bass-rearing ponds and maintains Hogan's Point (Take Pride Point) for fish-offs.

The Crab Orchard Waterfowl Association has

provided funds for the construction of moist soil

units on the Refuge. Quail Unlimited has provided

native grass seed for Refuge prairie restoration.

Touch of Nature, the Friends of Crab Orchard

NWR and the Refuge's Visitor Services Program

have partnered to provide environmental education

opportunities for local schools.

With the help of the following partners, the Refuge is able to provide one of the most successful

Kids Fishing Derbys in the area:

# University of Illinois Cooperative Extension

Service

# Illinois DNR

# Southern Illinois National Hunting and Fishing

Days

# Timberline Fisheries

# Zimmer Radio Group

# WalMart

# Silkworm Inc.

# Marion Pepsi-Cola

# Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

185

The Refuge has many dedicated friends and volunteers that assist with a variety of tasks. The

Friends of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,

John A. Logan College, University of Southern Illinois, Southern Illinois Audubon Society, Williamson

County Tourism, and Marion U.S. Penitentiary are

just a few of the organizations that contribute time

to the Refuge. We expect to maintain and enhance

these partnerships in the future. 

2.4. Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe the specific strategies and implementation schedules for

meeting general goals and objectives identified in

the CCP. Table 48 shows the step-down management plans we intend to prepare. We have completed two management plans that will be adopted/

included under the CCP.

The Natural Resource Damage Assessment

(NRDA) Restoration Plan was approved July 21,

1997. The NRDA Restoration Plan describes activities proposed to compensate for lost resources and

the services they provide that resulted from PCB

contamination on part of the Refuge. Restoration

activities included in the plan include reforestation,

shoreline and riparian restoration, grassland restoration, public education/outreach, and land acquisition.

The Fire Management Plan, approved January

16, 2002, provides direction and establishes procedures to guide various wildland fire program activities. The Fire Management Plan covers historical

and ecological role of fire, fire management objectives, preparedness, suppression, fire management

actions and responses, fire impacts, use of prescribed fire, and fire management restrictions.

2.5. Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of this plan. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate

the progress toward objectives and to determine if

conditions are changing.

Accomplishment of the objectives described in

this CCP will be monitored annually by the Refuge

Manager's supervisor. Successful performance will

be tied to the accomplishment of objectives that are

scheduled for that year. The public will be informed

about the activities of the Refuge staff through an

“Annual Report” that will be mailed to all persons

on the Refuge mailing list, published on the Refuge's Web site, and its availability will be announced

through news releases to the media. The annual

report will be published each year in February.

The techniques and details for monitoring related

to specific objectives will be specified in the Inventory and Monitoring Step Down Plan.

Substantial changes are likely to occur within the

Service and the community during the next 15

years. This plan and its objectives will be examined

at least every 5 years to determine if any modifications are necessary to meet the changing conditions.

2.6. Plan Review and Revision

The CCP for the Refuge is meant to provide guidance to refuge managers and staff over the next 15

years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document and several of the strategies contained in this plan are subject to natural,

uncontrollable events such as windstorms and

droughts. Likewise, many of the strategies are

dependent upon Service funding for staff and

projects. Because of these factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if

necessary, revised to meet new circumstances. If

any revisions are major, the review and revision will

include the public.

Table 48: Step-down Management Plans

Title Service Manual 

Reference

Occupational Safety and 

Health

Parts 240-249

Safety Program 240 FW 1-9

Safety Operations 241 FW 1-9

Industrial Hygiene 242 FW 1-13

Hazardous Materials 

Operations

242 FW 6

Contaminant Institutional 

Control

Law Enforcement Parts 440-459

Pollution Control Parts 560-569

Policy and Responsibilities 560 FW 1

Pollution Prevention 560 FW 2

Compliance Requirements Part 561

Clean Water Act 561 FW 3

RCRA – Hazardous Waste 561 FW 6

Pesticide Use and Disposal Part 562

Pest Management 562 FW 1

External Threats to FWS 

Facilities

Part 563

Air Quality Protection 563 FW 2

National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) Uses

Part 603
Appendix A:Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Implementation

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

186

NWRS Uses (Appropriate 

Refuge Uses)

603 FW 1

Priority Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation

Part 605

Hunting 605 FW 2

Fishing 605 FW 3

Wildlife Observation 605 FW 4

Wildlife Photography 605 FW 5

Environmental Education 605 FW 6

Interpretation 605 FW 7

Visitor Services

Wilderness Management Part 610

Special Area Management Part 611

Research Natural Areas 611 FW 1

National Trails 611 FW 4

Minerals Management Part 612

Minerals and Mining 612 FW 1

Oil and Gas 612 FW 2

Archeological Resources 

Inventory

Sec. 110 NHPA; sec. 14 

ARPA

Habitat Management 

Planning

Part 620

Natural Resources Damage 

Assessment Restoration

Fire Management Part 621

Population Management Part 701

Inventory and Monitoring 701 FW 2

Propagation and Stocking 701 FW 3

Marking and Banding 701 FW 4

Disease Prevention and 

Control

701 FW 7

Trapping 701 FW 11

Fishery Resources 

Management

Part 710

Industrial Operations 

Management

Table 48: Step-down Management Plans

Title Service Manual 

Reference
Appendix B:Glossary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

187

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B:Glossary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

189

Appendix B: Glossary

Aquatic Species

Includes all freshwater, anadromous and estuarine fishes, freshwater mollusks, freshwater crustaceans and freshwater amphibians.

Archaeological and Cultural Values

Any material remains of past human life or activity greater than 100 years old which are of

archaeological interest as defined by Section 4(a)

of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act

and 43 CFR Part 7.3.

Biodiversity

The variety of life and its processes, including the

variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

Candidate Species

Those species for which the Service has on file

sufficient information on biological vulnerability

and threats to propose them for listing.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any

other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director or designee, will

not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the

purposes of the refuge (PL 105-57).

Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan: A document, completed with public involvement, that describes the desired future condition

and provides long-term (15 year planning horizon) guidance to accomplish the purposes of the

refuge system and the individual refuge units.

Conservation

The management of natural resources to prevent

loss or waste. Management actions may include

preservation, restoration and enhancement.

Conservation (Species)

The use of all methods and procedures which are

necessary to bring any species to the point at

which the measures provided are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but

are not limited to, all activities associated with

scientific resources management such as

research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation. Conservation is the act

of managing a resource to ensure its survival and

availability.

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources: “those parts of the physical

environment – natural and built – that have cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group...

[and] those non-material human social institutions....” (King, p.9). Cultural resources include

historic sites, archeological sites and associated

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural

patrimony) (McManamon, Francis P. DCA-NPS;

letter 12-23-97 to Walla Walla District, COE), and

buildings and structures.

Deepwater

Permanently flooded lands lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands (Cowardin et al,

1979). Deepwater areas are located below the elevation of the extreme low water of the spring tide

in oceans and estuaries, and those portions of rivers and lakes greater than 6.6 feet in depth.

Ecosystem

Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and

animal (including humans) communities and their

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Approach

1) Protecting or restoring the natural function,

structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated. 2) Management of natural resources using

system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants

and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and that basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely

(Clark and Zaunbrecher 1987).

Endangered Species

A listed species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Appendix B:Glossary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

190

Enhance (habitats)

Improves habitat through alteration, treatment,

or other land management of existing habitat to

increase habitat value for one or more species without bringing the habitat to a fully restored or naturally occurring condition.

Forest Fragmentation

Fragmentation may occur when a forested landscape is subdivided into patches. Fragmentation

may also occur when numerous openings for such

things as fields, roads, and powerlines interrupt a

continuous forest canopy. The resulting landscape

pattern alters habitat connectivity and edge characteristics, influencing a variety of species.

Geographic Information System

GIS aids in the collection, analysis, output and

distribution of spaital data and information.

Goose-use-day

Enough food to feed one goose for one day.

Interjurisdictional Fish

Populations of fish that are managed by two or

more states or national or tribal governments

because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations.

Institutional Control

Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human

exposure to contamination by limiting land or

resource use. They are generally used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, engineering measures such as waste treatment or containment.

Institutional controls can be used during all

stages of the clean-up process to accomplish various clean-up-related objectives. More than one

institutional control should be used and they

should be implemented in a series to provide

overlapping assurances of protection from contamination.

Invasive Species

An alien species whose introduction does or is

likely to cause economic or environmental harm

or harm to human health.

Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern

Those species of nongame birds that (a) are

believed to have undergone significant population

declines; (b) have small or restricted populations;

or (c) are dependent upon restricted or vulnerable habitats.

Migratory Species

Species that move substantial distances to satisfy

one or more biological needs, most often to reproduce or escape intolerable cyclic environmental

conditions.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands and waters and interests therein administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife

ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl

production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened with extinction.

Protect (habitat)

Maintain current quality or prevent degradation

to habitat. The act of ensuring that habitat quantity and quality do not change, most often as a

result of human activities but sometimes in

response to unwelcome natural processes or phenomena.

Recovery Plans (species)

Documents developed by the Service that outline

tasks necessary to stabilize and recover listed

species. Recovery plans include goals for measuring species progress towards recovery, estimated

costs and time frames for the recovery process,

and an identification of public and private partners that can contribute to implementation of the

recovery plan.

Restore (habitat)

Returns the quantity and quality of habitat to

some previous naturally occurring condition,

most often some baseline considered suitable and

sufficient to support self-sustaining populations

of fish and wildlife.

Riparian habitats

Those lands adjacent to streams or rivers that

form a transition zone between aquatic and

upland systems and are typically dominated by
Appendix B:Glossary

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

191

woody vegetation that is of a noticeably different

growth form than adjacent vegetation. Riparian

areas may or may not meet the definition of wetlands used by Cowardin et al (1979).

Species of Concern

A species not on the federal list of threatened or

endangered species, but a species for which the

Service or one of its partners has concerns.

Stakeholders

State, tribal, and local government agencies, academic institutions, the scientific community, nongovernmental entities including environmental,

agricultural, and conservation organizations,

trade groups, commercial interests, and private

landowners.

Threatened Species

A listed species which is likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.

Undertaking

A project, activity, or program funded in whole or

in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of

a Federal agency, including those carried out by

or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried

out with Federal financial assistance; those

requiring a Federal permit, license or approval...”

(36 CFR 800.16(y); 12-12-2000), i.e., all Federal

actions.

Uplands

All lands not meeting the definition of wetlands,

deepwater, or riverine.

Watershed

The area drained by a river or stream and its

tributaries.

Wetlands

Lands transitional between terrestrial and

aquatic systems where the water table is usually

at or near the surface or the land is covered by

shallow water (Cowardin et. al., 1979. In layman's

terms, this habitat category includes marshes,

swamps and bogs.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.

Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

193

Appendix C: Laws and Orders

Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

195

Appendix C: Laws and Orders

Numerous Congressional Acts, Executive Orders

signed by the President, and regulations grant

authority and govern the administration of the Refuge. The following laws and executive orders provide substantive and procedural requirements to be

satisfied in the development and implementation of

the CCP.

Public Law 80-361

(Approved August 5, 1947; 61 Stat. 770) This Act

established Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge by directing the transfer of certain lands in

Illinois to the Department of the Interior for

wildlife conservation, and agricultural, recreational, industrial development and related purposes. The full text is presented in Appendix G.

Public Law 90-339 

(Approved June 15, 1968; 82 Stat. 177) This Act

provides for adjustment of legislative jurisdiction

of the United States on the Refuge.

Public Law 95-616 

(Approved November 8, 1978; 92 Stat. 3114) This

Act provided that revenue generated on the Refuge will be subject to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act rather than being deposited in the

Treasury as general receipts.

Public Law 99-662

(Approved November 17, 1986; 100 Stat 4257)

This Act directed the Secretary to sell surplus

water which may be available from Devils

Kitchen Lake on the Refuge to the City of Marion, Illinois.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 

(Derived from sections 4 and 5 of Public Law 89-

669, approved October 15, 1966; 80 Stat. 927; 16

USC 668dd et seq.) This Act serves as the

“organic act” for the National Wildlife Refuge

System. The Act, as amended, consolidated the

various categories of lands administered by the

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the

Service into a single National Wildlife Refuge

System. 

The Act establishes a unifying mission for the

Refuge System, a process for determining compatible uses of refuges, and a requirement for

preparing comprehensive conservation plans.

The Act states first and foremost that the mission

of the National Wildlife Refuge System be

focused singularly on wildlife conservation. 

The Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent

recreation uses, clarified the Secretary’s authority to accept donations of money for land acquisition and placed restrictions on the transfer,

exchange or other disposal of lands within the

Refuge System.

Most importantly, this Act reinforces and

expands the “compatibility standard” of the Refuge Recreation Act. The Refuge Administration

Act authorizes the Secretary, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to “permit the use of

any area within the System for any purpose,

including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, and access

whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such

areas were established.”

It provides guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas in the system, including “wildlife refuges, areas for the

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

or waterfowl production areas.”

The Secretary is authorized to permit by regulations the use of any area within the system provided “such uses are compatible with the major

purposes for which such areas were established.”

Public Law 90-404

(Approved July 18, 1968, (82 Stat. 359) This law

provides that proceeds from disposal of lands in

the system acquired with “duck stamp” funds or

by donation are to be paid into the Migratory

Bird Conservation Fund, and that the Migratory

Bird Conservation Commission must be consulted before disposal of any such acquired land. 

A December 3, 1974, amendment entitled

“National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act Amendments of 1974" (P.L. 93-509; 88

Stat. 1603), requires payment of the fair market
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

196

value for rights-of-way or other interests

granted, with the proceeds deposited into the

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and made

available for land acquisition.

Public Law 94-215

(Approved February 17, 1976) (90 Stat. 190) clarified that acquired lands or interests therein can

be exchanged for acquired or public lands.

An amendment of February 27, 1976, (P.L. 94-223;

90 Stat. 199) commonly called the Game Range

Act, directs that all areas in the system on or

after January 1, 1975, “shall be administered by

the Secretary through the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service” and cannot be transferred

or disposed of unless otherwise directed by Acts

of Congress. Exceptions are provided for areas

administered as part of the system pursuant to

cooperative agreements and for transfer or disposal and exchange of acquired lands.

Public Law 95-616

(Approved November 8, 1978, (92 Stat. 3110)

amends the 1966 Act to permit the opening of

more than 40 percent of an area acquired as a

migratory bird sanctuary to hunting when it is

determined to be beneficial to the species hunted.

Contracts may be entered into for public accommodations and donations of funds may be

accepted for land acquisition and management.

Public Law 100-653

(Approved November 14, 1988, (101 Stat. 3825)

made violations of the Act or implementing regulations subject to fines under the provisions of

Title 18 of the U.S. Code (sections 3571-3574), or

one year’s imprisonment, or both. This Act also

authorized the Secretary to relinquish exclusive

legislative jurisdiction over any Service lands to

State or territorial authorities (16 U.S.C. 742m).

This Act, Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C.

715s) – Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49

Stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in

lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the

sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 88-523

(Approved August 30, 1964, (78 Stat. 701) made

major revisions by requiring that all revenues

received from refuge products, such as animals,

timber and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account

and net receipts distributed to counties for public

schools and roads.

Public Law 93-509

(Approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603)

required that moneys remaining in the fund after

payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird

Conservation Fund for land acquisition under

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation

Act.

Public Law 95-469

(Approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319)

expanded the revenue sharing system to include

National Fish Hatcheries and Service research

stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue

Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid

carcasses. Payments to counties were established

as:

# on acquired land, the greatest amount

calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre,

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised

value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced

from the land; and

# on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25

percent of net receipts and basic payments

under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607,

90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on public

lands. 

This amendment also authorized appropriations

to make up any difference between the amount in

the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment

in any year. The stipulation that payments be

used for schools and roads was removed, but

counties were required to pass payments along to

other units of local government within the county

which suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of Service areas.

Refuge Trespass Act (18 U.S.C. 41) 

The Act of June 25, 1948, (62 Stat. 686) consolidated penalty provisions of various Acts from

1905 through 1934 establishing and protecting

fish and wildlife areas, and restated the intent of

Congress to protect all wildlife within Federal

sanctuaries, refuges, fish hatcheries and breeding grounds. 
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

197

Except as provided by rules and regulations promulgated under authority of law, the Act provides

that anyone who hunts, traps or willfully disturbs

any wildlife on such areas, or willfully injures,

molests or destroys any property of the United

States on such lands or waters, shall be fined not

more than $500, imprisoned not more than six

months, or both.

Public Law 100-653

(Approved November 14, 1988, (102 Stat. 3825)

provided that any violation of the Refuge System

Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq), or

regulations issued under its authority, would be

fined in accordance with uniform sentencing provisions established in Public Law 98-473,

approved October 12, 1984, (98 Stat. 2028, 2031;

18 U.S.C. 3551 to 3586) or imprisoned not more

than one year, or both. This largely supersedes

the provisions of the Trespass Act, although the

Act was not repealed.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) 

(16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40

Stat. 755) as amended by: Chapter 634; June 20,

1936; 49 Stat. 1556; P.L. 86-732; September 8,

1960; 74 Stat. 866; P.L. 90-578; October 17, 1968;

82 Stat. 1118; P.L. 91-135; December 5, 1969; 83

Stat. 282; P.L. 93-300; June 1, 1974; 88 Stat. 190;

P.L. 95-616; November 8, 1978; 92 Stat. 3111; P.L.

99-645; November 10, 1986; 100 Stat. 3590 as

amended. This Act designates the protection of

migratory birds as a Federal responsibility. The

Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916

Convention between the U.S. and Great Britain

(for Canada) for the protection of migratory

birds. Specific provisions in the statute included:

# Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless

permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt,

take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or

kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to

purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship,

cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation,

transport, cause to be transported, carry, or

cause to be carried by any means whatever,

receive for shipment, transportation or

carriage, or export, at any time, or in any

manner, any migratory bird, included in the

terms of this Convention... for the protection of

migratory birds... or any part, nest, or egg of

any such bird.” (16 U.S.C. 703) This prohibition

applies to birds included in the respective

international conventions between the U.S. and

Great Britain, the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S.

and Japan, and the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

# Authority for the Secretary of the Interior to

determine, periodically, when, consistent with

the Conventions, “hunting, taking, capture,

killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment,

transportation, carriage, or export of any... bird,

or any part, nest or egg” could be undertaken

and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These

determinations are to be made based on “due

regard to the zones of temperature and to the

distribution, abundance, economic value,

breeding habits, and times of migratory flight.”

(16 U.S.C. 704)

# A decree that domestic interstate and

international transportation of migratory birds

which are taken in violation of this law is

unlawful, as well as importation of any

migratory birds which are taken in violation of

Canadian laws. (16 U.S.C. 705)

# Authority for Interior officials to enforce the

provisions of this law, including seizure of birds

illegally taken which can be forfeited to the U.S.

and disposed of as directed by the courts. (16

U.S.C. 706)

# Establishment of fines for violation of this law,

including misdemeanor charges. (16 U.S.C. 707)

# Authority for States to enact and implement

laws or regulations to allow for greater

protection of migratory birds, provided that

such laws are consistent with the respective

Conventions and that open seasons do not

extend beyond those established at the national

level. (16 U.S.C. 708)

# Authority to take migratory birds exclusively

for scientific or propagation purposes, pending

the development of Federal regulations,

provided that the take does not violate State or

local laws. (16 U.S.C. 709)

# A repeal of all laws inconsistent with the

provisions of this Act.

# Authority for the continued breeding and sale of

migratory game birds on farms and preserves

for the purpose of increasing the food supply.

(16 U.S.C. 711)
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

198

The 1936 statute implemented the Convention

between the U.S. and Mexico for the Protection

of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals. Migratory bird import and export restrictions between

Mexico and the U.S. were also authorized, and in

issuing any regulations to implement this section,

the Secretary of Agriculture was required to consider U.S. laws forbidding importation of certain

mammals injurious to agricultural and horticultural interests. Monies for the Secretary of Agriculture to implement these provisions were also

authorized.

The 1960 statute (P.L. 86-732) amended the

MBTA by altering earlier penalty provisions. The

new provisions stipulated that violations of this

Act would constitute a misdemeanor and conviction would result in a fine of not more than $500

or imprisonment of not more than six months.

Activities aimed at selling migratory birds in violation of this law would be subject to fine of not

more than $2000 and imprisonment could not

exceed two years. Guilty offenses would constitute a felony. Equipment used for sale purchases

was authorized to be seized and held, by the Secretary of the Interior, pending prosecution, and,

upon conviction, be treated as a penalty.

Section 10 of the 1969 amendments to the Lacey

Act (P.L. 91-135) repealed the provisions of the

MBTA prohibiting the shipment of wild game

mammals or parts to and from the U.S. or Mexico

unless permitted by the Secretary of the Interior.

The definition of “wildlife” under these amendments does not include migratory birds, however,

which are protected under the MBTA. 

The 1974 statute (P.L. 93-300) amended the

MBTA to include the provisions of the 1972 Convention between the U.S. and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger

of Extinction. This law also amended the title of

the MBTA to read: “An Act to give effect to the

conventions between the U.S. and other nations

for the protection of migratory birds, birds in

danger of extinction, game mammals, and their

environment.”

Section 3(h) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-616) amended the

MBTA to authorize forfeiture to the U.S. of birds

and their parts illegally taken, for disposal by the

Secretary of the Interior as he deems appropriate. These amendments also authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to permit Alaskan

natives to take migratory birds for their subsistence needs during established seasons. The Secretary was required to consider the related

migratory bird conventions with Great Britain,

Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union in establishing these regulations and to establish seasons to

provide for the preservation and maintenance of

migratory bird stocks.

Public Law 95-616 also ratified a treaty with the

Soviet Union specifying that both nations will

take measures to protect identified ecosystems of

special importance to migratory birds against

pollution, detrimental alterations, and other environmental degradations. (See entry for the Convention Between the United States of America

and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and

Their Environment; T.I.A.S. 9073; signed on

November 19, 1976, and approved by the Senate

on July 12, 1978; 92 Stat. 3110.)

The most recent amendment was part of the 1986

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L. 99-

645), and amended the Act to require that felony

violations under the MBTA must be “knowingly”

committed.

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940

(16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250, approved June

8, 1940, and amended by P.L. 86-70 (73 Stat. 143)

June 25, 1959; P.L. 87-884 (76 Stat. 1346) October

24, 1962; P.L. 92-535 (86 Stat. 1064) October 23,

1972; and P.L. 95-616 (92 Stat. 3114) November 8,

1978. This Act provides for the protection of the

bald eagle (the national emblem) and the golden

eagle on and off Federal lands by prohibiting,

except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such birds.

The 1972 amendments increased penalties for

violating provisions of the Act or regulations

issued pursuant thereto and strengthened other

enforcement measures. Rewards are provided for

information leading to arrest and conviction for

violation of the Act. The 1978 amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the

taking of golden eagle nests that interfere with

resource development or recovery operations.
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

199

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

(16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r approved

February 18, 1929; 45 Stat. 1222) This Act established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with

Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The Commission consists of the Secretary of the Interior

(as chairman), the Secretaries of Transportation

and Agriculture, two members of the Senate and

two of the House of Representatives, and an exofficio member from each State in which acquisition is being considered.

The Commission, through its chairman, is

directed to report by the first Monday in December of each year to Congress on its activities during the preceding fiscal year. The Secretary of

the Interior is authorized to cooperate with local

authorities in wildlife conservation and to conduct

investigations, to publish documents related to

North American birds, and to maintain and

develop refuges. The Act provides for cooperation with States in enforcement. It established

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental or

gift of areas approved by the Commission.

Public Law 94-215

(Approved February 17, 1976) (90 Stat. 190)

included in acquisition authority under the Act

the purchase or rental of a partial interest in land

or waters.

Public Law 95-552

(Approved October 30, 1978, (92 Stat. 2071)

required that the Secretary of the Interior consult with the appropriate units of local government and with the Governor of the State

concerned, or the appropriate State agency,

before recommending an area for purchase or

rental under the provisions of the Act. This provision was subsequently amended by P.L. 98-200,

approved December 2, 1983 (97 Stat. 1378); P.L.

98-548, approved October 26, 1984 (98 Stat. 2774);

and P.L. 99-645, approved November 10, 1986

(100 Stat. 3584) to require that either the Governor or the State agency approve each proposed

acquisition. 

Public Law 95-616

(Approved November 8, 1978, (92 Stat. 3110)

authorized acquisition of areas for purposes other

than inviolate sanctuary.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp

Act of 1934 

(16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452) This Act authorized opening a certain portion of a national wildlife refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act

(Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989;

103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) This Act provides funding and administrative direction for

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and

Mexico.

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account

into a trust fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006 to carry

out the programs authorized by the Act, along

with an authorization for annual appropriation of

$15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and

forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act.

Available funds may be expended, upon approval

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission,

for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the

United States share of the cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the

United States (or 100 percent of the cost of

projects on Federal lands). At least 50 percent

and no more than 70 percent of the funds

received are to go to Canada and Mexico each

year.

A North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend projects to be funded

under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The Council is to be composed

of the Director of the Service, the Secretary of

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a

State fish and game agency director from each

Flyway, and three representatives of different

non-profit organizations participating in projects

under the Plan or the Act. The Chairman of the
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

200

Council and one other member serve ex officio on

the Commission for consideration of the Council’s

recommendations.

The Commission must justify in writing to the

Council and, annually, to Congress, any decisions

not to accept Council recommendations.

Public Law 101-593

(Approved November 16, 1990 (104 Stat. 2962)

provided that the Director is the Federal official

responsible for compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect

to Council actions, and that recommendation(s)

from the Council to the Commission constitute

agency action requiring the preparation of Environmental Assessments or Impact Statements.

The Chairman of the Council is also required to

take steps to ensure public notice of Council

meetings.

This Act provides funding and administrative

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada,

Mexico and the U.S. It establishes a North American Wetlands Conservation Council, the purpose

of which is to recommend wetlands conservation

projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission. Federal funds may be expended for

payment of no more than half of the U.S. share of

the cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico or the U.S. (or 100 percent of the cost

of projects on federal lands). The Act directs the

Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a wetlands conservation strategy, and

report to Congress on project implementation

and assessment. 

Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended. 

The primary objective of this Act is to establish

Federal standards for various pollutants from

both stationary and mobile sources and to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via

state implementation plans. In addition, and of

special interest for Refuges, some amendments

are designed to prevent significant deterioration

in certain areas where air quality exceeds

national standards, and to provide for improved

air quality in areas which do not meet Federal

standards (non-attainment areas). Part C of the

1977 amendments stipulates requirements to prevent significant deterioration of air quality and, in

particular, to preserve air quality in national

parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, and national seashores. The majority of

the amendments to the Clean Air Act were

enacted in 1977 and are known as the Clean Air

Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95; 91 Stat. 685).

The primary objective of the Clean Air Act is to

establish Federal standards for various pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and

to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state implementation plans. In addition,

the amendments are designed to prevent significant deterioration in certain areas where air quality exceeds national standards, and to provide for

improved air quality in areas which do not meet

Federal standards (“nonattainment” areas).

Federal facilities are required to comply with air

quality standards to the same extent as non-governmental entities (42 U.S.C. 7418). Part C of the

1977 amendments stipulates requirements to prevent significant deterioration of air quality and, in

particular, to preserve air quality in national

parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments and national seashores (42 U.S.C. 7470).

The amendments establish Class I, II and III

areas, where emissions of particulate matter and

sulfur dioxide are to be restricted. The restrictions are most severe in Class I areas and are

progressively more lenient in Class II and III

areas.

Mandatory Class I Federal lands include all

national wilderness areas exceeding 500 acres.

Such lands may not be redesignated (42 U.S.C.

7472). Additionally, national wildlife refuges

which exceed 10,000 acres may only be redesignated by States as Class I or Class II areas (42

U.S.C. 7474).

Federal land managers are charged with direct

responsibility to protect the air quality and

related values (including visibility) of Class I

lands and to consider, in consultation with EPA,

whether proposed industrial facilities will have an

adverse impact on these values (42 U.S.C.

7475(c)). Federal land managers are also required

to determine whether existing industrial sources

of air pollution must be retrofitted to reduce

impacts on Class I areas to acceptable levels.
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

201

The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with

other Federal land managers, is required to

review all mandatory Class I Federal areas and

to identify those where visibility is an important

value of the area (42 U.S.C. 7491). Such identifications are to be revised periodically. 

EPA is requested to report to Congress regarding methods for achieving greater visibility and

to issue regulations towards that objective (42

U.S.C. 7491). Exemptions from such regulations

are contingent upon the concurrence of the

involved Federal land manager.

Data Quality Act

The Data Quality Act (DQA) is an attempt by

Congress to ensure that federal agencies use and

disseminate accurate information. The DQA

requires federal agencies to issue information

quality guidelines ensuring the quality, utility,

objectivity and integrity of information that it

disseminates and provide mechanisms for

affected persons to correct such information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly

known as the Clean Water Act

(P.L. 92-500, enacted in 1972; amended by P.L. 95-

217 in 1977, P.L. 97-117 in 1981, and P.L. 100-4 in

1987). This is the principal law governing pollution in the nation’s streams, lakes, and estuaries.

It consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose progressively more stringent

requirements on industries and cities to abate

pollution and meet the statutory goal of zero discharge of pollutants; and provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal

wastewater treatment construction. Both parts

are supported by research activities, plus permit

and enforcement provisions. Programs at the federal level are administered by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA); state and local governments have major responsibilities to implement

those programs.

The objective declared in the 1972 Act is to

restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the nation’s water. That

objective was accompanied by statutory goals to

eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 and to attain, wherever possible, waters deemed “fishable and swimmable” by

1983. While those goals have not yet been

achieved, considerable progress has been made,

especially in controlling conventional pollutants

(suspended solids, bacteria, and oxygen-consuming materials) discharged by industries and

municipal sewage treatment plants. Nearly 75%

of assessed waters comply with standards for

these pollutants. Progress has been mixed in controlling discharges of toxic pollutants (heavy metals, inorganic and organic chemicals), which are

more numerous and can harm human health and

the environment even when present in minute

amounts-at the parts-per-billion level. Moreover,

efforts to control pollution from diffuse sources

(rainfall runoff, for example) have only recently

begun. Overall, data reported by EPA and states

indicate that 40% of waters surveyed by states

fail to meet water quality standards. Forty-seven

states now have some form of fish-consumption

advisory in effect (including 100% of Great Lakes

waters and a large portion of the nation’s coastal

waters), due to water pollution problems, and

one-third of shellfishing beds are closed or

restricted, due to toxic pollutant contamination. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

(Public Law 99-645, approved November 10,

1986; 100 Stat. 3582) The purpose of this Act is:

“To promote the conservation of migratory

waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious

loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands

and other essential habitat, and for other purposes.” The Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund

monies, removing a prior prohibition on such

acquisitions. It required the Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation

Plan, required the States to include wetlands in

their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans,

and transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to the import duties on

arms and ammunition.

It extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization

through 1988, and forgave the previous advances

under the Act. It also required the Secretary to

report to Congress on wetlands loss, including an

analysis of the role of Federal programs and policies in inducing such losses. In addition, it

directed the Secretary, through the Service, to

continue the National Wetlands Inventory; to

complete by September 30, 1998, mapping of the

contiguous United States; to produce, as soon as

practicable, maps of Alaska and other noncontiguous portions of the United States; and to pro-
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

202

duce, by September 30, 1990, and at ten-year

intervals thereafter, reports to update and

improve in the September 1982 Status and

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the

Conterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s.

Other provisions included: the establishment of

entrance fees at National Wildlife Refuges, with

fee receipts to be allocated 70 percent into the

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and 30 percent for operations and maintenance at the refuges; an increase in the price of duck stamps

from $7.50 to $15.00, to be phased in through

1991; and the establishment of the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

This Act established a comprehensive national

fish and wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 

This Act allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to

enter into agreements with private landowners

for wildlife management purposes.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

(Public Law 95-616, approved November 8, 1978;

16 U.S.C. 7421; 92 Stat. 3110) This Act authorizes

the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to

establish, conduct, and assist with national training programs for State fish and wildlife law

enforcement personnel. It also authorized funding for research and development of new or

improved methods to support fish and wildlife

law enforcement.

The law provides authority to the Secretaries to

enter into law enforcement cooperative agreements with State or other Federal agencies, and

authorizes the disposal of abandoned or forfeited

items under the fish, wildlife, and plant jurisdictions of these Secretaries. It strengthened the

law enforcement operational capability of the

Service by authorizing the disbursement and use

of funds to facilitate various types of investigative

efforts.

The statute also contains amendments to: Bald

Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d); Central

Valley Project, California, Reauthorization Act of

August 27, 1954 (16 USC 695d-695j); Cooperative

Research and Training Units Act (16 USC 7853a753h); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC

742a-742j); Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

USC 715 et seq.); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16

USC 703 et. seq.); National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd668ee); Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC 460k460k-4); the Act of August 5, 1947, (16 USC 666g)

establishing Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge; the Act of April 23, 1928, (16 USC 690e)

establishing the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge; and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16

USC 3503).

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(Public Law 88-578, approved September 3, 1964;

78 Stat. 897; 16 USC 460l - 460l-11) Since its

inception on January 1, 1965, the LWCF has been

the principal source of funds for acquiring new

recreation lands. It was originally intended to be

a revolving fund, and the initial legislation

required it to repay advanced appropriations in

the 10th year of operation. However, it has never

operated as a revolving fund. The authority has

been amended frequently, most notably to

increase the authorized level of the fund, and to

mandate that offshore oil and gas leasing revenues should make up any shortfall from other

authorized financing sources. However, the fund’s

basic purpose has not been altered. 

Most appropriations in recent years have been to

the four major federal land management agencies-the Forest Service in the Department of

Agriculture, and the National Park Service, Fish

and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior. These

agencies have purchased or acquired through

exchange about 4.5 million acres

This Act authorizes the use of receipts from the

sale of surplus Federal land, outer continental

shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land

acquisition under several authorities. The Recreation Coordination and Development Act (Public

Law 88-29, approved May 28, 1963, 77 Stat. 49)

declared a Congressional policy that “present

and future generations be assured adequate outdoor recreation resources” and that “all levels of

government and private interests... take prompt

and coordinated action... to conserve, develop,

and utilize such [their] resources for the benefit

and enjoyment of the American people.” The Sec-
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

203

retary of the Interior was directed to inventory,

evaluate and classify outdoor recreation facilities,

and formulate and maintain a comprehensive

nationwide outdoor recreation plan.

Public Law 88-578

Approved September 3, 1964, (78 Stat. 897) created the Land and Water Conservation Fund,

derived from various types of revenue (primarily

Outer Continental Shelf oil monies) and authorizes appropriations from the fund for (1) matching grants to States for outdoor recreation

projects and (2) land acquisition for various Federal agencies.

P.L. 94-422

Approved September 28, 1976, (90 Stat. 1313)

authorized funds for, among other things, the

National Wildlife Refuge System for acquisition

of: (1) habitat of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants under section 5(a)

of the Endangered Species Act; (2) areas authorized by section 2 of the Refuge Recreation Act;

(3) areas under section 7(a)(5) of the Fish and

Wildlife Act of 1956, except migratory waterfowl

areas which are authorized by the Migratory

Bird Conservation Act; and (4) any areas authorized by specific Acts of Congress. 

P.L. 95-42

Approved June 10, 1977, (91 Stat. 210) increased

the authorizations for acquisition of certain previously authorized areas.

P.L. 98-369

Approved July 18, 1984, (98 Stat. 1020) provided

that up to $1 million annually in excess motorboat

fuels tax revenues shall be transferred to the

Fund.

P.L. 100-17

Approved April 2, 1987, (101 Stat. 132) extended

the motorboat fuels tax component of the Fund

through October 1993, and extended the authorization to pay funds received to the Land and

Water Conservation Fund, and the Sport Fish

Restoration Account through that date.

Public Law 100-203

Approved December 22, 1987, (101 Stat. 1330)

reauthorized the Fund without change through

the

Lacey Act Amendments 

This Act replaces the Black Bass Act of 1926 and

most of the original Lacey Act. The Lacey Act

Amendments make it unlawful to import, export,

transport, buy or sell fish, wildlife and plants

taken or possessed in violation of federal, state or

tribal law. Interstate or foreign commerce in fish

and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of foreign law also is illegal. The Act requires that

packages containing fish or wildlife be plainly

marked. Enforcement measures include civil and

criminal penalties, cancellation of hunting and

fishing licenses, and forfeiture.

Timber Protection Act 

(Approved September 20, 1922; 16 U.S.C. 594; 42

Stat. 857) This Act authorizes the Secretary of

the Interior to protect timber on lands under the

Department’s jurisdiction from fire, disease and

insects, and to cooperate with other Federal

agencies, States, or owners of timber.

Reciprocal Fire Protection Act 

(Approved May 27, 1955) as amended by the

Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act of 1989 (69

Stat. 66, 67; 42 U.S.C. 1856a)(102 Stat. 1615) This

Act authorizes reciprocal fire protection agreements with any fire organization for mutual aid

with or without reimbursement and allows for

emergency assistance in the vicinity of agency

facilities in extinguishing fires when no agreement exists.

Wilderness Act of 1964 

(PL 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; 16 USC 1121 [note],

1131-1136), as amended. In order to assure that

an increasing population, accompanied by

expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within

the United States and its possessions, leaving no

lands designated for preservation and protection

in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to

be the policy of the Congress to secure for the

American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. or this purpose there is hereby

established a National Wilderness Preservation
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

204

System to be composed of federally owned areas

designated by Congress as “wilderness areas,”

and these shall be administered for the use and

enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the

gathering and dissemination of information

regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness;

and no Federal lands shall be designated as “wilderness areas” except as provided for in this

chapter or by a subsequent Act.

Public Law 94-577

(Approved October 19, 1976 (90 Stat. 2633) Section 1(f) designated the Crab Orchard Wilderness

and Section 6 addressed the administration and

management of the area.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. as amended) This Act

directs Federal agencies to take actions that

would further the purposes of the Act and to

ensure that actions they carry out, authorize or

fund do not jeopardize endangered species or

their critical habitat. The Act also provides

authority for land acquisition. Conservation of

threatened and endangered species has become a

major objective of both land acquisition and Refuge management programs.

The Recreation Act 

(Public Law 87-714, approved September 28,

1962, 76 Stat. 653; as amended by Public Law 89-

669, approved October 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 930; and

Public Law 92-534, approved October 23, 1972, 86

Stat. 1063; 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) This Act

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to

administer refuges, hatcheries and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses

do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. The Act requires that any recreational use

on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System

be “compatible” with the primary purpose(s) for

which the area was acquired or established. The

Act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly

related to the area’s primary purpose(s). The Act

provided for public use fees and permits, and

penalties for violation of regulations. It also

authorized the acceptance of donations of funds

and real and personal property to assist in carrying out its purposes.

Public Law 93-205

Approved December 28, 1973 (87 Stat. 902),

authorized acquisition of lands and interests suitable for: 1) fish and wildlife-oriented recreation,

2) protection of natural resources, 3) conservation

of endangered or threatened species, or 4) carrying out two or more of the above. Such lands were

required to be adjacent to or within an existing

conservation area. Acquisition was not permitted

with “duck stamp” receipts for these purposes.

Enforcement provisions were amended by Public

Law 95-616, approved November 8, 1978 (92 Stat.

3110), and were further revised by Public Law

98-473, approved October 12, 1984 (98 Stat. 2028,

2031), which made violations misdemeanors in

accordance with the uniform sentencing provisions of that law (18 U.S.C. 3551-3586).

National Trails System Act 

(Public Law 90-543, approved October 2, 1968; 82

Stat. 919; 16 U.S.C. 1241-1249) This Act and its

subsequent amendments authorized a national

system of trails and defined four categories of

trails.

Public Law 95-625

Approved November 10, 1978, (92 Stat. 3511)

amended the NTSA to create a new category of

National Historic Trails, to closely follow original

routes of national historic significance.

National Recreation Trails may be established by

the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture on land

wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the

consent of the involved State(s), and other land

managing agencies, if any. National Scenic and

National Historic Trails may only be designated

by an Act of Congress. Connecting or Side Trails

provide access to or among the other classes of

trails.

As of 1998, the National Trails System included

20 trails (8 scenic, 12 historic), and of these, segments of 12 crossed units of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

205

Legislation is pending to add National Discovery

Trails as a new category of long-distance trails

and designate the American Discovery Trail as

the first National Discovery Trail. The American

Discovery Trail covers more than 6,000 miles

from Delaware to California and crosses through

the southern portion of Crab Orchard Refuge.

National Hunting and Fishing Day Statutes

National Hunting and Fishing Day Statutes

establishing the fourth Saturday in September of

the year indicated as National Hunting and Fishing Day include:

# 1973 – Public Law 93-23, approved April 20,

1973 (87 Stat. 24)

# 1974 – Public Law 93-424, approved September

27, 1974 (88 Stat. 1166)

# 1975 – Public Law 94-96, approved September

18, 1975 (89 Stat. 478)

In addition, P.L. 99-217, approved April 1, 1986

(100 Stat. 81), and P.L. 100-22, approved April 10,

1987 (101 Stat. 267), established the first week of

June of those years as National Fishing Week.

After 1975, private organizations have worked

directly with the White House to secure Presidential proclamations for the designation. In

1979, former President Carter designated the

third Saturday in October of that year, “and

thereafter,” as National Hunting and Fishing

Day, eliminating the need for annual proclamations. Since then, it has been the usual practice

for the President to issue a statement each year

commemorating the day.

Take Pride in America Program 

(Title XI of Public Law 101-628, signed November 28, 1990; 16 USC 4601 note; 104 Stat. 4502)

This Act established the TPIA within the Department of the Interior. The purposes of the program include: 

# Establishing and maintaining a public

awareness campaign to instill in the public an

appreciation for Federal, State, and local lands,

facilities, and cultural and natural resources.

# Conducting a national awards program to honor

individuals and entities that distinguish

themselves in the appreciation, conservation,

and stewardship of these resources. 

# Administering the “Take Pride in America”

slogan and logo. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 

(Public Law 101-619, signed November 16, 1990;

20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325) This Act established the Office of Environmental Education

within the Environmental Protection Agency to

develop and administer a Federal environmental

education program.

Responsibilities of the Office include developing

and supporting programs to improve understanding of the natural and developed environment,

and the relationships between humans and their

environment; supporting the dissemination of

educational materials; developing and supporting

training programs and environmental education

seminars; managing a Federal grant program;

and administering an environmental internship

and fellowship program. The Office is required to

develop and support environmental programs in

consultation with other Federal natural resource

management agencies, including the Fish and

Wildlife Service.

The Act requires the Education Office Advisory

Council to submit a report to Congress by

November 16, 1992, regarding obstacles to

improving environmental education programs,

including those relating to national parks and

wildlife refuges. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) 

This Act authorizes the scientific investigation of

antiquities on Federal land, subject to the stipulations outlined in permits issued to recognized

educational, scientific, and other institutions for

the purposes of systematically gathering data.

The Act provides that objects taken or collected

without a permit may result in a fine and imprisonment of the convicted person.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 470-470t) 

This Act establishes as policy that the Federal

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic

resources. Historic preservation is defined in the

Act as the protection, rehabilitation, restoration,

and reconstruction of sites, buildings, structures,

and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and archaeology. Sections
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

206

106 and 110 of the Act define the primary

requirements for Federal agencies to follow in

identifying, evaluating, and protecting significant

cultural resources.

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of

1974 (16 U.S.C. 469-469c) 

This Act directs the preservation of historic and

archaeological data in Federal construction

projects. The Act authorizes Federal agencies to

seek future appropriations, to obligate available

funding, or to reprogram existing appropriations

to provide for the identification and preservation

of data.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979,

as amended

This Act protects materials of archaeological

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction, and requires Federal managers to develop

plans and schedules to locate archaeological

resources.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),

as amended (42 USC 4321-4347; 40 CFR 1500).

This Act requires Federal agencies to examine

the impacts upon the environment that their

actions might have, to incorporate the best available environmental information, and public participation in the planning and implementation of

any major Federal action significantly affecting

the quality of the human environment. All Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other

planning 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

This Executive Order directs the Service to consult with Federal and State Historic Preservation

Officers when the Service proposes any development activities that would affect archaeological or

historic sites to comply with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

amended.

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on

Public Lands

(Signed February 8, 1972) This purpose of this

Executive Order is to establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use

of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources

of those lands, promote the safety of all users of

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the

various uses of those lands.

Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries

This Executive Order directs the Service to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic ecosystems

to provide for increased recreational fishing

opportunities nationwide. Additionally, the Order

directs the Service to provide access to, and promote awareness of, opportunities for public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational

fishery resources.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

(signed May 24, 1977) 

This Executive Order states that each Federal

agency shall, in the course of fulfilling their

respective authorities, provide leadership and

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

The purpose of this Order is to prevent Federal

agencies from contributing to the “adverse

impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect

support of floodplain development.”

Before proposing, conducting, supporting or

allowing an action in a floodplain, each agency is

to determine if planned activities will affect the

floodplain and evaluate the potential effects of the

intended actions on its functions. Agencies shall

avoid siting development in a floodplain “to avoid

adverse effects and incompatible development in

the floodplains.”

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

(Signed May 24, 1977) The purpose of this Executive Order is to avoid to the extent possible the

long and short term adverse impacts associated

with the destruction or modification of wetlands

and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

207

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review

of Federal Programs 

(Signed July 14, 1982) The purpose of this Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying

on State and local processes for the State and

local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-income Populations

(Signed February 11, 1994; 59 FR 7629; February

16, 1994; Amends: EO 12250, November 2, 1980;

Amended by: EO 12948, January 30, 1995)

Executive Order 12996, Management and General

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Signed March 25, 1996; 61 FR 13647; March 28,

1996; See: EO 13022, October 31, 1996) This

Executive Order states that the System provides

important opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and photography.

The Order also directs the Service to recognize

these compatible wildlife-dependent uses as priority general public uses of the System, and uses

through which the American public can develop

an appreciation for fish and wildlife.

Executive Order 13112, Management of Invasive

Species 

(Signed February 3, 1999) The purpose of this

Executive Order is to prevent the introduction of

invasive species and provide for their control and

to minimize the economic, ecological, and human

health impacts that invasive species cause. Each

Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive species is directed, to the extent

practicable and permitted by law, to identify such

actions; and, subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary

limits, use relevant programs and authorities to:

prevent the introduction of invasive species;

detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; monitor invasive

species populations accurately and reliably; provide for restoration of native species and habitat

conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;

conduct research on invasive species and develop

technologies to prevent introduction and provide

for environmentally sound control of invasive

species; and promote public education on invasive

species and the means to address them; and not

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it

believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-629, enacted January 3, 1975; 7

U.S.C. 2801 et. seq.; 88 Stat. 2148) This Act

requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the

cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the

authority to designate plants as noxious weeds by

regulation, and the movement of all such weeds in

interstate or foreign commerce was prohibited

except under permit. The Secretary was also

given authority to inspect, seize and destroy

products, and to quarantine areas, if necessary to

prevent the spread of such weeds. He was also

authorized to cooperate with other Federal, State

and local agencies, farmers associations and private individuals in measures to control, eradicate,

or prevent or retard the spread of such weeds.

Section 1453 of P.L. 101-624, the 1990 Farm Bill

Enacted November 28, 1990 (104 Stat 3611),

amended the Act by requiring each Federal landmanaging agency to:

# Designate an office or person adequately

trained in managing undesirable plant species

to develop and coordinate a program to control

such plants on the agency’s land;

# Establish and adequately fund this plant

management program through the agency’s

budget process;

# Complete and implement cooperative

agreements (requirements for which are

provided) with the States regarding undesirable

plants on agency land; and

# Establish integrated management systems (as

defined in the section) to control or contain

undesirable plants targeted under the

cooperative agreements.
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

208

The law also requires that any environmental

assessments or impact statements that may be

required to implement plant control agreements

must be completed within 1 year of the time the

need for the document is established.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

(26 U.S.C. 4611-4682; P.L. 96-510, December 11,

1980; 94 Stat. 2797). Major amendments were

enacted in 1983 (42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; P.L. 98-802,

August 23, 1983; 97 Stat. 485) and in 1986 (P.L. 99-

499; October 17, 1986; 100 Stat. 1613). (The two

sets of amendments reconstituted the 26 U.S.C.

4611-82 provisions into a new trust fund at 26

U.S.C. 9507 and operational provisions into the

Title 42 sections.) This Act created the Superfund

program to clean up hazardous waste sites that

pose the greatest risk to public health in the

United States and established the National Priorities List (NPL) to track them.

The 1980 statute authorized, through 1985, the

collection of taxes on crude oil and petroleum

products, certain chemicals, and hazardous

wastes. It also established liability to the U.S.

Government for damage to natural resources

over which the U.S. has sovereign rights [42

U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)] and requires the President to

designate Federal officials to act as trustees for

natural resources. Use of Superfund monies to

conduct natural resource damage assessments

was provided in section 11(c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 9611

(c)(1)].

Subchapter I of the 1983 amendments established a comprehensive system to react to

releases of hazardous substances and to determine liability and compensation for those affected

(42 U.S.C. 9601-9626). The President is authorized to notify Federal and State natural resource

trustees of potential damages to natural

resources and to coordinate related assessments

[42 U.S.C. 9604 (b)(2)]. Revisions to the national

contingency plan for removal of oil and hazardous

substances and to prioritize such releases were

required by the 1983 amendments [42 U.S.C.

9605(a)].

Amendments enacted in 1986 (known as the

Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act,

or SARA): 

# listed conditions under which a facility or vessel

owner may be authorized by the President to

conduct remedial or removal actions for the

release of hazardous substances (42 U.S.C.

9604); 

# added effects on natural resources as a criterion

for determining facilities to be placed on the

National Priorities List, and required the

National Contingency Plan to be revised to

incorporate a Hazard Ranking System (42

U.S.C. 9605);

# mandated the designation of Federal officials to

act as trustees for natural resources and to

assess damages and injury to, as well as

destruction of, or loss of, natural resources (42

U.S.C. 9607);

# stipulated that Superfund monies may only be

used for natural resource damage claims if all

administrative and judicial remedies to recover

costs from liable parties have been exhausted

(42 U.S.C. 9611);

# provided that claims cannot be made to recover

for natural resource damages unless the claim is

presented within three years after discovering

the loss (42 U.S.C. 9612);

# added a new section to clarify that Federal

facilities are subject to the same cleanup

requirements and liability standards as nongovernmental entities (42 U.S.C. 9620);

# specified that no Federal permits are required

for remedial action conducted entirely on-site

when such actions comply with the cleanup

standards (42 U.S.C. 9604); 

# required that Federal trustees be notified of any

settlement negotiations regarding damages to

natural resources, and established

circumstances under which Federal trustees

may agree not to sue for natural resource

damages (42 U.S.C. 9607); and

# eliminated the authorization for use of

Superfund monies to conduct damage

assessments - section 517 of SARA, codified at

26 U.S.C. 9507(c), and reinforced by section 531

of SARA.

The Department of the Interior is a trustee for

natural resources, and the Service is responsible

for the protection and restoration of trust

resources injured by uncontrolled releases of

hazardous materials. The Service is responsible

for conducting assessments to establish injury
Appendix C:Laws and Orders

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

209

and the dollar equivalent of that injury for collection of damages from parties responsible for

releasing hazardous materials.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

This Act requires programmatic accessibility in

addition to physical accessibility for all facilities

and programs funded by the Federal government

to ensure that anybody can participate in any

program.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

This Act requires federally owned, leased, or

funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to

persons with disabilities.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1992

This Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Bureau and agency legal and policy guidance is

found in:

1. Departmental Manual: The Departmental 

Manual can be accessed on-line at http://

elips.doi.gov/tableofcontents1.cfm

2. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual: The Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual has regulatory 

force and effect within the Service. It 

implements the Service’s authorities and the 

Director’s policies, and steps down the 

Service’s compliance with other 

requirements, such as statutes, Executive 

Orders, Departmental directives, and 

regulations of other agencies. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual can be accessed online at http://policy.fws.gov/manual.html

3. Refuge Manual: Guidance found in the earlier 

Refuge Manual may be used when the 

specific chapter of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual has not yet been published.

Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

211

Appendix D: Species List

Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

213

Appendix D: Species Lists, 

Crab Orchard NWR

This bird list contains 220 species which have

been recorded on the refuge. Another 40 species,

very rare or accidental and out of their normal

range, are listed under “Accidental” birds. This list

is based on: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994.

Birds of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge,

Illinois.

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W

# – irruptive species seen only during invasion years (2-10 year 

intervals)

* – nests on refuge

Sp – March-May

S – June-August

F – September-November

W – December-February

a – abundant: common species that is very numerous

c – common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat

u – uncommon: present but not certain to be seen

o – occasional: seen only a few times during a season

r – rare: seen only once or twice a year; some years not at all.

LOONS u - o u

Common Loon

GREBES Sp S F W

 Pied-billed Grebe u - c c

 Horned Grebe c - c o

 Eared Grebe o - - o

CORMORANTS Sp S F W

 Double-crested Cormorant c o a a

BITTERNS, HERONS Sp S F W

 American Bittern o - r -

 Great Blue Heron c c c c

 Great Egret o u u -

 Little Blue Heron u u u -

 Cattle Egret o u o -

 Green Heron* u c c -

 Black-crowned Night-Heron* r o o -

 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron r - o -
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

214

SWANS, GEESE, DUCKS Sp S F W

 Tundra Swan (Whistling Swan) o r u u

 Mute Swan r - r r

 Greater White-fronted Goose - - r o

 Snow Goose o - u u

 Canada Goose* c u a a

 Wood Duck c c c c

 Green-winged Teal o - o r

 American Black Duck c - a a

 Mallard* c c a a

 Northern Pintail o - u c

 Blue-winged Teal c u a o

 Northern Shoveler a o a c

 Gadwall a - a a

 American Wigeon c - c u

 Canvasback u - o c

 Redhead a - u o

 Ring-necked Duck a - a a

 Greater Scaup r - r -

 Lesser Scaup a - a c

 Common Goldeneye c - o a

 Bufflehead c - c c

 Hooded Merganser c - a a

 Common Merganser a - c a

 Red-breasted Merganser a - c o

 Ruddy Duck a - u c

VULTURES, HAWKS, FALCONS Sp S F W

 Turkey Vulture* c c c r

 Osprey o r o r

 Mississippi Kite rrr-

 Bald Eagle* u u c c

 Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk) o r o o

 Sharp-shinned Hawk o - u u

 Cooper's Hawk* u u u o

 Northern Goshawk r - r r

 Red-shouldered Hawk* c u u c

 Broad-winged Hawk* o u u o

 Red-tailed Hawk* c c c c

 Rough-legged Hawk o r r o

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

215

 Golden Eagle o - o o

 American Kestrel* c c c c

 Merlin r - r r

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS Sp S F W

 Wild Turkey* c c c c

 Northern Bobwhite* c c c c

RAILS Sp S F W

 Virginia Rail r r r -

 Sora o - o -

 American Coot u u c c

SHOREBIRDS Sp S F W

 American Golden-Plover c - u -

 Semipalmated Plover c - o -

 Killdeer* c c c c

 American Avocet - - o -

 Greater Yellowlegs c - u -

 Lesser Yellowlegs c u c -

 Solitary Sandpiper c o c -

 Willet r o - -

 Spotted Sandpiper* u u - -

 Semipalmated Sandpiper u - u -

 Least Sandpiper c u u -

 White-rumped Sandpiper o - r -

 Pectoral Sandpiper a c c -

 Stilt Sandpiper r - u -

 Short-billed Dowitcher o - c -

 Long-billed Dowitcher o - o -

 Common Snipe c - c o

 American Woodcock* c c c o

 Wilson's Phalarope o r o -

GULLS, TERNS Sp S F W

 Bonaparte's Gull c - u c

 Ring-billed Gull a o c a

 Herring Gull c - u c

 Caspian Tern r - r -

 Forster's Tern o - r -

 Black Tern o r u -

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

216

DOVES Sp S F W

 Rock Dove u u u u

 Mourning Dove c c c c

CUCKOOS Sp S F W

 Black-billed Cuckoo o o o -

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo u c c -

OWLS Sp S F W

 Barn Owl o o o o

 Eastern Screech-Owl* u u u u

 Great Horned Owl* c c c c

 Barred Owl* c c c c

 Short-eared Owl r - o r

GOATSUCKERS Sp S F W

 Common Nighthawk* o u o -

 Chuck-will's-widow* o o - -

 Whip-poor-will u u o -

SWIFTS, HUMMINGBIRDS Sp S F W

 Chimney Swift* c c c -

 Ruby-throated Hummingbird* u c o -

KINGFISHERS Sp S F W

 Belted Kingfisher* u u u u

WOODPECKERS Sp S F W

 Red-headed Woodpecker* u u u u

 Red-bellied Woodpecker* c c c c

 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker o - o r

 Downy Woodpecker* c c c c

 Hairy Woodpecker* o o o o

 Northern Flicker (Common 

Flicker)*

cccc

 Pileated Woodpecker* o o o o

FLYCATCHERS Sp S F W

 Olive-sided Flycatcher r - r -

 Eastern Wood-Pewee* c c u u

 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher r - r -

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

217

 Acadian Flycatcher* o u u -

 Alder Flycatcher* r - r -

 Willow Flycatcher r - r -

 Least Flycatcher o - o -

 Eastern Phoebe* c c c o

 Great Crested Flycatcher* c c r -

 Eastern Kingbird* c c o -

LARKS Sp S F W

 Horned Lark* o o o o

SWALLOWS Sp S F W

 Purple Martin* c c o -

 Tree Swallow* c c c -

 Northern Rough-winged Swallow* u c u -

 Bank Swallow o - - -

 Cliff Swallow* c c o -

 Barn Swallow* c c u -

JAYS, CROWS Sp S F W

 Blue Jay* a a a a

 American Crow* c c c -

 Fish Crow o o o o

CHICKADEES Sp S F W

 Carolina Chickadee* c c c c

 Tufted Titmouse* c c c c

NUTHATCHES Sp S F W

 Red-breasted Nuthatch o - o u

 White-breasted Nuthatch u o u u

CREEPERS Sp S F W

 Brown Creeper o - o o

WRENS Sp S F W

 Carolina Wren* c c c u

 House Wren* c c c -

 Winter Wren o o o -

 Sedge Wren o o o -

 Marsh Wren r - r -

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

218

KINGLETS Sp S F W

 Golden-crowned Kinglet u - u u

 Ruby-crowned Kinglet u - u u

 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* c c o -

THRUSHES Sp S F W

 Eastern Bluebird* c c c c

 Veery o - r -

 Gray-cheeked Thrush u - u -

 Swainson's Thrush o - o -

 Hermit Thrush o - u r

 Wood Thrush* o u r -

 American Robin* c c c u

THRASHERS Sp S F W

 Gray Catbird* c c c -

 Northern Mockingbird* c c c c

 Brown Thrasher* c c c o

WAXWINGS Sp S F W

 Cedar Waxwing* c u u c

SHRIKES Sp S F W

 Loggerhead Shrike u u u u

STARLINGS Sp S F W

 European Starling* a a a a

VIREOS Sp S F W

 White-eyed Vireo* c c u -

 Bell's Vireo r r - -

 Yellow-throated Vireo* o u o -

 Warbling Vireo* c c o -

 Red-eyed Vireo* u u o -

WOOD WARBLERS Sp S F W

 Blue-winged Warbler o r r -

 Golden-winged Warbler o r - r

 Tennessee Warbler u - o -

 Nashville Warbler r - r -

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

219

 Northern Parula* c c u -

 Yellow Warbler* o o - -

 Chestnut-sided Warbler o - o -

 Magnolia Warbler o - o -

 Cape May Warbler r - r -

 Yellow-rumped Warbler u - u o

 Black-throated Green Warbler o - o -

 Blackburnian Warbler o r r -

 Pine Warbler* o u o -

 Prairie Warbler* u u o -

 Palm Warbler o - o -

 Bay-breasted Warbler u - o -

 Blackpoll Warbler u - r -

 Cerulean Warbler* o r - -

 Black-and-white Warbler o r o -

 American Redstart o r o -

 Prothonotary Warbler* u u r -

 Worm-eating Warbler r - r -

 Ovenbird o r r -

 Northern Waterthrush o - o -

 Louisiana Waterthrush u u r -

 Kentucky Warbler* u u r -

 Common Yellowthroat* c c c r

 Hooded Warbler o - r -

 Wilson's Warbler o - o -

 Canada Warbler o - r -

 Yellow-breasted Chat* u u o -

TANAGERS Sp S F W

 Summer Tanager* u u o -

 Scarlet Tanager* u u o -

SPARROWS Sp S F W

 Northern Cardinal* a a a a

 Rose-breasted Grosbeak o - o -

 Blue Grosbeak* o o o -

 Indigo Bunting* a a a -

 Dickcissel* u u - -

 Rufous-sided Towhee* c c c u

 American Tree Sparrow* c - o c

 Chipping Sparrow* u u o -

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

220

Accidental Species:

Least Bittern

Vermillion Flycatcher

Glossy Ibis

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Sandhill Crane

Bewick's Wren

Whooper Swan

Rock Wren

Trumpeter Swan

Water Pipit

Oldsquaw

Solitary Vireo

White-winged Scoter

Philadelphia Vireo

Black Vulture

Orange-crowned Warbler

Common Moorhen

Black-throated Blue Warbler

 Field Sparrow* u u o -

 Savannah Sparrow o - u o

 Grasshopper Sparrow* o o r -

 Le Conte's Sparrow o - o u

 Fox Sparrow o - r u

 Song Sparrow* u o o c

 Swamp Sparrow u - u u

 White-throated Sparrow c - c c

 White-crowned Sparrow c - c c

 Dark-eyed Junco a - c a

MEADOWLARKS, BLACKBIRDS, ORIOLESSp S F W

 Red-winged Blackbird* c c a c

 Eastern Meadowlark* c c c c

 Common Grackle* c c a c

 Brown-headed Cowbird* c c c c

 Orchard Oriole* u u o -

 Baltimore Oriole* u u o -

FINCHES Sp S F W

 House Finch c c c c

 Purple Finch c - u c

 Pine Siskin# o - o o

 American Goldfinch* c c c c

 Evening Grosbeak# o - - o

OLD WORLD SPARROWS Sp S F W

 House Sparrow* c c c c 

Bird Species Found on Crab Orchard NWR

Species Sp S F W
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

221

Black-bellied Plover

Mourning Warbler

Ruddy Turnston

Connecticut Warbler

Dunlin

Swainson's Warbler

Sanderling

Henslow's Sparrow

Baird's Sandpiper

Vesper Sparrow

Upland Sandpiper

Lark Sparrow

Franklin's Gull

Lincoln's Sparrow

Laughing GullLapland Longspur

Black-headed Gull

Pine Grosbeak

Sabine's Gull

Red Crossbill

Least Tern

Rusty Blackbird

 
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

222

Potential Reptile and Amphibian Check List for Crab Orchard 

National Wildlife Refuge

Common Name Scientific Name Class Residence Status on 

Refuge

Habitat

Salamanders

spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum A B, W U W, BF, UF

 marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum A B, W U W, BF

smallmouth salamander Ambystoma texanum A B, W U W, BF

tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum A B, W U W, UF, BF

eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens A B, W U W, BF

northern slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus A B, W C UF, BF, RB

lesser siren Siren intermedia A B, W U W, S

Toads and Frogs

cricket frog Acris crepitans A B, W A W, RB, R, UF, 

S, BF 

American toad Bufo americanus A B, W C W, RB, UF, PF, 

BF

Fowler=s toad Bufo fowleri A B, W C W, RB, UF, PF, 

BF

green treefrog Hyla cinerea A B, W U W, R, BF 

gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis / versicolor A B, W C W, UF, BF, PF

spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer A B, W C W, UF, BF

upland chorus frog Pseudacris feriarum A B, W C W, RB, UF, BF

crawfish frog Rana areolata A B, W R W

bullfrog Rana catesbeiana A B, W A W, R, BF, S

green frog Rana clamitans A B, W C W, R, BF, S

southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala A B, W A W, R, BF, S

wood frog Rana sylvatica A B, W R W, BF

eastern spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii A B, W R W, BF

Turtles 

snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina R B, W C W, R, S

painted turtle Chrysemys picta R B, W C W, S

eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina R B, W A RB, UF, PF, BF

red-eared slider Trachemys scripta R B, W C W, R, S

eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum R B, W U W, BF

common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus R B, W C W, BF

spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera R B, W U W, R, S

Lizards

fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus R B, W U UF, RB, BF

ground skink Scincella lateralis R B, W C UF, RB, BF

five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus R B, W C UF, RB, BF 

six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus R B, W R RB

Snakes

worm snake Carphophis amoenus R B, W U RB, UF, BF

racer Coluber constrictor R B, W C RB, UF, PF, BF
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

223

ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus R B, W U RB, UF, BF 

rat snake Elaphe obsoleta R B, W C RB, UF, PF, BF

mud snake Farancia abacura R B, W R W

eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos R B, W U RB, UF, PF, BF

prairie kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster R B, W C RB

common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula R B, W U RB, UF, BF 

plainbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster R B, W C W, R, S 

diamondback water snake Nerodia rhombifer R B, W C W, R, S 

midland water snake Nerodia sipedon R B, W C W, R, S

rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus R B, W U RB, UF, BF, PF

brown snake Storeria dekayi R B, W U RB, UF, BF

redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata R B, W R RB, UF, BF

common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis R B, W C W, S, RB, UF, 

BF

smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae R B, W R RB, UF, BF

copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix R B, W U RB, UF, BF

Total Amphibians = 20 Total Reptiles = 28

Potential Reptile and Amphibian Check List for Crab Orchard 

National Wildlife Refuge

Common Name Scientific Name Class Residence Status on 

Refuge

Habitat
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

224

Mammal Checklist, CrabOrchard NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Status on Refuge

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana C

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris U

Southern short-tailed shrew Blarina carolinensis U

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva U

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus U

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus U

Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis U

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis unknown

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans U

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus U

Big brown bat eptesicus fuscus U

Red bat Lasiurus borealis U

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus U

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis unknown

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus U

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus U

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus U

Woodchuck Marmota monax U

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis A

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger A

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans U

Beaver Castor canadensis C

Marsh rice rat oryzomys palustris unknown

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus U

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus U

Cotton mouse peromyscus gossypinus U

Golden mouse Peromyscus nuttalli R

Prairie vole microtus ochrogaster U

Woodland (pine) vole Microtus pinetorum U

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus U

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus U

House mouse Mus musculus U

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius U

Coyote Canis latrans U

Red fox Vulpes fulva U

Gray fox urocyon cinereoargenteus R

Raccoon Procyon lotor C

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata U

Mink Mustela vison U

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis C

River otter Lutra canadensis R

Bobcat Felis rufus U

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus C
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

225

Class Code Type Code Status Code Habitat Code

A= Agnatha

C= Chondricthyes

O= Osteichthyes

A= anadromous

C= catadromous

F= freshwater

S= saltwater

A= Abundant, a common species that is very common

C= Common, certain to be seen or encountered in suitable habitat

U= Uncommon, present but not always seen

R= Rare, seen only occasionally

S= Stocked populations

L= Lake

R= River

P= Pone

SL=Slough

S=Stream

Names of the fish herein are after: Mayden, R.L. 1992. Systematics, Historical Ecology, & North American 

Freshwater Fishes. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. Fish distribution data were collected 

from the following sources:Runyon, K.R. 1997. Determination of the effects of discharge from Little Grassy 

Fish Hatchery on Little Grassy Creek. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 82p.U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey of the fish of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. An intensive survey of the Big Muddy River Basin.Additional presence, absence 

and distributional data was obtained from the ichthyology museum at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 

Fish Species of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

Common Name Scientific Name Class Type Status on Refuge Habitat Exotic or 

Native

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus OFU L N

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OFU R N

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus OFR S N

Blackspotted topminnow Fundulus olivaceus O F C S,L,P,R N

Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus O F C S,L,P,R N

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus O F A L,S,SL,P,R N

Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosomum O F R S,R N

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus O F A L,S,R N

Bowfin Amia calva O F C L,SL,P,R N

Brown trout Salmo trutta O F U,S L E

Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus O F C L,S,R N

Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax O F U S,SL N

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum O F U S,R N

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus O F C S,L,P,R N

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus O F C S,SL N

Common carp Cyprinus carpio O F A L,S,SL,P,R E

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus O F C S,R N

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas O F U S,SL N

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris O F U,S L E

Flier Centrarchus macropterus O F U S,SL N

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens OFU R N

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum O F A L,S,R N

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Grass pickeral Esox americanus O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Hybrid stripedbass O F U,S L E

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum O F U S,R N

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

Logperch Percina caprodes O F U L,S N

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis O F C L,S,P,R N
Appendix D:Species List

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

226

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis O F A L,S,SL,P,R N

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis O F U L,S,SL,P,R N

Orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectabile O F U S,R N

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula AFR R N

Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus O F U S,SL N

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss O F U,S L E

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis O F C S,R N

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus O F C L,S,P,R N

Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis O F U S,R N

Ribbon Shiner Lythrurus fumeus O F R S,R N

River darter Percina shumardi OFR R N

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus OFR R N

Slough darter Etheostoma gracile O F U S,SL N

Small mouth bass Micropterus dolomieu O F R,S L E

Small mouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OFU R N

Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus OFR S N

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops O F C L,S,R N

Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei O F U L,S,R N

Striped bass Morone saxatilis O F C,S L,R E

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus O F U S,R N

Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense O F C,S L E

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum O F U,S L E

Walleye x sauger hybrid O F U,S L E

Warmouth Chaenobryttus gulosus O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

White bass Morone chrysops O F C L,S,R N

White crappie Pomoxis annularis O F C L,S,SL,P,R N

White sucker Catostomus commersoni O F U L,S,R N

Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis O F C L,R N

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis O F U L,S,SL,P,R N

Yellow perch Perca flavescens OFC L N

TOTALSPECIESCOUNT=61

Fish Species of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

Common Name Scientific Name Class Type Status on Refuge Habitat Exotic or 

Native
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

227

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR 

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence

Lycopodiales Lycopodiaceae C Clubmoss ground-cedar Lycopodium complanatum 

var. flabelliforme

U 

Isoetales Isoetaceae C Quillwort black quillwort Isoetes melanopoda U 

Equisetales Equisetaceae C Horsetail common horsetail [field horsetail] Equisetum arvense LC 

Equisetales Equisetaceae C Horsetail scouring rush Equisetum hyemale affine LA 

Ophioglossales Ophioglossaceae C Adder=stongue bronze fern [cut-leaved grape fern] Botrychium dissectum dis- sectum U 

Ophioglossales Ophioglossaceae C Adder=stongue bronze fern [grape fern] Botrychium dissectum obliq- uum LC 

Ophioglossales Ophioglossaceae C Adder=stongue rattlesnake fern Botrychium virginianum C 

Ophioglossales Ophioglossaceae C Adder=stongue adder=s-tongue fern Ophioglossum vulgatum pycnostichumm O 

Ficales Osmundaceae C Royal Fern interrupted fern Osmunda claytoniana R Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern resurrection fern Polypodium polypodioides U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern polypody Polypodium virginianum LC 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern maidenhair fern Adiantum pedatum LC 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern pinnatifid [lobed] spleenwort Asplenium pinnatifidum R 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron C 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern walking fern Asplenium rhizophyllum LC 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern maidenhair spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes ssp. 

trichomanes

U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern lady fern Athyrium angustum U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern southern lady fern Athyrium asplenioides U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern glade fern [narrow-leaved

spleenwort]

Athyrium pycnocarpon U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern silvery spleenwort Athyrium thelypterioides U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern fragile fern Cystopteris protrusa LA 
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

228

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern Tennessee fragile fern Cystopteris X tennesseensis R 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern Goldie=s fern Dryopteris goldiana U 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern marginal shield fern [leather

fern]

Dryopteris marginalis LC 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis O 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides LC 

Ficales Polypodiaceae C Fern blunt-lobed woodsia [common

woodsia]

Woodsia obtusa O-C 

Ginkgoales GinkgoaceaeC Ginkgo ginkgo [maidenhair tree] Ginkgo biloba tree R 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine shortleaf pine Pinus echinata tree A 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine loblolly pine Pinus taeda tree C 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine Virginia pine [scrub, Jersey,

poverty pine]

Pinus virginiana tree C 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris tree R 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa tree R 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine eastern white pine Pinus strobus tree R 

Coniferales Pinaceae C Pine Norway spruce Picea abies tree R 

Coniferales Taxodiaceae C Baldcypress baldcypress Taxodium distichum tree O Coniferales Cupressaceae C Cypress eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana tree LC 

Typhales Typhaceae C Cat-tail narrow-leaved cat-tail Typha angustifolia 

Typhales Typhaceae C Cat-tail common cat-tail Typha latifolia 

Najadales Potamogetonaceae C Pondweed waterthread pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius O 

Najadales Potamogetonaceae C Pondweed leafy pondweed Potamogeton foliosus U 

Najadales Potamogetonaceae C Pondweed American pondweed Potamogeton nodosus LC 

Alismatales Alismaceae C Water Plantain arrowhead [arrowleaf] Sagittaria calycina R 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

229

Alismatales Alismaceae C Water Plantain water plantain [small-flowered water plantain] Alisma plantago-aquatica parviflorum R(1) C 

Hydrocharitales Hydrocharitaceae C Frog=sbit anacharis [Canadian water- weed] Elodea canadensis U 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass giant cane Arundinaria gigantea shrub U Cyperales Poaceae C Grass goose grass [yard grass] Eleusine indica LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass three-flowered melic grass Melica nitens U Cyperales Poaceae C Grass orchard grass Dactylis glomerata C Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bluegrass Poa angustifolia R Cyperales Poaceae C Grass annual bluegrass [low speargrass] Poa annua O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Canadian bluegrass Poa compressa O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass woodland bluegrass Poa sylvestris U Cyperales Poaceae C Grass chess [field brome] Bromus arvensis LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass hairy brome [hairy chess] Bromus commutatus LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass awnless brome [Hungarian,

smooth brome]

Bromus inermis O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Japanese brome [Japanese

chess]

Bromus japonicus LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Canada brome [woodland

brome]

Bromus pubescens O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bald brome [chess] Bromus racemosus LA Cyperales Poaceae C Grass cheat grass brome [downy

brome]

Bromus tectorum LA 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass fowl manna grass Glyceria striata LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass purple-top [false red-top, tall

red-top]

Tridens flavus A 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass lace grass Eragrostis capillaris O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

230

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass stink grass [stinking love

grass]

Eragrostis cilianensis O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass sandbar love grass Eragrostis frankii U 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Carolina love grass [small love

grass]

Eragrostis pectinacea LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass purple love grass [sand love

grass]

Eragrostis spectabilis O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass nodding fescue Festuca obtusa O Cyperales Poaceae C Grass English bluegrass [meadow

fescue]

Festuca pratensis O-LA 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass curly grass [poverty oat

grass]

Danthonia spicata LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass shining wedge grass Sphenopholis nitida R Cyperales Poaceae C Grass prairie wedge grass [prairie

wedgescale]

Sphenopholis obtusata O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bearded wheat [wheat] Triticum aestivum R 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass little barley [small wild barley] Hordeum pusillum LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bottlebrush grass Elymus histrix 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass hairy wild rye [silky wild rye,

slender wild rye]

Elymus villosus 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass lyme grass [Virginia wild rye] Elymus virginicus virginicus 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass lyme grass [Virginia wild rye] Elymus virginicus glabriflorus Cyperales Poaceae C Grass giant foxtail [nodding foxtail] Setaria faberii LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass pigeon grass [yellow foxtail] Setaria glauca O-LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass common foxtail [green foxtail] Setaria viridis O Cyperales Poaceae C Grass barnyard grass Echinochloa muricata LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bead grass [hairy lens grass] Paspalum ciliatifolium LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

231

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bead grass Paspalum dissectum R Cyperales Poaceae C Grass smooth lens grass Paspalum laeve LA Cyperales Poaceae C Grass bead grass [hairy seed

paspalum]

Paspalum pubiflorum O-LA 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass panic grass Panicum anceps LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass fall panicum [knee grass] Panicum dichotomiflorum LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass panic grass Panicum gattingeri LA Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Munro grass Panicum rigidulum LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass smooth crab grass Digitaria ischaemum LA Cyperales Poaceae C Grass hairy crab grass [common

crab grass]

Digitaria sanguinalis LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass stoutwood reed Cinna arundinacea O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass red top Agrostis alba LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass tickle-grass [hair grass, winter bent grass] Agrostis hyemalis LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass autumn bent grass [upland

bent grass]

Agrostis perennans C 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass muhly Muhlenbergia bushii R 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass common satin grass [nimble

will, wirestem muhly]

Muhlenbergia frondosa LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass nimble will Muhlenbergia schreberi LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass muhly [rock satin grass] Muhlenbergia sobolifera O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass three-awn Aristida longispica O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass plains three-awn [prairie

three-awn, wire grass]

Aristida oligantha LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass timothy Phleum pratense O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass dropseed [rough dropseed,

tall dropseed]

Sporobolus asper U 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

232

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass northern rush grass [poverty

dropseed]

Sporobolus vaginiflorus LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass long-awned wood grass Brachyelytrum erectum O 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass white grass Leersia virginica O Cyperales Poaceae C Grass silver plume grass Erianthus alopecuroides LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Indian grass [yellow Indian

grass]

Sorghastrum nutans LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Johnsongrass [Egyptian millet] Sorghum halepense LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass Elliott=s broom-sedge Andropogon elliotii LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass big bluestem [turkeyfoot] Andropogon gerardii LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass broom-sedge Andropogon virginicus C Cyperales Poaceae C Grass little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 

[Andropogon scoparius]

LC 

Cyperales Poaceae C Grass gama grass Tripsacum dactyloides LC Cyperales Poaceae C Grass corn [maize] Zea mays LACyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge bearded flat sedge Cyperus aristatus O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge chufa [ground almond, nut

sedge, yellow nutgrass]

Cyperus esculentus LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge slender flatsedge Cyperus ferruginescens O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge fern flatsedge Cyperus filiculmis R 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge hedgehog club rush Cyperus ovularis O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge straw colored flatsedge Cyperus strigosus LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge needle spike rush Eleocharis acicularis LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge spike rush Eleocharis elliptica elliptica U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Eleocharis obtusa LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

233

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge hair sedge [threadleaf beakseed] Bulbostylis capillaris U

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge dark green rush [green bulrush] Scirpus atrovirens LC

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge wool grass Scirpus cyperinus LC

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge red bulrush Scirpus pendulus O

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge great bulrush Scirpus acutus R 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge nut-rush Scleria pauciflora R 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex albursina O-C 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex artitecta C 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge woodland sedge Carex blanda O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex bushii C 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Carex cephalophora O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Carex convoluta O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge fringed sedge Carex crinita O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex cristatella U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex digitalis U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Emory sedge Carex emoryi U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex festucacea O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex frankii O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex glaucodea C 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex hirsutella LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge bottlebrush sedge Carex hystricina LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge grass sedge Carex jamesii O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex lurida LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Mead sedge Carex meadii U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex muhlenbergii C 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

234

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex normalis O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex oligocarpa R 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge Pennsylvania sedge Carex pennsylvanica LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex physorhyncha LC 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex retroflexa O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex rosea O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge broom sedge Carex scoparia U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex styloflexa U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex tenera U 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex texensis O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex torta LA 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex tribuloides O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge sedge Carex umbellata O 

Cyperales Cyperaceae C Sedge fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea LC 

Arales Araceae C Arum green dragon Arisaema dracontium O 

Arales Araceae C Arum jack-in-the-pulpit [Indian turnip] Arisaema triphyllum C-O 

Arales Araceae C Arum sweet flag [flag root, calamus] Acorus americanus U 

Arales Lemnaceae C Duckweed Columbian water-meal [common water-meal] Wolffia columbiana LA 

Arales Lemnaceae C Duckweed big duckweed [common

ducksmeat, duckweed]

Spirodela polyrhiza LA 

Arales Lemnaceae C Duckweed duckweed Wolffiella gladiata LA 

Commelinales Commelinaceae C Spiderwort spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis U 

Commelinales Commelinaceae C Spiderwort common spiderwort Tradescantia virginiana C 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

235

Commelinales Commelinaceae C Spiderwort wide-leaved spiderwort Tradescantia subaspera LC 

Commelinales Commelinaceae C Spiderwort common dayflower Commelina communis LC 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush knotty-leaved rush [tapertip

rush]

Juncus acuminatus LC 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush two-flowered rush Juncus biflorus LC 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush rush Juncus brachycarpus LA 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush Dudley rush Juncus dudleyi O 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush common rush Juncus effusus solutus O 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush inland rush Juncus interior U 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush rush Juncus nodatus U 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush rush Juncus secundus O 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush path rush [poverty rush] Juncus tenuis LA 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush Torrey rush Juncus torreyi LC 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush common wood rush Luzula multiflora multiflora C 

Juncales Juncaceae C Rush wood rush Luzula multiflora echinata O 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily large-flowered bellwort [big

merry bells]

Uvularia grandiflora O 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily field garlic Allium vineale A 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily wild garlic [wild onion] Allium canadense LA Liliales Liliaceae C Lily garlic [garlic onion] Allium sativum O Liliales Liliaceae C Lily false garlic [crow poison] Nothoscordum bivalve LC Liliales Liliaceae C Lily orange day-lily [day-lily] Hemerocallis fulva LC Liliales Liliaceae C Lily Turk=s-cap lily [Michigan lily] Lilium michiganense U 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily superb lily [Turk=s-cap lily] Lilium superbum R 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily yellow dog-tooth violet [yellow

adder=s tongue]

Erythronium americanum LA 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

236

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily common star-of-Bethlehem

[dove=s dung]

Ornithogalum umbellatum LC 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily yucca [Adam=s needle, Spanish bayonet] Yucca flaccida U 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily asparagus [garden asparagus] Asparagus officinalis O Liliales Liliaceae C Lily false Solomon=s-seal [wild

spikenard]

Smilacina racemosa LA 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily small Solomon=s-seal Polygonatum biflorum O 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily great Solomon=s-seal Polygonatum commutatum U 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily red trillium [recurved wakerobin] Trillium recurvatum C 

Liliales Liliaceae C Lily white trillium [declined trillium] Trillium flexipes LC 

Liliales Smilacaceae C Greenbrier greenbrier [catbrier, bullbrier] Smilax bona-nox U 

Liliales Smilacaceae C Greenbrier greenbrier [catbrier] Smilax glauca LC 

Liliales Smilacaceae C Greenbrier bristly greenbrier [catbrier] Smilax hispida O 

Liliales Smilacaceae C Greenbrier carrion flower Smilax pulverulenta O 

Liliales Smilacaceae C Greenbrier greenbrier [catbrier] Smilax rotundifolia U 

Liliales Dioscoreaceae C Yam wild yam Dioscorea villosa LC 

Liliales Dioscoreaceae C Yam wild yam Dioscorea quaternata C 

Liliales Dioscoreaceae C Yam Chinese yam [cinnamon vine] Dioscorea oppositifolia [D. 

batatas]

U 

Liliales Amaryllidaceae C Amaryllis common goldstargrass [yellow stargrass] Hypoxis hirsuta LC 

Liliales Amaryllidaceae C Amaryllis daffodil Narcissus pseudo-narcissus LC 

Liliales Amaryllidaceae C Amaryllis poet=s narcissus Narcissus poeticus U 

Liliales Iridaceae C Iris blackberry lily Belamcanda chinensis U Liliales Iridaceae C Iris flag [German iris, fleur-de-lis] Iris X germanica O

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

237

Liliales Iridaceae C Iris blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium albidum OLiliales Iridaceae C Iris common blue-eyed grass

[stout blue-eyed grass]

Sisyrinchium angustifolium O

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid nodding ladies-tresses Spiranthes cernua O-LC

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid little ladies-tresses Spiranthes tuberosa U

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid rattlesnake plantain Goodyera pubescens R

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid large twayblade [lily twayblade, purple twayblade] Liparis lilifolia LC-O

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid puttyroot orchid [Adam-andEve] Aplectrum hyemale LC-O

Orchidales Orchidaceae C Orchid Wister=s coral-root orchid

[coral root]

Corallorhiza wisteriana R

Piperales Saururaceae C Lizard-tail lizard=s-tail Saururus cernuus LC

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow black willow Salix nigra tree C 

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow brittle willow [crack willow] Salix fragilis O 

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow prairie willow [dwarf prairie

willow]

Salix humilis R 

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow sandbar willow Salix exigua [S. interior] O 

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow white poplar Populus alba tree O 

Salicales Salicaceae C Willow eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides tree C 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut butternut [white walnut] Juglans cinerea tree R 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut black walnut Juglans nigra tree O 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut shagbark hickory [scaly-bark

hickory]

Carya ovata tree O-C 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut shellbark hickory [kingnut

hickory]

Carya laciniosa tree R 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa tree O 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut pignut hickory Carya glabra tree C 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

238

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut small pignut hickory [false

shagbark hickory]

Carya ovalis tree C 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis tree C 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut black hickory Carya texana tree R 

Juglandales Juglandaceae C Walnut pecan Carya illinoensis tree O 

Fagales Betulaceae C Birch river birch [red birch] Betula nigra tree C Fagales Betulaceae C Birch common alder [smooth alder] Alnus serrulata tree R Fagales Betulaceae C Birch eastern hophornbeam [ironwood] Ostrya virginiana tree C Fagales Betulaceae C Birch American hornbeam [bluebeech] Carpinus caroliniana tree R Fagales Betulaceae C Birch hazelnut [American filbert] Corylus americana shrub O Fagales Fagaceae C Beech American beech [beech] Fagus grandifolia caroliniana tree O 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech American chestnut Castanea dentata tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech Chinese chestnut (various

hybrids)

Castanea mollissima tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech white oak Quercus alba tree C 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech post oak Quercus stellata tree A 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech bur oak [mossy cup oak] Quercus macrocarpa tree O 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech swamp white oak Quercus bicolor tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech swamp chestnut oak [cow oak,

basket oak]

Quercus michauxii tree C 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech chinkapin oak [yellow chestnut oak] Quercus prinoides acumi- nata [Q. muehlenbergii] tree O 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech northern red oak Quercus rubra tree C 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech pin oak Quercus palustris tree A 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech scarlet oak Quercus coccinea tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech black oak [yellow-barked oak] Quercus velutina tree C-O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

239

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech southern red oak [Spanish

oak]

Quercus falcata tree O 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech cherrybark oak Quercus pagoda tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech blackjack oak Quercus marilandica tree O 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech willow oak Quercus phellos tree R 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech shingle oak Quercus imbricaria tree A 

Fagales Fagaceae C Beech Shumard oak Quercus shumardii tree O 

Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm sugarberry Celtis laevigata tree R Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm common hackberry Celtis occidentalis tree C Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm dwarf hackberry Celtis tenuifolia var. georgiana tree R Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm slippery elm [red elm] Ulmus rubra tree O Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm American elm Ulmus americana tree C Utricales Ulmaceae C Elm winged elm Ulmus alata tree C Utricales Moraceae C Mulberry osage-orange [hedge-apple] Maclura pomifera tree O Utricales Moraceae C Mulberry red mulberry Morus rubra tree O Utricales Moraceae C Mulberry white mulberry Morus alba tree O 

Utricales Moraceae C Mulberry paper-mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera shrub O Utricales Urticaceae C Nettle Canada wood nettle [wood

nettle]

Laportea canadensis LA 

Utricales Urticaceae C Nettle Pennsylvania pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica U 

Utricales Urticaceae C Nettle false nettle Boehmeria cylindrica LC 

Utricales Urticaceae C Nettle Canada clearweed [coolwort,

richweed]

Pilea pumila LC 

Aristolochiales Aristolochiaceae C Birthwort Virginia snakeroot [birthwort] Aristolochia serpentaria O 

Aristolochiales Aristolochiaceae C Birthwort Canada wild ginger Asarum canadense reflexum C-LA 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat slender knotweed Polygonum tenue C 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat knotweed Polygonum aviculare LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

240

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat copse bindweed [false buckwheat] Polygonum cristatum [P. scandens dumetorum] O 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat Virginia knotweed Polygonum virginianum C 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat curttop lady=s thumb [pale

smartweed]

Polygonum lapathifolium O 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat Pennsylvania smartweed

[common smartweed]

Polygonum pensylvanicum laevigatum

O 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat mild water pepper [swamp

smartweed]

Polygonum hydropiperoides LA 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat bristly smartweed [smartweed] Polygonum setaceum inter- jectum U 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum LC 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat spotted lady=s thumb Polygonum persicaria U 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat creeping smartweed Polygonum cespitosum longisetum LC 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat common sorrel [red sorrel,

sheep sorrel]

Rumex acetosella LC 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat bitter dock [blunt-leaved

dock, broad-leaved dock]

Rumex obtusifolius U 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat curly dock [sour dock, yellow

dock]

Rumex crispus O 

Polygonales Polygonaceae C Buckwheat pale dock [smooth dock, water

dock]

Rumex altissimus R 

Caryophyllales Chenopodiaceae C Goosefoot goosefoot Chenopodium standleyanum 

[C. boscianum]

U 

Caryophyllales Chenopodiaceae C Goosefoot lamb=s-quarters Chenopodium album O-LC 

Caryophyllales Amaranthaceae C Amaranth pigweed Amaranthus sp.

Caryophyllales Phytolaccaceae C Pokeweed pokeweed Phytolacca americana O-LC 

Caryophyllales Portulacaceae C Purslane common garden purslane Portulaca oleracea LC Caryophyllales Portulacaceae C Purslane spring beauty Claytonia virginica LA 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

241

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink nodding mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium nutans O 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium pumilum O 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink common mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium vulgatum LC 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink common chickweed Stellaria media LA 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink thyme-leaved sandwort Arenaria serpyllifolia O 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink jagged chickweed Holosteum umbellatum U 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink Debtford pink Dianthus armeria LC 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink sleepy catchfly Silene antirrhina O 

Caryophyllales Caryophyllaceae C Pink starry campion Silene stellata O 

Magnoliales Magnoliaceae C Magnolia yellow-poplar [tulip-tree,

tulip-poplar]

Liriodendron tulipifera tree O-LC 

Magnoliales Annonaceae C Custard-apple common pawpaw [banana

tree]

Asimina triloba small

tree

LC 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup wild columbine Aquilegia canadensis R 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup dwarf larkspur [wild larkspur] Delphinium tricorne LC 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup virgin=s bower Clematis virginiana O 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup bristly buttercup Ranunculus hispidus C 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup early buttercup Ranunculus fascicularis LC 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup hooked buttercup Ranunculus recurvatus O 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup little-leaf buttercup [smallflowered crowfoot] Ranunculus abortivus abor- tivus C 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup small-flowered crowfoot Ranunculus abortivus acrolasius U 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup small-flowered crowfoot Ranunculus micranthus O 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis LC 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup tall anemone Anemone virginiana O 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup doll=s-eyes [white baneberry] Actaea pachypoda LC 

Ranunculales Ranunculaceae C Buttercup false rue-anemone Isopyrum biternatum LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

242

Ranunculales Berberidaceae C Barberry mayapple Podophyllum peltatum LA 

Ranunculales Berberidaceae C Barberry blue cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides U 

Ranunculales Berberidaceae C Barberry Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii shrub R 

Ranunculales Menispermaceae C Moonvine moonseed Menispermum canadense O 

Ranunculales Menispermaceae C Moonvine cupseed Calycocarpum lyonii R 

Nymphaeales Nelumbonaceae C Lotus American lotus [giant lotus

lily]

Nelumbo lutea LC

Nymphaeales Nymphaeaceae C Waterlily spatterdock Nuphar luteum LA 

Nymphaeales Ceratophyllaceae C Hornwort coontail [hornwort] Ceratophyllum demersum U 

Magnoliales Lauraceae C Laurel common sassafras [red sassafras, white sassafras] Sassafras albidum tree C 

Magnoliales Lauraceae C Laurel spicebush [feverbush, wild allspice] Lindera benzoin shrub LA 

Papaverales Papaveraceae C Poppy bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis C 

Papaverales Papaveraceae C Poppy Celandine poppy [wood

poppy]

Stylophorum diphyllum LA 

Papaverales Papaveraceae C Poppy Celandine Chelidonium majus 

Papaverales Fumariaceae C Fumitory pale corydalis Corydalis flavula LA 

Papaverales Fumariaceae C Fumitory squirrel-corn Dicentra canadensis LA 

Papaverales Fumariaceae C Fumitory Dutchman=s-breeches Dicentra cucullaria C 

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard mouse-eared cress Arabidopsis thaliana O 

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard smooth rock cress Arabis laevigata LCCapparales Cruciferae C Mustard wintercress [yellow rocket] Barbarea vulgaris O Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard bird=s rape [field mustard,

turnip]

Brassica rapa R 

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard shepherd=s-purse Capsella bursa-pastoris O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

243

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard Pennsylvania bitter cress Cardamine pensylvanica LC Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard hairy bitter cress Cardamine hirsuta O Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard small-flowered bitter cress Cardamine parviflora arenicola U Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard toothwort [pepper-root] Dentaria laciniata LA Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard short-fruited Whitlow-grass Draba brachycarpa O Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard mouse-eared Whitlow-grass

[vernal Whitlow-grass]

Eriophila verna O 

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard common peppergrass [poorman=s pepper] Lepidium virginicum O-LA 

Capparales Cruciferae C Mustard field peppergrass [field cress] Lepidium campestre O Hamamelidales Hamamelidaceae C Witchhazel sweetgum [red gum] Liquidambar styraciflua tree O-LA 

Hamamelidales Platanaceae C Planetree American sycamore [buttonwod] Platanus occidentalis tree LC Rosales Crassulaceae C Stonecrop widow=s-cross [stonecrop] Sedum pulchellum LC 

Rosales Escalloniaceae Virginia willow [sweet-spires] Itea virginica shrub ?

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides O 

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage wild hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens shrub O 

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage Forbes= saxifrage Saxifraga forbesii LA 

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage bishop=s-cap Mitella diphylla R 

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage small-flowered alumroot [late

alumroot]

Heuchera parviflora rugelii LC 

Rosales Saxifragaceae C Saxifrage tall alumroot Heuchera americana hirsuticaulis C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Allegheny blackberry [common blackberry] Rubus allegheniensis C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose blackberry Rubus alumnus [R. orarius] O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

244

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose arching dewberry [southern

dewberry]

Rubus enslenii U 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose dewberry Rubus flagellaris C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose black raspberry [blackcap

raspberry]

Rubus occidentalis LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose blackberry Rubus pensylvanicus C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose velvet-leaved dewberry Rubus roribaccus LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose hawthorn Crataegus pruniosa ? 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose red haw Crataegus mollis C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose cock-spur hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli small

tree

O 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose serviceberry [shadbush, shadblow, juneberry] Amelanchier arborea small tree LC Rosales Rosaceae C Rose common apple Malus pumila tree R

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose wild sweet crabapple Malus coronaria tree U 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Iowa crabapple Malus ioensis tree U 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose common pear Pyrus communis tree R

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose pasture rose Rosa carolina vine C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose swamp rose Rosa palustris vine O 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose multiflora rose [Japanese

rose]

Rosa multiflora shrub A 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Illinois rose [prairie rose,

climbing rose]

Rosa setigera O-LC

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Rosa sp. (Hybrid cultivar)

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose black cherry Prunus serotina tree C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose American plum [wild plum] Prunus americana shrub C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Chickasaw plum Prunus angustifolia LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose wild goose plum Prunus hortulana U 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

245

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose peach Prunus persica tree R 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose swamp agrimony [small-flowered agrimony] Agrimonia parviflora LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose soft agrimony Agrimonia pubescens U 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose woodland agrimony Agrimonia rostellata C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose white avens Geum canadense C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose spring avens Geum vernum LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta LC 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose common cinquefoil Potentilla simplex C 

Rosales Rosaceae C Rose Indian physic [American ipecac] Porteranthus stipulatus [Gillenia stipulata] C 

Rosales Caesalpiniaceae CCaesalpinia eastern redbud Cercis canadensis tree O-C 

Rosales Caesalpiniaceae CCaesalpinia honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos tree O Rosales Caesalpiniaceae CCaesalpinia Kentucky coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus tree O Rosales Caesalpiniaceae CCaesalpinia wild senna Cassia marilandica

Rosales Caesalpiniaceae CCaesalpinia partridge pea [locust-weed] Cassia fasciculata

Rosales Fabaceae CBean kudzu-vine Puereria lobata vine R Rosales Fabaceae CBean soybean Glycine max LA Rosales Fabaceae CBean American wisteria Wisteria frutescens vine ?Rosales Fabaceae CBean sesbania Sesbania macrocarpa [S. 

exaltata]

LC

Rosales Fabaceae CBean dull-leaf indigobush [false

indigobush]

Amorpha fruticosa shrub R 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

246

Rosales Fabaceae CBean black-locust Robinia pseudoacacia tree LC 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean rattlebox Crotalaria sagittalis O 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean pencil-flower Stylosanthes biflora O Rosales Fabaceae CBean low hop clover Trifolium campestre O Rosales Fabaceae CBean Alsike clover Trifolium hybridum U Rosales Fabaceae CBean red clover Trifolium pratense LC Rosales Fabaceae CBean white clover Trifolium repens LC Rosales Fabaceae CBean black medic Medicago lupulina O Rosales Fabaceae CBean alfalfa Medicago sativa U Rosales Fabaceae CBean butterfly-pea Clitoria mariana U Rosales Fabaceae CBean hoary tick trefoil Desmodium canescens O Rosales Fabaceae CBean hairy tick trefoil Desmodium ciliare LC Rosales Fabaceae CBean beggar=s lice [pointed tick trefoil] Desmodium glutinosum U 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean glaucus tick trefoil Desmodium laevigatum C 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean bare-stemmed tick trefoil Desmodium nudiflorum LC Rosales Fabaceae CBean Nuttall=s tick trefoil Desmodium nuttallii O 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean stiff tick trefoil Desmodium obtusum U 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean panicled tick trefoil Desmodium paniculatum C Rosales Fabaceae CBean beggar=s lice [white-flowered

tick trefoil]

Desmodium pauciflorum U 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean round-leaved tick trefoil Desmodium rotundifolium U 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean sessile-leaved tick trefoil Desmodium sessilifolium U Rosales Fabaceae CBean scurf-pea [Sampson=s snakeroot] Psoralea psoralioides eglan- dulosa LC 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean wild bean Strophostyles helvola O 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean wild bean Strophostyles leiosperma O Rosales Fabaceae CBean umbellate wild bean Strophostyles umbellata U 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

247

Rosales Fabaceae CBean hog-peanut Amphicarpa bracteata bracteata U Rosales Fabaceae CBean hog-peanut Amphicarpa bracteata 

comosa

O 

Rosales Fabaceae CBean hairy-fruited vetch Vicia dasycarpa LA Rosales Fabaceae CBean ground nut Apios americana LC Rosales Fabaceae CBean goat=s-rue Tephrosia virginiana O 

Rosales Mimosaceae mimosa Albizia julibrissin tree R Rosales Mimosaceae Illinois/prairie mimosa [Illinois bundleflower] Desmanthus illinoensis 

Geraniales Geraniaceae C Geranium Carolina cranesbill Geranium carolinianum LC 

Geraniales Geraniaceae C Geranium wild geranium Geranium maculatum C 

Geraniales Oxalidaceae C Wood-sorrel upright yellow wood-sorrel Oxalis dillenii A 

Geraniales Oxalidaceae C Wood-sorrel common wood-sorrel [yellow

wood sorrel]

Oxalis stricta U 

Geraniales Oxalidaceae C Wood-sorrel violet wood-sorrel [purple

oxalis]

Oxalis violacea LC-O 

Geraniales Balsaminaceae C Balsam orange-spotted touch-me-not

[jewelweed]

Impatiens capensis [I. Biflora]

LA 

Geraniales Balsaminaceae C Balsam pale touch-me-not Impatiens pallida LA 

Linales Linaceae C Flax flax Linum medium LC 

Linales Linaceae C Flax stiff yellow flax Linum striatum U-R 

Sapindales Rutaceae C Rue prickly-ash [toothache tree] Zanthoxylum americanum U-R 

Sapindales Simarubaceae C Quassia tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima tree U-R 

Sapindales Anacardiaceae C Sumac smooth sumac Rhus glabra shrub C 

Sapindales Anacardiaceae C Sumac winged [shining, dwarf]

sumac

Rhus copallina shrub C 

Sapindales Anacardiaceae C Sumac fragrant sumac [aromatic

sumac]

Rhus aromatica shrub O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

248

Sapindales Anacardiaceae C Sumac poison-ivy Toxicodendron radicans shrub,

vine

A 

Sapindales Staphyleaceae C Bladdernut American bladdernut Staphylea trifolia shrub LA Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple sugar maple [hard maple,

rock maple]

Acer saccharum tree C 

Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple southern sugar maple Acer barbatum tree O 

Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple silver maple [river, soft, white

maple]

Acer saccharinum tree C 

Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple red maple Acer rubrum var. rubrum tree O 

Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple red maple Acer rubrum var. trilobum tree R 

Sapindales Aceraceae C Maple boxelder [ash-leaved maple] Acer negundo tree O-LA 

Polygalales Polygalaceae C Milkwort red milkwort [field milkwort] Polygala sanguinea O 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge nodding spurge [wartweed] Chamaesyce maculata 

[Euphorbia maculata]

C 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge milk spurge Chamaesyce supina 

[Euphorbia supina]

LC 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge milk spurge Chamaesyce humistrata 

[Euphorbia humistrata]

U 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge flowering spurge Euphorbia corollata C 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge wood spurge Euphorbia commutata LC 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge wild poinsettia Euphorbia dentata [Poinsettia dentata] O 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge sand croton [rushfoil] Crotonopsis elliptica LC 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge capitate croton [wooly croton] Croton capitatus O 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge croton [prairie tea] Croton monanthogynus LC 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge slender three-seeded mercury Acalypha gracilens O 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge three-seeded mercury Acalypha rhomboidea C 

Euphorbiales Euphorbiaceae C Spurge Virginia three-seeded mercury Acalypha virginica O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

249

Celastrales Celastraceae C Staff-tree bittersweet [climbing bittersweet] Celastrus scandens vine C 

Celastrales Celastraceae C Staff-tree eastern wahoo [burningbush] Euonymus atropurpureus shrub O Celastrales Celastraceae C Staff-tree climbing euonymus [winter

creeper]

Euonymus fortunei var. radicans vine O 

Celastrales Aquifoliaceae C Holly deciduous holly [swamp holly] Ilex decidua shrub R Celastrales Aquifoliaceae C Holly American holly Ilex opaca shrub R Rhamnales Rhamnaceae C Buckthorn New-Jersey-tea [wild snowball] Ceanothus americanus shrub O Rhamnales Vitaceae C Grape Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine C Rhamnales Vitaceae C Grape raccoon grape Ampelopsis cordata vine U Rhamnales Vitaceae C Grape summer grape Vitis aestivalis vine C Rhamnales Vitaceae C Grape winter grape Vitis cinerea vine U Rhamnales Vitaceae C Grape frost grape Vitis vulpina vine O Malvales Tiliaceae C Linden American linden [basswood] Tilia americana tree U-R Malvales Malvaceae C Mallow prickly sida Sida spinosa O 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort marsh St. John=s-wort Triadenum walteri O 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort shrubby St. John's-wort Hypericum prolificum shrub LC 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort nits-and-lice Hypericum drummondii U 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort pineweed Hypericum gentianoides O 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort dwarf St. John=s-wort Hypericum mutilum O 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort common St. John=s-wort Hypericum perforatum U 

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort spotted St. John=s-wort Hypericum punctatum O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

250

Theales Hypericaceae C St. John=swort St. Andrew=s cross Hypericum stragulum O 

Violales Cistaceae C Rockrose narrow-leaved pinweed Lechea tenuifolia O Violales Violaceae C Violet common blue violet Viola pratincola LC 

Violales Violaceae C Violet downy yellow violet Viola pubescens C 

Violales Violaceae C Violet Johnny-jump-up [wild pansy] Viola rafinesquii LA 

Violales Violaceae C Violet wooly blue violet Viola sororia C 

Violales Violaceae C Violet cream violet [common white

violet]

Viola striata LA 

Violales Violaceae C Violet cleft violet Viola triloba var. triloba C 

Violales Violaceae C Violet lobed violet [cleft violet] Viola triloba var. dilatata [V. 

falcata]

O 

Violales Violaceae C Violet green violet Hybanthus concolor LC 

Violales Passifloraceae C Passionflower small passion-flower Passiflora lutea var. glabri- flora O 

Violales Passifloraceae C Passionflower large passion-flower [may- pops] Passiflora incarnata R 

Proteales Elaeagnaceae C Oleaster autumn-olive [oleaster] Elaeagnus umbellata shrub LC 

Myrtales Lythraceae C Loosestrife tooth-cup Rotala ramosior O 

Myrtales Lythraceae C Loosestrife purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria shrub R 

Myrtales Lythraceae C Loosestrife water-willow [swamp loosestrife] Decodon verticillatus

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose enchanter=s nightshade Circaea lutetiana O 

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose marsh purslane Ludwigia palustris var. americana U 

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia LC 

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose creeping primrose willow Ludwigia peploides LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

251

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose common evening primrose Oenothera biennis C 

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose ragged evening primrose Oenothera laciniata U 

Myrtales Onagraceae C Evening Primrose cinnamon willow herb Epilobium coloratum O 

Caryophyllales Cactaceae C Cactus prickly-pear Opuntia humifusa [O. 

rafinesquii, O. compressa]

Haloragales Haloragidaceae C Water Milfoil spiked water milfoil Myriophyllum exalbescens LA 

Lamiales Callitrichaceae C Water

Starwort

terrestrial starwort [waterstarwort]

Callitriche terestris O 

Cornales Cornaceae C Dogwood blackgum [sour gum, black

tupelo]

Nyssa sylvatica tree O 

Cornales Cornaceae C Dogwood flowering dogwood [white

dogwood]

Cornus florida small

tree

C 

Cornales Cornaceae C Dogwood rough-leaved dogwood Cornus drummondii shrub O 

Cornales Cornaceae C Dogwood gray [panicled] dogwood Cornus racemosa shrub O 

Umbellales Araliaceae C Ginseng devil's-walking-stick [Hercules'-club, angelica-tree]] Aralia spinosa small tree O 

Umbellales Araliaceae C Ginseng American spikenard Aralia racemosa R 

Umbellales Araliaceae C Ginseng ginseng Panax quinquefolium U 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley rattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifolium 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley Queen Anne=s lace [wild carrot] Daucus carota 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley water hemlock Cicuta maculata 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley wood angelica Angelica venenosa R 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley wild chervil Chaerophyllum procumbens LC 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley wild chervil Chaerophyllum tainturieri U 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

252

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley harbinger-of-spring [pepperand-salt] Erigenia bulbosa C 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley anise-root Osmorhiza longistylis 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley Canadian black snakeroot

[short-styled snakeroot]

Sanicula canadensis C 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley yellow meadow parsnip Thaspium trifoliatum var. 

flavum

R 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley meadow parsnip Thaspium trifoliatum var. 

trifoliatum

O 

Umbellales Apiaceae CCarrot or Parsley hedge parsley Torilis japonica LC 

Ericales Ericaceae C Heath farkleberry Vaccinium arboreum shrub C 

Primulales Primulaceae C Primrose shooting-star Dodecatheon meadia LC 

Primulales Primulaceae C Primrose French=s shooting-star Dodecatheon frenchii LC 

Primulales Primulaceae C Primrose brookweed [water pimpernel] Samolus valerandii U Primulales Primulaceae C Primrose fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata LC Primulales Primulaceae C Primrose lance-leaved loosestrife [narrow-leaved loosestrife] Lysimachia lanceolata O 

Ebenales Ebenaceae C Ebony common persimmon [possumwood] Diospyros virginiana tree A 

Scrophulariales Oleaceae C Olive white ash Fraxinus americana tree O 

Scrophulariales Oleaceae C Olive green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica tree A Scrophulariales Oleaceae C Olive Forsythia Forsythia spp. shrub RScrophulariales Oleaceae C Olive common lilac Syringa vulgaris shrub RScrophulariales Oleaceae C Olive European privet Ligustrum vulgare shrub R Gentianales Gentianaceae C Gentian American columbo Frasera caroliniensis O 

Gentianales Gentianaceae C Gentian rose gentian [rose pink, marsh

pink]

Sabatia angularis O 

Gentianales Apocynaceae C Dogbane dogbane [Indian hemp] Apocynum cannabinum LC 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed tall green milkweed Asclepias hirtella U 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

253

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata LC 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens O 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed common milkweed Asclepias syriaca C 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed butterfly-weed Asclepias tuberosa var. interior C 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed variegated milkweed [white

milkweed]

Asclepias variegata O 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed horsetail milkweed [whorled

milkweed]

Asclepias verticillata O 

Gentianales Asclepiadaceae C Milkweed blue vine Cynanchum laeve O 

Polemoniales Convolvulaceae C Morningglory small white morning-glory Ipomoea lacunosa O 

Polemoniales Convolvulaceae C Morningglory wild sweet potato vine Ipomoea pandurata U 

Polemoniales Polemoniaceae C Phlox cleft phlox Phlox bifida LC 

Polemoniales Polemoniaceae C Phlox blue phlox Phlox divaricata ssp. laphamii C 

Polemoniales Polemoniaceae C Phlox garden phlox Phlox paniculata O-LC 

Polemoniales Polemoniaceae C Phlox Jacob=s-ladder Polemonium reptans C 

Polemoniales Hydrophyllaceae C Waterleaf broad-leaved waterleaf Hydrophyllum canadense LA 

Polemoniales Hydrophyllaceae C Waterleaf Phacelia bipinnatifida C 

Lamiales Boraginaceae C Borage wild comfrey Cynoglossum virginianum O 

Lamiales Boraginaceae C Borage stickseed Hackelia virginiana LC 

Lamiales Boraginaceae C Borage bluebells [Virginia cowslip] Mertensia virginica LA 

Lamiales Boraginaceae C Borage scorpion-grass Myosotis macrosperma O 

Lamiales Verbenaceae C Verbena blue vervain Verbena hastata O Lamiales Verbenaceae C Verbena Verbena X illicita R 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

254

Lamiales Verbenaceae C Verbena narrow-leaved vervain Verbena simplex U Lamiales Verbenaceae C Verbena white vervain Verbena urticifolia O Lamiales Verbenaceae C Verbena fog-fruit Phyla lanceolata LC Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint lyre-leaved sage [cancerweed] Salvia lyrata O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint downy skullcap Scutellaria incana LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint small skullcap Scutellaria leonardii U 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint ground ivy [gill-over-theground] Glechoma hederacea var. micrantha LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint burgamot mint [Monarda, bee

balm]

Monarda bradburiana LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint henbit Lamium amplexicaule O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint purple dead nettle Lamium purpureum LA 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint pagoda plant [wood mint] Blephilia ciliata O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint pagoda plant Blephilia hirsuta LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint stone mint [dittany] Cunila origanoides C-O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint common water horehound Lycopus americanus O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint bugle weed Lycopus virginicus LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint self heal [heal-all] Prunella vulgaris var. elongata LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint mountain mint Pycnanthemum pycnanthemoides O 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint slender mountain mint Pycnanthemum tenuifolium [P. flexuosum] C 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint American germander [wood

sage]

Teucrium canadense var. virginicum

O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

255

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint richweed [citronella horse

balm]

Collinsonia canadensis U 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint yellow giant hyssop Agastache nepetoides R 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint beefsteak plant Perilla frutescens LC 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint hairy synandra [white-flowered mint, synandra] Synandra hispidula R 

Lamiales Lamiaceae C Mint false pennyroyal Trichostema brachiatum LC 

Polemoniales Solanaceae C Nightshade ground-cherry Physalis heterophylla U 

Polemoniales Solanaceae C Nightshade annual ground-cherry Physalis pubescens R 

Polemoniales Solanaceae C Nightshade horse-nettle Solanum carolinense O 

Polemoniales Solanaceae C Nightshade black nightshade Solanum ptycanthum U 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort moth mullein Verbascum blattaria O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort wooly mullein Verbascum thapsus C 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort candelabra plant [Culver=sroot] Veronicastrum virginicum O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort corn speedwell [blue speedwell] Veronica arvensis C 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort purslane speedwell [white

speedwell]

Veronica peregrina C 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort false pimpernel Lindernia dubia U 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort clammy hedge-hyssop [common hedge-hyssop] Gratiola neglecta O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort Leucospora multifida O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort smooth false foxglove Aureolaria flava LC 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort water hyssop Bacopa rotundifolia LC 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort smooth beard-tongue Penstemon calycosus O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort foxglove beard-tongue [foxglove penstemon] Penstemon digitalis O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort pale beard-tongue Penstemon pallidus LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

256

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort winged monkey-flower [common monkey-flower] Mimulus alatus O 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort blue-eyed Mary Collinsia verna LA 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort late figwort Scrophularia marilandica LC 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort false foxglove Agalinis fasciculata U 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort false foxglove Agalinis paupercula U 

Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae C Figwort slender false foxglove Agalinis tenuifolia O 

Scrophulariales Acanthaceae C Acanthus water-willow Justicia americana LC Scrophulariales Acanthaceae C Acanthus hairy ruellia [wild petunia] Ruellia humilis O Scrophulariales Acanthaceae C Acanthus stalked ruellia [wild petunia] Ruellia pedunculata C Scrophulariales Bignoniaceae C Trumpet

Creeper

trumpet-creeper [trumpetvine] Campsis radicans vine C 

Scrophulariales Bignoniaceae C Trumpet

Creeper

northern [hardy] catalpa[cigar tree, Indian bean]

Catalpa speciosa tree O 

Scrophulariales Bignoniaceae C Trumpet

Creeper

southern [common] catalpa[lady cigar tree]

Catalpa bignonioides tree R 

Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain bracted plantain Plantago aristata LA 

Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain buckhorn [English plantain] Plantago lanceolata LC Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain common plantain Plantago major LC Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain small plantain Plantago pusilla O Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain red-stalked plantain [Rugel=s

plantain]

Plantago rugelli LC 

Plantaginales Plantaginaceae C Plantain dwarf plantain Plantago virginica LC Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder common buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis shrub O 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder annual bedstraw [goosegrass,

cleavers]

Galium aparine LA 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder wild licorice Galium circaezans C 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder shining bedstraw Galium concinnum C-O 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

257

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder hairy bedstraw [purple bedstraw] Galium pilosum O 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum O 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder rough buttonweed [poorjoe] Diodia teres LC 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder large buttonweed [Virginia

buttonweed]

Diodia virginiana R 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder tiny bluets Hedyotis crassifolia [Houstonia minima] LC 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder long-leaved bluets Hedyotis longifolia [Houstonia longifolia] O 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder slender-leaved bluets Hedyotis nuttalliana [Houstonia tenuifolia] O 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder broad-leaved bluets Hedyotis purpurea [Houstonia purpurea] U 

Rubiales Rubiaceae C Madder small bluets [star violet] Hedyotis pusilla [Houstonia pusilla] LC 

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle arrowwood Viburnum dentatum [recog- nitum] shrub C Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle southern wild-raisin Viburnum nudum shrub ?Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle smooth arrowood Viburnum recognitum ?

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle nannyberry Viburnum lentago shrub ?

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle rusty nannyberry [southern blackhaw] Viburnum rufidulum shrub U Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle blackhaw [nannyberry] Viburnum prunifolium shrub O Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle American elder [elderberry, golden elder] Sambucus canadensis shrub LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

258

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle coralberry [Indian-currant, buck-brush] Symphoricarpos orbiculatus shrub LC 

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica var. japonica vine A Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica var. chin- ense vine R Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii U 

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle trumpet honeysuckle [fire- cracker honeysuckle] Lonicera sempervirens vine U 

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle Illinois horse gentian Triosteum illinoense O 

Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae C Honeysuckle late horse gentian Triosteum perfoliatum O 

Dipsacales Valerianaceae C Valerian pink valerian Valeriana pauciflora LC 

Dipsacales Valerianaceae C Valerian corn salad [lamb=s lettuce] Valerianella radiata LC 

Dipsacales Dipsacaceae C Teasel common teasel Dipsacus sylvestris O 

Cucurbitales Cucurbitaceae CGourd bur cucumber Sicyos angulatus vine

Campanulales Campanulaceae C Bellflower Venus= looking glass Triodanis perfoliata LC 

Campanulales Campanulaceae C Bellflower American bellflower Campanula americana C 

Campanulales Campanulaceae C Bellflower cardinal-flower Lobelia cardinalis U 

Campanulales Campanulaceae C Bellflower Indian tobacco Lobelia inflata LC 

Campanulales Campanulaceae C Bellflower blue cardinal-flower Lobelia siphilitica O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common milfoil [common yarrow, nosebleed] Achillea millefolium C 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

259

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common ragweed [bitterweed,

Roman wormwood]

Ambrosia artemisiifolia C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster lanceleaf ragweed [southern

ragweed]

Ambrosia bidentata LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster giant ragweed [buffalo weed,

horse weed]

Ambrosia trifida O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster everlasting [ladies= tobacco] Antennaria plantaginifolia 

var. plantaginifolia

LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster everlasting [ladies= tobacco,

pussytoes]

Antennaria plantaginifolia var. ambigens

U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common burdock [smaller

burdock]

Arctium minus U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Drummond=s aster Aster drummondii O-LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster side-flowered aster [white

woodland aster]

Aster lateriflorus LA 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster New England aster Aster novae-angliae R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster purple daisy [spreading aster] Aster patens C-O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster hairy aster Aster pilosus C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster arrow aster [arrow-leaved

aster]

Aster X sagittifolius U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Short=s aster Aster shortii LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster panicled aster [tall white

aster, white field aster]

Aster simplex R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster aster Aster turbinellus O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster swamp marigold [tickseed

sunflower]

Bidens aristosa LA 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Spanish needles Bidens bipinnata LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster nodding beggar-ticks [sticktight] Bidens cernua U 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

260

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster European beggar-ticks

[swamp tickseed]

Bidens tripartita O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster false aster Boltonia asteroides LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster false boneset Brickellia eupatorioides O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster pale Indian plantain Cacalia atriplicifolia O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster great Indian plantain Cacalia muhlenbergii LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common chicory [blue sailors] Cichorium intybus R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster field thistle [pasture thistle] Cirsium discolor O-LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster bull thistle Cirsium vulgare R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster horseweed [mule weed] Conyza canadensis LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster tall coreopsis Coreopsis tripteris O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster yerba de tajo Eclipta prostrata O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster elephant=s-foot Elephantopus carolinianum O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster fire weed Erechtites hieracifolia O-LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster annual fleabane Erigeron annuus LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster marsh fleabane [Philadelphia

fleabane] 

Erigeron philadelphicus C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster daisy fleabane [rough fleabane, whitetop fleabane] Erigeron strigosus C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster tall boneset [tall thoroughwort] Eupatorium altissimum R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster blue boneset [mistflower, wild

ageratum]

Eupatorium coelestinum LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster hollow joe-pye weed [trumpet

weed]

Eupatorium fistulosum U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common boneset [thoroughwort] Eupatorium perfoliatum LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster white snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster late boneset Eupatorium serotinum LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

261

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster grassleaf goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster catfoot [old-field balsam,

sweet everlasting]

Gnaphalium obtusifolium O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster early cudweed [purple cudweed] Gnaphalium purpureum U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster purple-headed sneezeweed Helenium flexuosum O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster pale sunflower [ten-petal sunflower] Helianthus decapetalus R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster divergent sunflower [woodland sunflower] Helianthus divaricatus C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster small wood sunflower Helianthus microcephalus O-LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberosus var. 

subcanescens

LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster false sunflower [sunflower

heliopsis]

Heliopsis helianthoides U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster hairy hawkweed Hieracium gronovii C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster marsh elder [sumpweed] Iva annua U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster false dandelion Krigia biflora O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster dwarf dandelion [potato dandelion] Krigia dandelion LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Canada lettuce [horseweed,

wild lettuce]

Lactuca canadensis C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster blue lettuce [woodland lettuce] Lactuca floridana O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster willow-leaved lettuce Lactuca saligna LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster compass plant [prickly lettuce] Lactuca serriola C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common tansy [ox-eye daisy,

white daisy]

Leucanthemum vulgare C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster blazing star Liatris scabra LC 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

262

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster button snakeroot [marsh blazing star] Liatris spicata LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster pineapple weed Matricaria matricarioides LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster American feverfew [wild quinine] Parthenium integrifolium O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster leafcup Polymnia canadensis O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster bears foot [leafcup, yellowflower] Polymnia uvedalia U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster tall white lettuce Prenanthes altissima LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster great white lettuce Prenanthes crepidinea LA 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster false dandelion Pyrrhopappus carolinianus O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster cutleaf coneflower [wild

golden glow]

Rudbeckia laciniata O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster golden ragwort [groundsel,

squaw-weed]

Senecio aureus LA 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster butterweed [groundsel, ragwort] Senecio glabellus LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster wholeleaf rosinweed Silphium integrifolium 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster cup plant [cup rosinweed] Silphium perfoliatum O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster tall goldenrod Solidago altissima A 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Buckley=s goldenrod Solidago buckleyi U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster bluestem goldenrod [woodland goldenrod] Solidago caesia C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster early goldenrod Solidago juncea C 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Dyersweed goldenrod [gray

goldenrod]

Solidago nemoralis C-O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster elm-leaved goldenrod Solidago ulmifolia C 

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

263

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster red-seeded dandelion [smooth

dandelion]

Taraxacum laevigatum R 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster common dandelion Taraxacum officinale LC 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster goat=s beard [sand goat=s

beard]

Tragopogon dubius O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster wing stem [yellow iron weed] Verbesina alternifolia LA 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster yellow crownbeard Verbesina helianthoides O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster tall iron weed Vernonia gigantea O 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster Missouri ironweed Vernonia missurica U 

Asterales Asteraceae C Aster cocklebur Xanthium strumarium var. 

canadensis

O-LA 

Frequency of Occurrence KeyA = abundantLA = locally abundantC = commonLC = locally commonO = occasionalR = rare? = undocumentedReference Key1 = Ulaszek, Eric F. 1988. The vascular flora of the Devils Kitchen Lake area, Williamson and Union counties, Illinois. M

University, Carbondale. 98p.2 = Mohlenbrock, Robert H., and John W. Voigt. 1959. A flora of southern Illinois. Southern Illinois Univer

Edwardsville. 390 p.General ReferencesIverson, L.R., D. Ketzner, and J. Karnes. 1999. Illinois Plant Information Network. Database at h

ware/ilpin.html. Illinois Natural History Survey and USDA Forest Service.Mohlenbrock, Robert H., and John W. Voigt. 1959. A flora of s

Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. 390 p.Petrides, George A. 1986. A field guide to trees and shrubs. Peterson Fiel

Mifflin Co., Boston. 428 p.Pohl, Richard W. 1968. How to know the grasses. William C. Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. 200 p.

Vascular Plants of Crab Orchard NWR (Continued)

Order Family Common Name(s) Scientific Name(s) Growth

Form

Frequency 

of 

Occurrence

Appendix E:State-listed Species Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

265

Appendix E: State-listed Species 

Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR

Appendix E:State-listed Species Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

267

State-listed Species Potentially Found at Crab Orchard NWR

Birds Status Breeding Status

Birds

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) Threatened Migrant

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Endangered Migrant; former breeder

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) Threatened Migrant; former breeder

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Endangered Migrant

Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Endangered Migrant

Black-crowned Night Heron (Nyctanassa nycitcorax) Endangered Migrant

Yellow-crowned Night Heron (Nyctanassa violacea) Endangered Migrant

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Endangered Migrant

Mississippi kite (Icitinia mississippiensis) Endangered Migrant

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Threatened Breeder

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened Breeder

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Endangered Migrant; former breeder

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Endangered Migrant

Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) Threatened Migrant

Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis) Threatened Migrant

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Endangered Migrant; former breeder

Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) Endangered Migrant

Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri) Endangered Migrant

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) Endangered Migrant

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) Endangered Migrant

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Endangered Migrant

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Endangered Migrant

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Threatened Breeder

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) Threatened Migrant

Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Endangered Migrant

Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) Endangered Breeder

Mammals

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Endangered Status Unknown

Golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) Threatened Breeder

Marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) Threatened Breeder

River otter (Lontra canadensis) Threatened Status Unknown

Plants

Hairy synandra (Synandra hispidula) Endangered

Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

269

Appendix F: Bibliography

Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

271

Appendix F: Bibliography

Anderson, Dana R. 1983. Movements of Canada

geese in relation to Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 67p.

Anderson, Roger C., and M. Rebecca Anderson.

1975. The presettlement vegetation of Williamson

County, Illinois. Castanea 40:345-363.

Anderson, Roger C., and C. Van Valkenburg.

1976. Response of a southern Illinois, USA, grassland community to burning. Illinois State Academy

of Science Transactions 69:399-414.

Anthony, Mark. 1961. Observed activity and

behavior of the woodchuck in southern Illinois.

M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 73p.

Arnold, Lester E., and W.R. Boggess. 1971.

Effects of pine plantations on natural succession in

southern Illinois. University of Illinois, Agricultural

Experiment Station Forest Research Report 71-1.

Urbana-Champaign. 6p.

Autry, D. C. 1964. Movements of white-tailed

deer in response to hunting on Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 70p.

Ball, D.M., J.F. Pederson, and G.D. Lacefield.

1993. the tall fescue endophyte. Am. Sci. 81:370-379.

Bazzaz, F.A. 1968. Succession on abandoned

fields in the Shawnee Hills, southern Illinois. Ecology 49:924-936.

Bell, Roger Q. 1957. Food coactions of Canada

geese (Branta canadensis interior) in southern Illinois. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 78p.

Bell, R.Q., and W.D. Klimstra. 1970. Feeding

activities of Canada geese in southern Illinois.

Trans. Illinois State Acad. Sci. 63:295-304.

Bennett, Esther V. 1953. Nesting birds of the

shoreline and islands of Crab Orchard Lake with

particular reference to the Canada goose, Branta

canadensis (Linnaeus), and the eastern red-wing,

Agelaius phoeniceus (Linnaeus). M.S. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 45p.

Biotic Consultants, Inc. 1976. Endangered,

threatened, and rare plants of the Shawnee

National Forest (Illinois). Carbondale. 39p.

Bohlen, H. David. 1989. The birds of Illinois.

Indian University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Borger, W.M. 1968. A phytosociological survey of

a post oak (Quercus stellata) community at Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished.

Department of Botany, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale.

Breen, J.P. 1994. Acremonium endophyte interactions with enhanced plan resistance to insects.

Ann. Rev. Entomol. 39:401-423.

Brucher, Victor J. 1941. Selection of major recreational areas, Crab Orchard Project, Carbondale,

Illinois. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 14 p. + maps.

Caithamer, David F. 1989. Habitat use and time

and energy allocations of Mississippi Valley population Canada geese. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 165p.

Cheniae, Gordon L. A profile study of visitors

using Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

waterfowl observation towers. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 54p.

Clark, T., and D. Zaunbrecher. 1987. The greater

Yellowstone ecosystem: The ecosystem concept in

natural resource policy and management. Renewable Resources Journal 5(3):8-16.

Clay, K. and J. Hola. 1999. Fungal endophyte

symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields.

Science 285:1742-1744.

Coley, A.B., Fribourg, H.A., Pelton, M.R. and

Gwinn, K.D. 1995. Effects of tall fescue endophyte

infestation on small mammal abundance. J. environ.

Qual. 24:472-475.

Conover, M.R. 1998. Impact of consuming tall fescue leaves with the endophytic fungus, Acremonium coenophialum, on meadow voles. Journal of

Mammalogy 79:457-463.

Conover, M.R., and T.A. Messmer. 1996. Feeding

preferences and changes in mass of Canada geese

grazing endophyte-infected tall fescue. Condor

98:859-862.

Corlas, Maureen. 1996. The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls on the reproduction of nesting bld

eagle pairs at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois, Springfield.

136p. + appendices.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

272

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T.

LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/

31.

Crawford, G.J. 1962. A preliminary investigation

of the white-tailed deer on Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 43p.

Davis, John A. 1974. A study of annual recreation permit owners at the Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge, 1973. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 42p.

Ellsworth, Darrell L. 1986. Comparative biochemical genetics and differential survival of wild,

game farm, and first filial generation bobwhite

quail. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 197p.

Fehrenbacher, J.B., and R.T. Odell. 1959. Williamson County soils. University of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Report 79. Urbana, IL.

Fernald, Raymond T. 1977. Past and current

land use practices and habitat conditions of Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge as they affect the

distribution and abundance of bobwhite quail. M.A.

Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

179p.

Fox, Timothy J., Jason J. Rohweder, Kevin P.

Kenow, Carl E. Korschgen, and Henry C. DeHaan.

2003. Geographic information system tools for conservation planning: user’s manual. U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline Information

and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0005.

4p. +Appendices A-B +CD-ROM. 

Franklin, J.F., R.E. Jenkins, and R.M. Romancier. 1972. Research natural areas: contributors to

environmental quality programs. Journal of Environmental Quality 1(2):133-139.

Galvin, Michael T. 1967. Recommendation for

the development of the visitor interpretation service

at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S.

Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

86p.

Gates, Robert J. 1989. Physiological condition

and nutrition of Canada geese of the Mississippi Valley Population: temporal, spatial, and social variation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 216p.

Gholson, Tommy R. 1966. Characteristics of visitor-groups at Crab Orchard Lake with emphasis on

factors influencing a visitor group's choice of recreational activities, summer 1965. M.S. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Godfrey, Anthony, and Donna L. Stubbs. 2001.

Cultural resource management plan for cultural

resources within the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. volumes I, II and III.

Graber, R.R., and J.W. Graber. 1963. A comparative study of bird populations in Illinois, 1906-1909

and 1956-1958. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 28:383-528.

Griffis, John L. 1984. Effects of Swareflex wildlife highway warning reflectors on behavior and

mortality of white-tailed deer. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 70p.

Halbrook, Richard S., and S. Gray. 1999. Starlings as avian model and monitors of remedial

actions at the polychlorinated biphenyl areas operable unit on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annual Report, Marion, Illinois, USA. 9pp. 

Hankla, D. A. 1952. Aquatic vegetation of Crab

Orchard Lake and its utilization as food by waterfowl. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 59p.

Hankla, D.A., and R.R. Rudolph. 1967. Changes

in the migration and wintering habits of Canada

geese in the lower portion of the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways-with special reference to national

wildlife refuges. Proc. Anu. Conf. Southeastern

Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners 21:133-144.

Hardin, J.W., and J.L. Roseberry. 1975. Estimates of unreported loss resulting from a special

deer hunt on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Proc. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish

Commissioners Conf. 29:

Hardy, Joel D. 1987. Age-related recruitment of

interior geese of the Mississippi Valley Population.

M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 27p.

Harnishfeger, Ralph L. 1986. Influence of harvest on the ecology of farm pond muskrats. Ph.D.

Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 210p.

Harris, Stanley E., Jr., C. William Horrell, and

Daniel Irwin. 1977. Exploring the land and rocks of

southern Illinois, a geological guide. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. 240p.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

273

Harrison, Peter K. 1979. Utilization of field corn

by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 50p.

Hartman, Neill S. 1972. A pilot study of the

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife resource

inventory and land capability program. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 101p.

Hawkins, Robert E. 1967. Social organization of

the white-tailed deer on Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 180p.

Hawkins, R.E., W.D. Klimstra, and D.C. Autry.

1971. Dispersal of deer from Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. J. Wildl. Manage.

35(2):216-220.

Herman, R.J., C.C. Miles, L.A. Dungan, B.E.

Currie and P.W. Ice. 1979. Soil survey of Jackson

County, Illinois. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation

with Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. 192p.

+ maps.

Hite, Robert L., and Marvin King. 1977. Biological investigation of the Crab Orchard Creek basin,

summer 1975. Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Division of Water Pollution Control.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

348pp.

Hop, Kevin D. 2001. Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge land cover and land use spatial database

(2000) project report, December 2001. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences

Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 31p + Appendices AB + CD-ROM.

Horvath, Joseph C. (no date) Economic feasibility study for a resort lodge complex in the Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared for:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 90p.

Hutchison, Max. 1988. A guide to understanding, interpreting and using the Public Land Survey

field notes in Illinois. Natural Areas Journal 8:245-

255.

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. 1973.

The natural divisions of Illinois. Comprehensive

Plan for the Nature Preserves System, Part 2.

Springfield. 32p.

Iverson, L.R., D. Ketzner, and J. Karnes. 1999.

Illinois Plant Information Network. Database at

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/ilpin.html. Illinois

Natural History Survey and USDA Forest Service.

Iverson, Louis R., Richard L. Oliver, Dennis P.

Tucker, Paul G. Risser, Christopher D. Burnett and

Ronald G. Rayburn. 1989. The forest resources of

Illinois: an atlas and analysis of spatial and temporal

trends. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 11. 181p.

James, William R., III. 1976. The relationships

of selected weather parameters with automobile

census counts of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Research Paper. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 49p.

Jarvis, Robert L. 1969. Ecology and physiological aspects of soybean impaction in Canada geese.

Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 106p.

Jordan, Charles B. 1968. The extent of Fomes

annosus in pine plantations of the Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 71p. + attachments.

Kasul, Richard L., and Vernon Wright. 1980.

Analysis of Canada goose band recovery data from

southern Illinois bandings, 1939-76. III. Recovery

and survival characteristics. A progress report to:

Illinois Department of Conservation and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Dept. Experimental

Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

42p.

Kennedy, D.D. 1972. Evaluation of unregistered

goose harvest in Williamson County. M.S. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 22p.

Klimstra, W.D., and K. Thomas. 1964. Effects of

deer browsing on soybean plants, Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. Trans. Illinois State

Acad. Sci. 57(3):179-181.

Koford, Rolf R., and Louis B. Best. 1996. Management of agricultural landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. Pages 68-88

in Thompson, Frank R., III (ed.) 1996. Management

of midwestern landscapes for the conservation of

neotropical migratory birds. General Technical

Report GTR-NC-187. USDA Forest Service, North

Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minn.

207p.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

274

Kohler, Christopher C., and Roy C. Heidinger.

1990. Levels of PCBs and trace metals in Crab

Orchard Lake sediment, benthos, zooplankton, and

fish. Fisheries Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Kohler, C.C., and R.C. Heidinger. 1994. Seasonal/

temporal and spatial patterns of PCB contamination

of fishes in Crab Orchard Lake. HWRIC RR-072.

Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center, Champaign, Ill. 37p.

Krukewitt, Charles W. 1966. A system for charging entrance fees at Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. M.S. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 80p.

LaForest, Michael J. 1967. A forest recreation

master plan for the Devils Kitchen Lake area within

the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S.

Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

111p.

Lancia, Richard A. 1974. Aspects of the ecology

of wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) on Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 97p.

Leighton, M.M., G.E. Ekblaw and L. Horberg.

1948. Physiographic divisions of Illinois. Illinois

State Geological Survey Report of Investigations

No. 129.

Leitner, L.A. 1976. Analysis of the presettlement

forests of the unglaciated portions of southern Illinois. M.A. Thesis. Indiana State University, Terre

Haute. 134p.

Leitner, L.A., and M.T. Jackson. 1981. Presettlement forests of the unglaciated portion of southern

Illinois, USA. American Midland Naturalist

105(2):290-304.

Lewis, Janet E., and Marvin C. McCarty. Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge wilderness area

access report. Student field study report, Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 9p.

Loomis, John B. 1993. Integrated public lands

management: principles and applications to national

forests, parks, wildlife refuges and BLM lands.

Columbia University Press. New York.

Madej, C.W., and K. Clay. 1991. Avian seed preference and wight loss experiments. The effect of

fungal endophyte-infected tall fescue seeds. Oecologia 88:296-302.

Maffei, Mark D. 1985. Spacial heterogeneity of

allele frequencies in white-tailed deer on Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

149p.

Mangi Environmental Group. March, 2001. Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Marion, Illinois.

Comprehensive conservation planning process,

summary of public input. 46p.

Marshalla, Raymond W. 1977. An analysis of

characteristics of deer hunters at Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 81p.

McArdle, T.G. 1991. Comparison of presettlement and present forest communities by site type in

the Illinois Ozark Hills. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

McCurdy, Dwight R., and B. Gene Miller. 1968.

The recreationist at the Crab Orchard National

wildlife Refuge and his opinions of user-fees. Southern Illinois University, School of Agriculture,

Department of Forestry, Publication No. 1. Carbondale. 

Miles, C.C., J.W. Scott, B.E. Currie, and L.A.

Dungan. 1979. A soil survey of Union County, Illinois. University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment

Station Soil Report 110. 143p. + maps

Miller, Beverly G. 1967. User opinions of the

Land and Water Conservation entrance fees at the

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 61p.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1998. IMPLAN

system (1998 data and software). Stillwater, Minnesota.

Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1976. A new geography

of Williamson County. Outdoor Illinois 15:13-44

Mohlenbrock, Robert H., and John W. Voigt.

1959. A flora of southern Illinois. Southern Illinois

University Press, Carbondale. 390p.

Mohlenbrock. Robert H. et al. 1962. A floristics

study of the Devils Kitchen area, Williamson and

Union counties, Illinois. Castanea 27:101-131.

Molla, Paul A., and Kenneth C. Chilman. 1983.

Recreation resource inventory for Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge, Carterville, Illinois.

Phase I: Identification of resource inventory units.

Study Report. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 22p.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

275

Moran, Richard J. 1953. A study of a refuge population of the southern gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis carolinensis Gmelin, and western fox

squirrel, Sciurus niger rufiventer (Geoffroy), in

southern Illinois. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 76p.

Muir, David B. 1978. Beaver impoundments in

southern Illinois. M.S. Research Report. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 40p.

Muir, D.B., M.M. King, M.R. Matson, G.L.

Minton, S.P. Shasteen, M.D. Bundren, R.L. Hite,

and L.J. Pitcher. 1997. An intensive survey of the

Big Muddy River basin. Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, Report IEPA/BOW/97-002.

Springfield.

Nawa, Richard K. 1979. Behavior of adult whitetailed deer on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 54p.

Nelson, Thomas A. 1980. The effect of whitetailed deer on the regeneration and growth of natural vegetation on Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 85p.

Nelson, Thomas A. 1984. The production and

survival of white-tailed deer fawns on Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 166p.

Newbold, M. 1967. Fomes annosus on Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished

term paper for research credit hours under the

direction of Dr. Neil Hosley, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 7p.

Olson, Doug, and Scott Lindall. 1996. IMPLAN

professional software, analysis and data guide. Stillwater, Minnesota.

Oman, R.W. 1972. Some population dynamics

and behavioral characteristics of radio-marked

fawns on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 31p.

Peterjohn, Bruce G. 1976. Factors contributing

to the decline of a nonhunted bobwhite population.

M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 74p.

Raines, Robert A. 1972. A comparison of the

growth and stand density of four white oak (Quercus

alba L.) Plantations as related to site characteristics

on the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 54p.

Raveling, Dennis G. 1967. Sociobiology and ecology of Canada geese in winter. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 213p.

River to River Trail Society. 1995. River to River

Trail Guide, Southern Illinois. Harrisburg, Illinois.

52p.

Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R.

Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.

1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from

the United States and Canada, 5th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20.

Bethesda, MD.

Robinson, Scott K. 1996. Threats to breeding

neotropical migratory birds in the Midwest (1-21

pp.) in Thompson, Frank R. III. ed. 1996. Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-187. North Central Forest Experiment

Station, Forest Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota

55108. 207 p. 

Roseberry, J.L., and W.D. Klimstra. 1970. Productivity of white-tailed deer on Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. J. Wildl. Manage.

34(1):23-38.

Roseberry, J.L., and W.D. Klimstra. 1974. Differential vulnerability during a controlled deer harvest. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(3):499-507.

Roseberry, J.L., D.C. Autry, W.D. Klimstra, and

L.A. Mehrhoff, Jr. 1969. A controlled deer hunt on

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. J. Wildl.

Manage. 33(4):791-795.

Ruelle, Richard. 1983. Mercury levels in Crab

Orchard Lake largemouth bass 1982. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Ill. 6p.

Ruelle, Richard. 1983. Survey for lead on Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Ill. 14p.

Ruelle, Richard. 1983. Survey for polychlorinated biphenyls on Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock

Island, Ill. 9p.

Runyon, Kip R. 1997. Determination of the

effects of discharge from Little Grassy Fish Hatchery on Little Grassy Creek. M.S. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale. 82p.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

276

Sabine, Neil. 1981. Ecology of bald eagles wintering in southern Illinois. M.A. Thesis. Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale.

Schildt, Amy L. 1995. A study of presettlement,

present, and projected future forest in the Coastal

Plain Region of southern Illinois. M.S. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 136p.

Schindler, John D. 1968. A study of the efficiency

of the double sampling technique for measuring recreational use at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 76p.

Schmidt, David R. 1976. An analysis of law violations at federal recreation areas, southern Illinois.

M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 61p.

Schunke, William H. 1939. Wildlife survey and

recommendation report for Crab Orchard Creek

Project, Carbondale, Illinois. Project LD-IL-11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, Region 5. 40p. + maps.

Schwegman, John E. 1975. The natural divisions

of Illinois. Pages 1-48 in Guide to the vascular flora

of Illinois. Robert H. Mohlenbrock, editor. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale

Shaffer, David M., and Bruce Blair. 1980. Wilderness protection project, Crab Orchard National

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 3, Twin Cities Area Office. 49p. + appendices.

Single, Jeffrey R. 1978. Reproduction of the

woodchuck (Marmota monax) in southern Illinois.

M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 50p.

St. John, Terry. 1979. Species, abundances, and

habitat preferences of diurnal raptors wintering on

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S.

Research Paper. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 35p.

Stall, J.B., J.B. Fehrenbacher, L.J. Bartelli, G.O.

Walker, E.L. Sauer, and S.W. Melsted. 1954. Water

and land resources of the Crab Orchard Lake basin.

Ill. State Water Survey Bull. 42. 53p.

Stookey, D.G., P.L. Fore, and R.H. Mohlenbrock.

1964. Primary aquatic succession and floristics of

Devils Kitchen Lake, Illinois. Castanea 29:150-155.

Thomas, K.P. 1966. Nocturnal activities of whitetailed deer on Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 37p.

Thompson, Frank R., III. (ed.) 1996. Management of midwestern landscapes for the conservation

of neotropical birds. General Technical Report GTRNC-187. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minn. 207p.

Trost, Robert E. 1979. Winter ecology of Canada

geese in the Mississippi Flyway. 

Tucker, Patricia. 1978. A trend study and

Markov chain model of visitation patterns at Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge beaches. M.S.

Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

47p.

Turner, Monica G. et al. 1998. Land Use (37-61pp)

in Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and

P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and Trends of the Nation's

Biological Resources. Vol. 1. U.S. Department of

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 1-436

pp. 

Ulaszek, Eric F. 1988. The vascular flora of the

Devils Kitchen Lake area, Williamson and Union

counties, Illinois. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale. 98p.

Urban, Dean L. 1981. Habitat relationships of

birds and small mammals in second-growth forests.

M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 78p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Project Organization. 1938. Land acquisition plan: Crab Orchard

Creek Project, LU-IL-38-11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1942. Project plan: Crab Orchard

Creek Project, IL-LU-11. Carbondale, Ill.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Watershed plan–environmental

impact statement, Upper Crab Orchard Creek

watershed, Williamson county, Illinois. Champaign,

Ill. 85p. + Appendices.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1997. Regional

multipliers: a user handbook for the regional inputoutput modeling system (RIMS II). 3rd Edition.

U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon

Sequestration Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
Appendix F:Bibliography

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

277

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1949. Recreational survey of the Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Region 2,

Omaha, Neb.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Environmental Assessment and

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration

Plan, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. 40p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. September 1999. Fish &

wildlife resource conservation priorities. Fort Snelling, MN 27p.

U.S. Department Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. 75 p. plus appendices. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. 1997. Banking

on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, DC. 118p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges. 1998. Biological

needs assessment. Washington, DC. 20p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. An ecosystem approach to fish

and wildlife conservation: An approach to more

effectively conserve the Nation's biodiversity.

Washington, DC. 14p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and

SEMARNAP Mexico. 1998. North American

Waterfowl Management Plan-1998 Update,

Expanding the Vision. 33p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and

SEMARNAP Mexico. 1998. North American

Waterfowl Management Plan-Upper Mississippi

River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture,

Implementation Plan Update. 22p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Employee pocket guide: conserving the nature of America 2001. Washington,

DC. 88p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish and wildlife resource conservation priorities, Region 3. Version 2.0. 33p.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Comptroller

General. 1984. Economic uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System unlikely to increase significantly.

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on

Energy and Commerce. GAO/RCED-84-108. 100p.

Vaughn, Martin E. 1978. The behavior of whitetailed deer on a highway right-of-way in southern

Illinois. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale. 90p.

Vance, D.R. 1976. Changes in land use and wildlife populations in southeastern Illinois. Wildl. Soc.

Bull. 4:11-15.

Warburton, David. 1978. Characteristic fauna

associated with conventional and conservation tillage systems. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 67p.

Ward, William C. 1976. Fall food habits of the

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis.

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 63p.

Whitaker, Maurice A. 1952. The fishes of Crab

Orchard Lake, Illinois. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 60p.

White, J. 1978. Illinois natural areas inventory

technical report. Volume 1. Survey methods and

results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana.

426 pp.

Wise, Gerald A. 1967. Canada goose mortality at

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 44p.

Woolf, A., and C.K. Nielsen. 1999. Status of the

bobcat in Illinois. Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, Final Report, IDNR-W-126-R-4, Springfield, Illinois, USA. 79pp. + attachments. 

Wright, Vernon L., and Richard L. Kasul. 1979.

Analysis of Canada goose band recovery data from

southern Illinois bandings, 1939-76. II. Distribution

analysis. A progress report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, Minn. Dept.

Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University,

Baton Rouge. 35p.

Appendix G:Public Law 80-361

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

279

Appendix G: Public Law 80-361

Appendix G:Public Law 80-361

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

281

Appendix G: Public Law 80-361

[Public Law 361 - 80th Congress]

[Chapter 489 - 1st Session]

[H.R. 3043]

AN ACT

To provide for the transfer of certain lands to the

Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to promote the

orderly development and use of the lands and interests therein acquired by the United States in connection with the Crab Orchard Creek project and

the Illinois Ordnance Plant in Williamson, Jackson,

and Union Counties, Illinois, consistent with the

needs of agriculture, industry, recreation, and wildlife conservation, all of the interests of the United

States in and to such lands are hereby transferred

to the Secretary of Interior for administration,

development, and disposition, in accordance with

the provisions of this Act.

Sec. 2. All of the lands transferred to the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the provisions of

this Act, first shall be classified by him with a view

to determining, in cooperation with Federal, State,

and public or private agencies and organizations,

the most beneficial use that may be made thereof to

carry out the purposes of this Act, including the

development of wildlife conservation, agricultural,

recreational, industrial, and related purposes. Such

lands as have been or may hereafter be determined

to be chiefly valuable for industrial purposes shall

be leased for such purposes at such times and under

such terms and conditions as are consistent with the

general purposes of Section 2 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, and with the purposes

of this Act. Except to the extent otherwise provided

in this Act, all lands herein transferred shall be

administered by the Secretary of the Interior

through the Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance

with the provisions of the Act of August 14, 1946

(Public Law 732, Seventy-ninth Congress), and Acts

supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes specified in this Act: Provided, that

no jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Secretary of

the Interior over that portion of such lands and the

improvements thereon which are now utilized by the

War Department directly or indirectly until such

time as it is determined by the Secretary or War

that utilization of such portions of such lands and

the improvements thereon directly or indirectly by

the War Department is no longer required: Provided further, That, subsequent to the determination referred to in the preceding proviso, the lands

and improvements mentioned therein shall be

administered by the Secretary of the Interior, and

any lease or other disposition thereof shall be made

subject to such terms, conditions, restrictions, and

reservations imposed by the Secretary of War as

will, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, be adequate to assure the continued availability for war

production purposes of such lands and improvements.

Approved August 5, 1947.

Appendix H:Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

283

Appendix H: Summary of Public Comment 

on Alternatives

Appendix H:Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

285

Appendix H: Summary of 

Public Comment on 

Alternatives

Public input is a key element in comprehensive

conservation planning. We have been and continue

to be committed to involving Refuge visitors, neighbors, the business community, farmers, other government units, and others interested in the Refuge's

future in this planning process. In September 2001,

we mailed out 1,400 copies of a project update that

described the planning process, the framework for

developing the alternatives to be considered, and

the four concepts that we were considering as preliminary management alternatives. Copies of the

update were also available at the Refuge. People

were invited to voice their thoughts on these alternatives either through e-mail or letters. We received

approximately 39 messages through e-mail, and 62

individual letters and 527 form letters, some of

which included individual comments. We also

received a petition with 485 names.

We have Comments are summarized people's

comments in the following paragraphs.

Comments in Support of Each 

Alternative

Alternative A

Many of the people who wrote letters or e-mail in

support of Alternative A described themselves as

supporting the original charter that established the

Refuge in 1947. The relationship of the Refuge's

four purposes – conservation of wildlife and development of agriculture, recreation, industrial and

related purposes – was described as “symbiotic” by

some writers. Some supporters said that the combined purposes are dependent upon one another and

that decreasing any particular existing use would

have ramifications for other uses. Several writers

noted the importance of Crab Orchard Lake and

industry on the Refuge to the local economy. Some

supporters of Alternative A said that change is

unnecessary because existing uses have not been

detrimental to wildlife or water quality. 

Some people said that they supported Alternative

A because they had reservations about the ability of

Southern Illinois University to manage the

resource.

Personal history with Crab Orchard Lake’s Lake

Marion recreational amenities was a factor in much

of the support for Alternative A. Some individuals

described the Refuge as a “heritage” and “way of

life.” Memories of gathering with family and friends

at the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club were frequently cited by individuals supporting this alternative. Some people described camping and boating as

contributing to their love for nature and appreciation for wildlife, and they expressed a desire for the

same opportunities to be available to their children

and grandchildren. Individuals who are retired said

that the Refuge is an affordable destination that

provides pleasant scenery, good fishing, and companionship with other retired people. Older people

and women also noted that the Crab Orchard Boat

& Yacht Club is a place where they feel safe camping. Other people said they appreciate the alcoholfree environment of the Club.

Some individuals said that their support of Alternative A was partly a response to past public use

restrictions and their perception that this alternative would lead to fewer restrictions than the other

alternatives. In the same vein, some people supported the alternative and the concept of opening

areas that have been closed. One writer said that

prairie restoration is not occurring and supports

returning more fields to grain crops and grazing.

The events of September 11, 2001, were on the

minds of some of the people who wrote in support of

Alternative A. Some individuals said that in an

uncertain world, the community needs jobs and

security, and thus needs to retain industry and existing recreational facilities at the Refuge.

Variations on Alternative A: 

Individuals who overall support Alternative A

also described various changes in current management that they would like to see implemented. Some

said that what they called “high impact recreation”

such as personal watercraft, all-terrain vehicles and

“excessively powered” engines should be banned

from the Refuge. There was support for giving

greater emphasis on low-impact recreation uses

such as hiking, sightseeing and photography, and

limiting hunting to specific areas to avoid conflict

with other uses.

Some people said that facilities such as boat

ramps, rest rooms, roads, and electrical services

should be improved in church camps and campgrounds. It was suggested that the beach and facilities at Carterville Beach be restored; another writer

said that beaches in general should be opened up
Appendix H:Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

286

and maintained for public swimming. One individual

suggested that the Refuge should increase the number of law enforcement and maintenance positions

on the Refuge.

Some people who support Alternative A suggested that if the Service ultimately decides on the

alternative involving a land exchange, the Crab

Orchard Boat & Yacht Club should not be included

in the exchange. Individuals espousing this opinion

said that the club does not present a great deal of

cost to the Service and provides funding through

annual lease fees. 

Another writer stated that new recreational

opportunities should be allowed on Devil's Kitchen

Lake, including scuba diving.

While they described Alternative A as most

closely aligning to their preference in Refuge management if combined with an increase in support for

public recreation, officials with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources offered several specific

recommendations on the direction of Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge. Maintaining and improving existing recreational facilities should be one of

the needs against which alternatives are measured,

DNR officials said. Specific recommendations

included:

Fish & Wildlife:

# Consolidate block timber management for

forest interior species around Devil's Kitchen

and Little Grassy lakes in the areas south of

Grassy Road.

# Increase development of moist-soil wetland

units where possible in pastures and/or

marginal crop fields.

# Control exotic vegetation and convert nonnative pines to deciduous forest.

# Continue warm, cool and cold-water fisheries

management.

# Expand public hunting opportunities where

possible.

Recreation:

# Consolidate marina services by private vendor

to Playport area.

# Upgrade Route 13 (Images Marina) to a large

boat ramp with expanded parking and upgrade

other boat ramps, campgrounds and beaches.

# Allow regulated recreational power boating on

Crab Orchard to continue with time and space

zoning for water skiing and personal water

craft.

# Continue to authorize the use of small outboard

motors on Devil's Kitchen Lake.

# Maintain status of Refuge Youth Camps and,

where possible, tie their mission to

environmental education as an outreach effort.

# Expand public hunting opportunities where

possible.

Industry:

# Maintain the status quo with existing tenants

and encourage new prospects to locate in

industrial parks associated with nearby cities.

Agriculture:

# Maintain 4,000 to 5,000 acres of agriculture in

crop fields, as winter food for Canada geese and

other wildlife.

# Evaluate cropfields and pastures for levels of

goose use to determine suitability for

conversion to wetlands, grasslands or

woodlands.

# Evaluate all pastures with low goose use levels

for conversion from cool season grasses to

native warm season grasses to benefit

grassland birds.

# Add warm season grass borders to many crop

fields.

Alternative B

Some Alternative B supporters cited a desire to

ensure the best interests of the land and wildlife

while still valuing the area's importance to recreation, industry and agriculture. The Refuge's importance in drawing tourism to the area was cited as

the reason other writers supported it. Some writers

advocated bolstering recreational facilities in the

northwest corner of the Refuge to make it a landmark destination facility. Supporters said that

exchanging recreational land would allow the

National Wildlife Refuge System to focus on its mission while a more appropriate institution focused on

improving recreational amenities. The alternative

was also seen as a means of decreasing habitat fragmentation. Other supporters suggested that a land

exchange would result in the ability to charge

higher rates, which would ultimately provide more

money for improvement of recreational facilities.

Variations on Alternative B: Variations suggested on this alternative included allowing current

boating activities on Crab Orchard Lake and Little

Grassy Lake but eliminating the use of personal
Appendix H:Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

287

watercraft. Increased dangers, liability, noise and

water pollution were cited by one writer as reasons

to eliminate personal watercraft. 

One writer supports a land exchange with Southern Illinois University, but with or without an

exchange would like to pursue leasing a marina for

sailboats on Crab Orchard Lake. 

Alternative C

Alternative C's supporters said that emphasizing

open land habitats would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible given the Service's budget and would expand wildlife-dependent

recreation.

Variations on Alternative C: Interest was

expressed in creating habitat to benefit wild turkeys, which was described as a patchwork of cropland, grassland and woodlands with timber in

various stages of succession. Another writer identified Alternative C as his first choice, but suggested

rolling alternatives A and C into one alternative.

Alternative D

Individuals supporting Alternative D said that

enhancing forest habitat would benefit songbirds by

reducing habitat fragmentation and would provide

more recreational opportunities for hikers, bikers

and horseback riders. Some people cited the length

of time it takes to establish a forest and the difficulty in replacing forest.

Variation on Alternative D: Some individuals

were in overall support of Alternative D, but voiced

a preference for recreation as it now exists.

Comments About a Particular Aspect of 

Certain Alternatives

Phasing Out Group Camps

Four group camps – Camp Carew, Methodist

Camp, Camp Cedar Point and Pine Ridge Camp –

are operated on the Refuge. The camps include two

church camps, a Boy Scout camp and Camp Cedar

Point, which is operated by the Girl Scouts of America. Alternative C, Open Land Management, proposes to phase out the group camps. Alternative A

would maintain group camping as it is currently

allowed, and alternatives B and D would manage

group camps with an emphasis on the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

A number of people, including former and current Girl Scouts and Scout leaders, wrote in favor of

maintaining the current management of group

camps, specifically Camp Cedar Point. Some writers

noted that the camp has been a positive partnership

for the Refuge because it accomplishes Girl Scout

goals for girls who participate in the program and it

plants the seeds of a conservation ethic in young

minds. In the same vein, some writers said that

without exposing children and teenagers to nature,

there won't be anyone who cares about the land in

the future. 

A camper noted that she has learned basic life

skills at Camp Cedar Point that her non-camping

classmates have not gained, and Scout leaders said

that Camp Cedar Point is one of the best outdoor

camps in the area. Another troop leader said that

Camp Cedar Point is the only wildlife experience

that some girls get as children.

The events of September 11 were also noted in

letters supporting continuation of group camps.

Youth are now facing more uncertainty than ever,

one writer said, and they need the environment as

an oasis and retreat. 

Eliminating Motorboats from Devils Kitchen Lake

Alternatives B, C and D propose to eliminate the

use of gas motors on Devil's Kitchen Lake. 

Some writers suggested that eliminating motor

boats on Devils Kitchen Lake is unnecessary

because the existing 10-horse power limit and existing boat traffic do not discourage canoe use on the

lake. Rather, submerged trees and stumps create

more hazards for canoeists than existing boat use,

some people said. Some people expressed concern

that banning gas motors would effectively prohibit

older people from fishing the lake. Some writers

said that the lake is too big to fish in a non-motorized craft, and others shared stories of being stuck

on a submerged tree and needing a motor to break

free again. Some writers noted that they are paying

fees to use Refuge lakes and said that they do not

want to see any restrictions in public use. Some

writers said that the lake's water quality belies the

need to eliminate motors. On the other hand, the

opinion was also expressed that the changes proposed would improve fishing on Devils Kitchen

Lake. 

Land Exchange

Alternative B proposes exchanging land in the

developed northwest corner of the Refuge with

Southern Illinois University. The area under consideration is directly adjacent to New Route 13 and

includes two marinas, parking lots, picnic areas and

a campground. 
Appendix H:Summary of Public Comment on Alternatives

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

288

Some individuals expressed reservations about

Southern Illinois University's ability to successfully

manage recreation if a land exchange occurred. Others interpreted an exchange with SIU as a decrease

in recreational facilities and activities, and opposed

it on that basis. Individuals in favor of a land

exchange said that recreational activities are not

appropriate to the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System and also constitute a drain on budgets and staff availability. Supporters of a land

exchange said that developed uses would be more

appropriately managed by local park districts and

State of Illinois programs.

Restatement of Issues

Personal Watercraft: Some respondents

expressed a desire to have personal watercraft prohibited on the Refuge, saying that they are loud,

they pollute the lake, they interfere with other

watercraft and they interfere with waterfowl. Boating should be restricted to canoes, kayaks, sailboats,

pontoons and fishing boats, and a “somewhat lower”

horse-power limit should be initiated, according to

some writers. In addition to personal watercraft,

some people said that all-terrain vehicles and

“motorized thrill craft” in general damage streams,

creeks, and thin soil areas, and they are hard to

police. One writer described himself as liking personal watercraft, but said he does not support their

use on Refuge lakes because the people using them

are often “arrogant and reckless.”

Sailboats: Some people wrote to voice their

desire for increased sailboat access to Crab Orchard

Lake. Some writers described enhancing accommodations for sailboats on Crab Orchard Lake as a significant issue. Sailing was advocated as a low-impact

approach to expanding public use opportunities for

wildlife observation and photography and environmental education in aquatic, shoreline, and nearshore flora and fauna. Other people advocated

allowing sailing, saying that sail boats do not generate fuel and oil residue, are quiet, and do not contribute to shoreline erosion. Sailing was also

advocated as a means of exposing people to the Refuge in a way that makes it a special and lasting

experience.

Removal of Pines and Logging: Some people

expressed an opinion against logging at Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, saying that

heavy equipment would damage sensitive soils and

have a deleterious impact on water quality. The

potential impact on wildlife was also cited by a

writer opposing logging on the Refuge. Other people supported the existence of pine stands on the

Refuge because they provide habitat for a variety of

bird species but also supported planting hardwoods

in areas where pines have already been removed.

Other writers said they supported thinning pine

stands and replacing them with hardwoods. 

Fee Program: Some writers said that the fee program should be discontinued because people are

already paying for the Refuge via taxes. The fee

program was described as an “unfair system” that

limited access to the Refuge for people with low

incomes. Other people suggested that the Refuge

recognize a current duck stamp as a valid pass for

entering the Refuge. One writer said that the fee

system has discouraged him from going to the Refuge and questioned whether it has reduced cost the

Refuge in terms of public support for the Refuge.

Comments on Variations of 

Alternatives:

Some of the people who wrote letters or e-mail to

support a specific alternative suggested significant

variations to the management alternatives. 

One writer who supported Alternative A suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service work with

the U.S. Park Service to “...coordinate something

really 'great' in education, recreation and environmental needs” for Crab Orchard Lake and the

entire Refuge.

Writers suggested a compromise on the issue of

eliminating motors from Devil's Kitchen Lake by

eliminating motors only on the southern half of the

lake. People would still have the opportunity to boat

and fish with motors on the northern half of the

lake, while eliminating motors on the southern half

would expand the wilderness area. It was also suggested that new public use activities such as scuba

diving and snorkeling would introduce an innovative

approach to wildlife observation in a fresh water

community.

Some writers did not identify a specific alternative they would like to see pursued, but did discuss

particular management concerns. Some people said

that the Refuge over emphasizes game species at

the expense of non-game species and native plants.

Writers also encouraged the Refuge to increase

efforts to inventory and assess the status of federal

and state-listed threatened and endangered species

within the Refuge and to encourage habitat supporting those species.
Appendix I:Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

289

Appendix I: Letter Outlining the Exchange 

Proposal

Appendix I:Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

291
Appendix I:Letter Outlining the Exchange Proposal

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

292
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

293

Appendix J: Compatibility Determinations

# Biking/Jogging and Footraces – 295

# Boating – 297

# Camping, Swimming and Picnicking – 299

# Cemetery Operations – 301

# Collection of Wild Plant Foods for 

Personal Use – 303

# Cooperative Farming – 305

# Fire Department Training – 307

# Fishing (Competitive Events) – 309

# Fishing (Recreational) – 311

# Grazing of Livestock – 313

# The Haven Operations – 315

# Haying – 317

# Horseback Riding – 319

# Hunting of Fox – 321

# Hunting of Migratory Waterfowl and Game

Birds, Resident Game and Furbearers

(Recreational) – 323

# Industrial Operations – 326

# Installation of Nesting Structures by Public or

Groups – 328

# Interpretation and Environmental 

Education – 330

# Priority Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses

on Lands Proposed to be Acquired – 332

# Sewage Collection System Replacement by the

City of Marion – 334

# Trapping of Furbearers – 335

# Waterskiing – 337

# Wildlife Observation and Interpretation – 339

# Wood Cutting and Timber Harvest – 341

# Youth Camp Operations – 343

Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

295

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Biking, Jogging, and Foot Races

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for – (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary... may accept and

use... real... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Uses: Biking currently is allowed

only on roads open to motorized vehicles. In the

future the refuge may establish trails specifically for

bicycle and foot traffic.

Jogging and running are allowed anywhere open

to general public use. Most of this type of use occurs

on the public roadways and hiking trails.

Organized foot races require a special use permit

issued by the Refuge Manager. The permit may

authorize runners access to roads within the

restricted use area.

The amount of biking and jogging use is relatively trivial, but probably would increase if trails

were designated for these activities. The refuge typically issues permits for two to five foot races per

year. These uses occur year-round.

These activities can occur at other locations outside of the refuge. Allowing these activities on the

refuge without adversely impacting wildlife or priority recreational uses fosters good community relations. Poor relations between the refuge and the

public has been cited as an area of concern by the

public at informational meetings held during preparation of the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation

Plan.

These activities are not priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources: The refuge provides

access roads, hiking trails, parking lots, signs,

restroom facilities and staff to maintain these facilities and enforce regulations. These facilities will be

maintained to meet the needs of the public engaged

primarily in other activities. These uses require

minor expenditures of funds and personnel for

administration, maintenance, and law enforcement.

The activity of jogging does not require any expenditure of refuge funds. Foot races are managed by

not-for-profit organizations and require little expenditure of refuge funds or staff time. If funds, likely

less than $1,000 per fiscal year, are required they

are available from the refuge user fee program.

Bicycling on refuge roads does not require expenditure of refuge funds. If bicycling paths are constructed they would be funded through special

programs such as T-21 (a Federal Highway Administration program), friends groups, and the Refuge

Operating Needs System. Operation and management of bicycle trails would be funded through the

recreational fee program.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur during these activities,

but would be limited and localized. These activities
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

296

should not result in short- or long-term impacts that

adversely affect the purposes of the refuge or the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

1. Biking is permitted only on public roads open 

to motorized vehicles.

2. Jogging and running are permitted in areas 

open to general public use.

3. Organizers of foot races must have a valid 

special use permit and pay any associated fees 

prior to holding an event.

4. All biking, jogging, running, fitness walking, 

and foot racing activities must comply with 

applicable policies and regulations.

5. Bicycles are not allowed in Crab Orchard Wilderness.

Justification: While biking, jogging, and foot races

are not priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses

of Refuge System lands, these activities support the

general recreation purpose for which the refuge was

established. These uses should have limited and

localized negative impacts when conducted with the

stipulations above. Providing these opportunities

with local service organizations promotes the refuge=s image as a good neighbor to the surrounding

communities. Administration of these uses will

require minor amounts of administrative time and

funding.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

297

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Boating

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C.

' 460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System A... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...@ (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows various

forms of boating on the three large lakes. The types

of boats commonly used range from canoes and kayaks to jon boats, personal watercraft (commonly

known as ‘jet skis’), runabouts, bass boats and sailboats to pontoon boats and massive house boats.

Most of the boating activity occurs on Crab Orchard

Lake, which is divided at the Wolf Creek Road

causeway into two areas; the eastern portion being

seasonally closed to boating to provide a sanctuary

for wintering waterfowl. Several coves and bays of

Crab Orchard Lake have been designated as nowake or no-skiing zones. There is a 10-horsepower

motor limit on Little Grassy Lake and Devils

Kitchen Lake.

Boating is a very popular, year-round activity,

with most use occurring between Memorial Day and

Labor Day. Most of the boating use is associated

with fishing. Other activities include waterfowl

hunting, waterskiing, sailing and pleasure cruising.

Little Grassy Lake receives significant non-motorized boat use from the four refuge youth camps and

SIU Touch of Nature Environmental Center. There

are twenty boat launching ramps and parking lots to

accommodate this use on the three lakes. 

There are three marinas on Crab Orchard Lake

offering permanent boat docking facilities and other

services, and Little Grassy Lake and Devils Kitchen

Lake each have a concession-operated marina.

Playport Marina, which is operated by the refuge,

offers separate docks with slips for houseboats, runabouts and sailboats, as well as restrooms, fueling

and sewage disposal services on Crab Orchard

Lake. Images Marina is a smaller boat docking

facility on Crab Orchard Lake which is also operated by the refuge. The refuge arranges for volunteer hosts to stay on-site at Playport and Images

marinas during the summer peak-use season. The

third marina on Crab Orchard Lake is operated by

the Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club, a private

organization, through a lease contract with the refuge.

Boating is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. However, most boating use

occurs in conjunction with fishing, hunting, or wildlife observation. Pleasure boating was instituted on

Crab Orchard Lake by the USDA Soil Conservation

Service before the refuge was established in 1947,

and has been allowed ever since.

Availability of Resources: The refuge provides

three large lakes (covering almost 9,000 acres) along

with marinas, boat ramps, courtesy docks, parking

lots, access roads, signs, restroom facilities, boat

fueling station, sewage collection system, and staff

to maintain these facilities and enforce regulations.

These facilities will be maintained to meet the needs
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

298

of the public engaged in boating, as well as other

uses. The refuge staff includes personnel who perform contract compliance, administrative, maintenance, and law enforcement functions. The annual

cost of administering and managing this use and

associated facilities is about $250,000. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur as a result of this activity, but usually is limited and localized.

Disturbance to wintering waterfowl is minimized by

the seasonal closure of the eastern portion of Crab

Orchard Lake. Boating causes some shoreline erosion and water turbidity, but is relatively minor as

compared to that caused by natural wave action.

Sometimes there are conflicts between the various

types of boat users, such as those in powerboats versus sailboats or in jet skis versus fishing boats.

There is some undetermined level of water pollution

caused by boat motors, particularly the ubiquitous

2-cycle engines, and by improper disposal of sewage

from houseboats. This activity should not result in

short- or long-term impacts that adversely affect

fulfilling the purposes of the refuge or the mission of

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

houses and focus group meetings were held to discuss and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written

comments were solicited from the public about refuge operations. 

This determination is being made as part of a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional

review will occur as part of the public review of the

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Crab Orchard Lake east of Wolf Creek Road 

causeway is closed to boating during the wintering waterfowl season.

2. Boating activities must comply with all appropriate Service policies and refuge regulations.

3. Motorboating activities must comply with policy contained in Service Manual Chapter 632 

FW 3, Motorboats and Waterskiing.

Justification: While boating is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of Refuge System

lands, this activity supports the general recreation

purpose for which the refuge was established. This

use should have limited and localized negative

impacts when conducted with the stipulations above.

Administration of this use will require significant,

but manageable, amounts of administrative time

and funding. When conducted under the stipulations above, boating will not materially interfere

with or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge

System mission or the purposes of the refuge.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

299

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Uses: Camping, Swimming, and Picnicking

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Uses: Camping is allowed only in

designated campgrounds. There are three campgrounds:

1. Crab Orchard Campground, located on Crab 

Orchard Lake, has 250 campsites and is operated under a concession contract.

2. Little Grassy Campground and Marina, 

located on Little Grassy Lake, has 130 campsites and is operated under a concession contract.

3. Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club Campground and Marina, located on Crab Orchard 

Lake, has 40 campsites and is operated under 

a lease contract. This facility is not open to the 

general public, only to members of the club.

Swimming is generally allowed in Crab Orchard

Lake and Little Grassy Lake, but prohibited in all

other bodies of water including Devils Kitchen

Lake. There is a public beach in both the Crab

Orchard Campground and Little Grassy Campground operated under the campground contracts. 

Picnicking is allowed in several scattered areas

where the refuge has installed tables, grills, trash

receptacles and restroom facilities. There is a picnic

shelter located at Playport Marina available for

public use by reservation.

Camping, swimming, and picnicking are popular

summer activities with most use occurring between

Memorial Day and Labor Day. Some camping, especially by hunters, extends into the spring and fall.

Camping, swimming, and picnicking are not priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. For

many people, these are traditional, family-oriented

activities which provide an opportunity for those

participating to enjoy the natural environment.

Swimming and picnicking were instituted by the

USDA Soil Conservation Service before the refuge

was established and have been allowed, to greater

or lesser degrees, since. The refuge made a transition from dispersed camping to an aggregated form

when Crab Orchard Campground opened in 1964.

These long established activities are considered to

be generally consistent with the Arecreation@ purpose of the refuge.

Availability of Resources: The refuge provides

campgrounds, lakes with beaches, and picnic areas,

as well as access trails, parking lots, signs, plus

restroom, shower and fish cleaning facilities, and

staff to maintain these facilities and enforce regulations. These facilities will be maintained to meet the

needs of the public engaged in camping, swimming,

and picnicking, as well as other uses. Funding for

the staff that manage these activities is appropriated annually and is approximately $58,000. Operations and maintenance costs are estimated to be
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

300

$6,000 per year. Funding from the recreational fee

program for rehabilitation, replacement and major

repairs varies from $2,000 to $20,000 annually. The

refuge will manage campgrounds and beach facilities through concession contracts.

Camping, swimming, and picnicking opportunities are offered in nearby state parks, municipal

parks, and at Rend Lake.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Campgrounds

occupy approximately 125 acres of the refuge. Birds

that use understory vegetation are impacted by the

loss of this habitat. In addition, birds and other animals that are disturbed by the activities associated

with camping will be excluded from these areas. Soil

erosion and compaction can also occur with this concentrated activity. Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur during these activities, but will be

limited and localized. These activities should not

result in short- or long-term impacts that adversely

affect the purposes of the refuge or the mission of

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Camping is allowed only in designated campgrounds where appropriate facilities permit 

intensive use without inordinate impacts to 

refuge resources.

2. Swimming is allowed only in Crab Orchard 

Lake and Little Grassy Lake.

Justification: While camping, swimming, and picnicking are not priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses of Refuge System lands, these activities

support the recreation purpose for which the refuge

was established. These uses should have limited and

localized negative impacts on natural resources

when conducted with the stipulations above. Administration of these uses will require significant, but

manageable, amounts of administrative time and

funding.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

301

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Activities Associated with Refuge Cemeteries

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: There are 38 known cemeteries located on the refuge. The number of graves in

each ranges from 1 to well over 200. Most of the

cemeteries are not maintained, but several are

maintained by relatives or volunteers who perform

regular mowing and brush removal. Several cemeteries have had interments in recent years. Some

cemeteries receive visitors regularly, usually

around the Memorial Day and Veterans Day holidays; most do not. Over the Memorial Day weekend

the refuge opens the gates to several cemeteries in

the restricted use area. The refuge issues gate keys

on request to people who wish to visit cemeteries in

the restricted use area at other times.

Availability of Resources: The refuge is not

responsible for maintaining the cemeteries; however, refuge volunteers sometimes perform mowing

and brush removal. Refuge personnel and volunteers working at the visitor information center are

available to open and close gates over the Memorial

Day weekend and issue gate keys to people who

wish to visit cemeteries in the restricted use area at

other times. Refuge personnel are available to handle the relatively rare requests for new interments. 

Management of this activity will need to be

brought into compliance with certain laws and policies governing historic and cultural resources. The

administration of this program will require approximately $5,000 to $10,000 staff time to bring into

compliance. Costs to administer the program on an

annual basis are less than $1,000. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Cemetery activities

have minimal impact on the natural resources of the

refuge. Mowing reduces ground cover and produces

noise. In some cases the understory is removed

which adversely impacts birds that use this type of

cover. Interments involve temporary soil disturbance.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

302

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Future burials are permitted only in designated cemeteries for individuals who:

# 9 were former owners of land now 

owned by the refuge fee title

# 9 are immediate family members of 

families already buried there, or

# 9 possess a legally binding document 

such as a deed to a burial plot.

2. For each approved burial, the refuge will 

issue a special use permit (with appropriate 

special conditions) authorizing a responsible 

party to conduct the burial.

3. No cemeteries will be expanded beyond their 

current boundaries.

Justification: All of the cemeteries were established before the Fish and Wildlife Service assumed

control of the lands now in the refuge. The personnel time required to administer cemetery maintenance, visitation, and use is minimal. Permitting

visitation, grounds maintenance, and family burials

promotes good relations with the public.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

303

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Collection of Wild Plant Foods for Personal

Use

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows the public to

collect various wild plant food products for personal

use.

Some plants growing on the refuge produce edible products such as fruits and nuts. Blackberries,

raspberries, grapes, plums, persimmons, mulberries, pawpaws, pecans, hazelnuts and walnuts are

examples of these products. Harvest occurs during

the daylight hours, usually in the summer or fall and

typically is of short duration. These foods are hand

harvested by picking the products from the plant or

gathering what has fallen to the ground.

Mushrooms, asparagus, and poke weed are examples of plant parts that are collected and consumed.

These are usually picked or cut by hand in the

spring. 

Access to harvest sites is typically accomplished

by walking from a parking area or public roadway.

Access may also be made by boat.

Collection of these plant foods is not a priority

wildlife-dependent recreational use identified in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. For some

people, this is a traditional, family- oriented activity

which provides an opportunity for those participating to collect wholesome foods while enjoying the

natural environment. 

Availability of Resources: About half of the refuge

land has been open to collecting wild plant foods

since it was acquired. Access trails, parking lots,

signs and other facilities as well as staff to enforce

regulations and maintain these facilities have been

provided by the refuge. These facilities will be maintained primarily to meet the needs of the public

engaged in hunting, fishing, and other activities, and

will be used incidentally by those collecting wild

plant foods. This use will not require a significant

increase in additional maintenance or enforcement

staff expenditures. The refuge will not have to provide special equipment. The management of this

activity requires less than $2,000 per year.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Historically, public

participation in the collection of plant food products

on the refuge has been low, and future participation

is also expected to be low. The quantity and frequency of plant food products removed is not

expected to significantly diminish wildlife food

sources or jeopardize wildlife survival. 

Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur

during these activities, but will be insignificant.

This activity should not result in short- or long-term

impacts that adversely affect the purposes of the

refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

304

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Collection of the following plants, or parts and 

products thereof, is prohibited: ginseng, 

Solomon’s seal, goldenseal, wild ginger, St. 

John’s wort, prickly pear cactus, and maples.

2. Digging of plants or their roots is prohibited. 

3. Plant food products are for personal use only 

and cannot be sold or traded. 

4. Damaging trees, shrubs or any other vegetation is prohibited. 

Justification: This use supports the recreation

purpose for which the refuge was established. The

collection of wild plant foods for personal use will

have limited and localized impacts when conducted

with the stipulations above.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

305

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Cooperative Farming

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Cooperative farming is the

term used for agricultural cropping activities done

by local farmers as directed and authorized by the

refuge. The cropping is done under the terms and

conditions of Cooperative Farming Agreements

issued by the Refuge Manager. The terms of the

agreements ensure that all current Service and refuge policies are followed. The primary reasons for

growing crops are to satisfy the refuge’s legislated

agricultural purpose and to provide grain and forage for wintering Canada geese. In addition, numerous other wildlife species take advantage of the

crops.

Currently the refuge has 8 cooperators who farm

about 4,500 acres. The crop rotation on upland fields

is corn/soybeans/corn/clover/clover. The rotation on

bottomland fields is corn/soybeans. During the

years that corn is grown, 25 percent is left standing

in the field for wildlife use. The cooperators are

required to cut the clover in the fall to provide suitable conditions for Canada geese to loaf and browse

in the fields. Cooperators are allowed to cut and harvest second year clover crops for hay. Cooperators

practice standard commercial agriculture typical for

this region: sometimes tilling, sometimes planting

“no-till,” applying a variety of fertilizers and herbicides, and harvesting—all using large specialized

machinery. Some of the corn and soybean seeds

planted are genetically modified varieties. Normally

no money changes hands in the operation of the

cooperative farming program. The refuge receives:

a 25 percent share of the corn, winter wheat planted

following soybeans, and clover fields cut short in the

fall. Stipulations of the agreements require cooperators to maintain recommended soil fertility and pH

levels. Occasionally and on a limited basis, surplus

corn is harvested in the spring for which the cooperator pays one half of the proceeds to the government. Proposed changes in future farming

operations would prohibit the mowing of clover until

August 1 each year. 

Availability of Resources: The staff time for administration of the cooperative farming program is

already committed and available. The time needed

to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed

Cooperative Farming Agreements is rather significant, but within existing refuge resources. The refuge wildlife biologist and a biological sciences

technician administer the farm program along with

their other duties. Cooperators use the existing network of state, county, and refuge roads to access the

fields. Occasionally the refuge does work to facilitate access, such as road improvement or bridge

repair. The refuge expends about $10,000 per fiscal

year in administrative and maintenance activities

related to cooperative farming.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Cooperative farming will result in both positive and negative impacts

to resident and migratory wildlife. Short-term
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

306

impacts include disturbance and displacement during operation of heavy equipment and following

changes in ground cover. Long-term benefits are

primarily to wintering Canada geese, but some

other migratory and resident species that use open

habitats are served. Many forest-dwelling migratory birds will be negatively impacted because

farmed land often increases numbers of potential

nest predators (e.g., raccoon) and nest parasites

(e.g., brown-headed cowbird). Other negative

impacts associated with farming are increased soil

erosion and pesticide residue loads, both of which

can degrade soil and water quality. All cooperative

farming agreements include stipulations to emphasize conservation benefits and minimize negative

impacts.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Cooperative farming agreements will comply 

with all appropriate Service policies and regulations.

Justification: Cooperative farming directly supports the agriculture and wildlife conservation purposes for which the refuge was established, and

indirectly supports the recreation purpose. Farming

will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System

mission.

Signature:Refuge Manager:________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

307

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Fire Department Training

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Local fire departments conduct training exercises involving drafting water

from Crab Orchard Lake and either spraying it

directly back into the lake or transporting the water

less than one mile and dumping it. This activity

helps fire personnel become familiar with their

equipment to maintain readiness to respond to

emergencies. The sites normally used are Take

Pride Point boat ramp and Wolf Creek Road recreation area. In the past, this activity has taken place

one to three times per year.

Fire department training is not a purpose of the

Refuge, nor is it a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. However, this use indirectly supports all the purposes of the Refuge.

Availability of Resources: The annual cost of

administering this use is minimal. Refuge staff is

available to issue special use permits. Monitoring

this use is not necessary.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: There would be

minimal, short-term disturbance to fish and wildlife

in the immediate area of activity lasting one to four

hours. Visitors engaged in recreational activities

would be minimally affected, if at all.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Training exercises will be conducted under 

the terms of a special use permit issued by the 

Refuge Manager.

2. Permittee will not introduce any foreign substances, such as foam concentrates, to the 

water or lands.

3. Permittee will not transport water from one 

body of water to another.

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

308

Justification: Fire department training indirectly

supports all the legislated purposes of the Refuge

by maintaining a local force to protect the Refuge’s

natural resources and improvements from fire.

Anticipated negative impacts are minimal. The cost

of administering this use is minimal.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

309

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Competitive Fishing Events

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge annually allows

three sanctioned bass fishing tournaments on Crab

Orchard Lake, one each on Devils Kitchen and Little Grassy lakes, and many smaller scale “fish offs”

on these three lakes. The tournaments, proceeds

from which go to the winners and charities, are conducted by organizations under a special use permit

issued by the refuge. Tournaments are typically

two-day events involving an average of 100 boats.

Fish offs, which are events with fewer than 20 boats

organized by fishing clubs, distribute the proceeds

among the winners. The refuge issues special use

permits for about 130 fish offs per year and many

more fish offs occur without a permit. All boats are

required to be equipped with aerated live wells and

all the fish caught must be returned to the water following the weigh-in.

Availability of Resources: Competitive anglers use

the existing network of roads to access the various

bodies of water for fishing. The refuge provides an

area (Take Pride Point) for the exclusive use of tournament participants to launch their boats. The refuge also furnishes numerous parking lots, boat

ramps, docks, piers, restrooms, signs and other

facilities primarily for use by anglers. The refuge

provides staff to maintain these facilities, disseminate information to visitors, and enforce regulations. All of the bodies of water open to competitive

fishing are artificial impoundments maintained and

managed by the refuge. The refuge maintains game

fish rearing ponds to enhance fishing opportunities.

Fisheries management is conducted in cooperation

with Illinois Department of Natural Resources. This

activity has occurred on the refuge since the 1960s

and is considered to be generally consistent with the

“recreation” purpose of the refuge.

Funding for staffing this activity is approximately $2,000. Costs associated with other activities

such as boating capture the operation and maintenance of facilities mentioned above. The Take Pride

in America Organization is responsible for the operation and maintenance of “Take Pride Point” and

the maintenance of the fish rearing ponds. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Competitive fishing

activities may cause temporary disturbance to

waterfowl and other wildlife. There is some concern

that catch-and-release bass fishing stresses and kills

fish, especially during summer, but the magnitude is

unknown at this time. Fish offs may have greater

impacts to the fishery resource assuming precautions designed to reduce post-release mortality may

not followed by the fish offs conducted without permits. Undoubtedly some shoreline erosion is caused

by boat wakes, but is relatively minor compared to

that caused by wind-driven wave action. The potential exists for conflicts between competitive anglers

and purely recreational anglers, especially for coveted fishing spots. In addition, conflicts with other

boaters could arise from inconsiderate boat opera-
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

310

tion. With reasonable use restrictions in effect, competitive fishing should not result in short- or longterm impacts that adversely affect the purposes of

the refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All applicable State and Federal regulations 

apply. Regulations and monitoring help 

ensure that harvest levels of fish do not harm 

long-term populations.

2. Competitive fishing events will be regulated 

to have a minimal impact on other lake users.

3. All sponsors of competitive fishing events 

must have a valid special use permit and pay 

any associated fees prior to conducting the 

event.

Justification: Competitive fishing events support

the general recreation purpose for which the refuge

was established. Recreational fishing is a priority

wildlife-dependent recreational use, as defined by

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

Fishing and its impacts on fishery resources are

monitored by the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources and refuge-specific regulations are

implemented to properly manage the sport fishing

resource.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

311

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Recreational Fishing

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows public fishing in accordance with State and refuge regulations

and seasons. Illinois recreational fishing regulations

allow the traditional taking of game fish species with

rod and reel from shore, a boat or through the ice,

using trotlines and jugs, removal of rough fish by

spear, archery and dip net, as well as the taking of

limited quantities of mussels, crayfish, frogs, minnows and turtles for personal use.

Availability of Resources: Anglers use the existing

network of roads to access the various bodies of

water for fishing. The refuge provides numerous

parking lots, boat ramps, docks, piers, restrooms,

signs and other facilities primarily for use by

anglers. The refuge provides staff to maintain these

facilities, disseminate information to visitors, and

enforce regulations. All of the bodies of water open

to fishing are artificial impoundments maintained

and managed by the refuge. The refuge maintains

game fish rearing ponds to enhance recreational

fishing opportunities. Fisheries management is conducted in cooperation with Illinois Department of

Natural Resources.

Funding for staffing this activity is approximately $10,000 annually. Operations and maintenance is an additional $2,000. Recreational fee

program funding of $500 to $10,000 may be spent

annually for rehabilitation, major repairs, or

replacement of facilities associated with recreational

fishing. Some of the costs associated with this activity are covered with other activities such as boating.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Fishing activities

and harvest of other aquatic species may cause temporary disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife.

To minimize disturbance some areas are closed to

fishing during fall and winter when waterfowl concentrate. There is some concern that catch-andrelease bass fishing stresses and kills fish, especially

during summer, but the magnitude is unknown at

this time. Undoubtedly some shoreline erosion is

caused by boat wakes, but is relatively minor compared to that caused by wind-driven wave action.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

312

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All applicable State and Federal regulations 

apply. Regulations and monitoring help 

ensure that harvest levels of fish do not have 

harmful long-term impact on fish populations.

Justification: Fishing supports the recreation purpose for which the refuge was established. Fishing

is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use, as

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 (as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997). Fishing and its impacts on fishery

resources are monitored by the Illinois Department

of Natural Resources and refuge-specific regulations are implemented to properly manage the sport

fishing resource.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

313

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Livestock Grazing

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Local farmers graze their cattle as directed and authorized by the refuge. Grazing is done under the terms and conditions of special

use permits issued by the Refuge Manager. The

terms of the permits ensure that current Service

and refuge policies are followed. Grazing is recognized as a valuable tool to remove standing vegetation, reduce excess vegetative litter, and suppress

woody vegetation. The primary reasons for grazing

are to satisfy the refuge’s legislated agricultural

purpose and to provide open habitat suitable for

browsing and loafing by wintering Canada geese.

Currently the refuge has 7 permit holders who

graze about 1,000 acres of tall fescue pasture. The

grazing season extends from April 15 through October. There are about 21 miles of perimeter and cross

fences around and within the grazing units. The refuge initially constructs fences and gates for each

pasture unit and provides materials for repairs.

Fence maintenance and control of livestock are the

responsibility of the permittees. The refuge charges

permittees market rate grazing fees and gives

credit for fertilizing and mowing the pastures. Permittees are required to mow the pastures in the fall

to make them attractive to wintering Canada geese.

Proposed changes to grazing practices include: 1)

conversion of fescue to native, warm-season grasses

or cool-season grasses that are more beneficial to

wildlife, 2) reduction or elimination of fall mowing,

and 3) possible reduction in grazing pressure. The

goal of these changes is to improve habitat for nesting migratory grassland birds.

Grazing is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. As an economic use of

Refuge System lands, a compatibility determination

for grazing is mandatory.

Availability of Resources: Administering the grazing program, which includes constructing fences,

issuing permits, and monitoring compliance,

requires using refuge funds and personnel. The refuge wildlife biologist and a biological science technician administer the grazing program along with

their other duties. The funds necessary to administer this program are normally available through the

refuge’s staffing and operations and maintenance

accounts. The refuge expends about $40,000 per fiscal year in administrative and maintenance activities related to grazing.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Grazing will result

in both positive and negative impacts to resident

and migratory wildlife. Grazing will be used to maintain and improve healthy grassland communities to

benefit grassland birds. Some forest-dwelling

migratory birds will be negatively impacted because

pastures often increase numbers of brown-headed

cowbirds, a nest parasite.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

314

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Grazing is allowed only from April 15 to October 31 to minimize disturbance to wintering 

geese.

2. To ensure sustainability, the refuge will 

determine and set prudent limits on the number of animal unit months (AUM) allowable 

for each pasture unit according to its size, 

vegetation health and composition, and any 

other pertinent factors.

3. Permittees must mow pastures in the fall if 

the refuge determines mowing is necessary to 

provide desirable conditions for wintering 

geese.

4. Grazing activities must comply with all appropriate Service policies and regulations.

Justification: Grazing by domestic livestock, with

appropriate stipulations, supports the agriculture

and wildlife conservation purposes for which the refuge was established. Limited livestock grazing creates temporary disturbances to vegetation, many of

which are desirable for proper grassland management. Grazing produces some undesirable, but

short-term, impacts to grassland bird nesting, public recreational use, and site aesthetics. Grazing is a

cost-effective management tool that can be used to

replace or complement prescribed burning, mowing,

or haying on grasslands. Without regular disturbance caused by mowing, haying, burning, or grazing, the health of the grassland community and its

potential as wildlife habitat would decline. The grazing program provides wintering habitat suitable for

browsing and loafing by the Canada goose, which is

a Service trust species and a primary focus for refuge management.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

315

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: “The Haven” Operations

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The Haven is a 10-acre site

located on the north shore of Crab Orchard Lake,

near the intersection of Highway 13 and Cambria

Road. The Refuge has leased the site to the Egyptian Past Commanders Club of the American

Legion since 1948, for the benefit and enjoyment of

disabled veterans, primarily from the Veterans

Affairs Hospital in Marion and the Anna State Hospital. The Haven’s facilities include a one-story

lodge and several outdoor patios, which are used for

day visits by veterans for recreation and socializing.

A resident caretaker, employed by the Egyptian

Past Commanders Club, coordinates events and

maintains the buildings and grounds.

The Haven operations support the general recreation purpose of the Refuge, but do not directly support the priority wildlife-dependent recreational

uses as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement

Act of 1997. The Refuge will evaluate ongoing activities at The Haven and make recommendations to

provide opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent recreation to existing clients as well as the general public.

Availability of Resources: The Refuge provides

the facilities and adjacent lands; the Egyptian Past

Commanders Club is responsible for general operations and maintenance. The annual cost to the refuge for administering and managing The Haven

operations lease contract is minimal. The Refuge

staff includes a contract compliance specialist who

administers and manages this and other lease contracts. The Refuge currently receives no compensation from The Haven for the use of the facilities, but

is proposing to assess nominal fees to help cover its

administrative expenses.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The Haven operations provide visitor services to a select clientele.

The general public is excluded from using the facilities, except for a minimal amount of bank fishing

use. This amounts to an exclusive use of government

property for which no compensation is received.

For the most part, the current activities that

occur at The Haven are non-wildlife-dependent. A

minimal amount of use may involve priority wildlifedependent recreation, such as fishing and wildlife

observation. The lands occupied by these facilities

are developed for human uses, and thus provide

poor habitat for wildlife. The Refuge proposes to

partially mitigate these issues by initiating priority

wildlife-dependent recreational activities, which

would be available to veterans and the general public, and charging a nominal fee to help recover

administrative costs.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues fac-
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

316

ing the Refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about Refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Lessee must operate under the terms of its 

lease contract.

2. During the 15-year period following approval 

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the 

Refuge will collaborate with the lessee to 

make the facilities available to a wider portion 

of the public.

3. The Refuge will assess and collect a nominal 

fee from The Haven to help recover its administrative expenses.

Justification: The Haven operations support the

general recreation purpose of the Refuge. In the

future, the Refuge will work cooperatively with The

Haven to provide more priority wildlife-dependent

recreational opportunities, as identified in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, to a wider

portion of the general public.

Signature: Refuge Manager: _______________

Concurrence: Regional Chief: _______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

317

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Haying

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ..." (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Local farmers cut and remove

hay as directed and authorized by the refuge. Haying is done under the terms and conditions of special

use permits issued by the Refuge Manager. The

terms of the permits ensure that current Service

and refuge policies are followed. (Haying by cooperative farmers as part of the agricultural crop rotation is not included in this compatibility

determination.) The primary reasons for haying are

to satisfy the refuge’s legislated agricultural purpose and to provide open habitat suitable for browsing and loafing by wintering Canada geese.

Haying can be a useful tool in an overall management program to improve and maintain refuge

grasslands for the benefit of wildlife. Currently the

refuge has 5 permit holders who cut hay on about

800 acres of cool-season, non-native forage species.

The refuge charges permittees market rate fees for

hay and gives credit for fertilizing and mowing. Permittees are required to mow the hay fields in the fall

to make them attractive to wintering Canada geese.

Proposed changes in future haying operations will

prohibit mowing until August 1 of each year.

Haying is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. As an

economic use of Refuge System lands, a compatibility determination for haying is mandatory.

Availability of Resources: Administering the haying program, which includes establishing forage,

issuing permits and monitoring compliance,

requires using refuge funds and personnel. The refuge wildlife biologist and a biological sciences technician administer the haying program along with

their other duties. The funds necessary to administer this program are normally available through the

refuge’s staffing and operations and maintenance

accounts. The refuge expends about $15,000 per fiscal year in forage establishment, administrative,

and maintenance activities related to haying.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Haying will result

in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits

to both resident and migratory wildlife using the

refuge. Short-term impacts will include disturbance

and displacement typical of operations involving

noisy heavy equipment. Cutting and removal of

standing grasses will also result in short-term loss

of habitat for those species requiring tall grasses for

feeding and perching such as obligatory grassland

species, such as the meadowlark or dickcissel. Longterm benefits will accrue from the increased vigor of

the grasses or the establishment of highly desirable,

native tallgrass species, which will improve conditions for those same species affected by the shortterm negative impacts. Strict time constraints

placed on this use will limit anticipated negative

impacts to these relatively minor areas. 
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

318

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Haying will be allowed only after August 1 to 

minimize disturbance to nesting birds. In normal years, most birds are off the nest by this 

date.

2. Permittees must cut hay fields in the fall to 

provide desirable conditions for wintering 

geese.

3. Haying activities will comply with all appropriate Service policies and regulations.

Justification: Haying, with appropriate stipulations, supports the agriculture and wildlife conservation purposes for which the refuge was

established. Haying will not materially interfere

with wildlife conservation if done within the above

stipulations. Haying as a management tool is a valuable technique for providing long-term habitat

improvements to grassland that otherwise would

degrade through natural succession or dominance of

non-native plants. Without this tool, the areas would

suffer encroachment of undesirable woody species

such as autumn-olive and multiflora rose or would

remain in undesirable, non-native, cool season

grasses such as fescue. Hay fields provide desirable

habitat for wintering Canada geese and other wildlife.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

319

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Horseback Riding

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: This activity involves riders

mounted on horses or mules traveling either on a

designated trail through the refuge or on any public

road within the refuge. Most of this activity would

occur in the more wild and scenic southern part of

the refuge, particularly the Crab Orchard Wilderness and adjacent areas. The refuge is proposing to

designate a 4.7-mile route (4.2 miles of which is in

the Wilderness) that would officially become part of

the River to River Trail, which is used by hikers and

equestrians. This portion of the River to River Trail

would be designed, constructed and maintained as

defined in a memorandum of understanding

between the Refuge, the River to River Trail Society, and U.S. Forest Service. Equestrians ride singly or more typically in groups of six up to several

dozen. This activity occurs during any time of the

year with most visits falling on the weekends. Some

local residents ride onto the refuge without having

to transport their horses, but the majority of riders

haul their horses with trucks and trailers to the

trailheads, sometimes from several hundred miles

away.

Horseback riding is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources: The refuge has an

extensive network of public roads where horses may

be ridden. The roads are maintained primarily for

access to the various industrial areas, farm fields,

and recreation areas via cars, trucks, and tractors.

The River to River Trail route would require extensive work to fill gullies and harden the tread to withstand horse traffic on about 4.7 miles of trail. Since

the vast majority of the work would take place in the

Crab Orchard Wilderness, pack animals or other

appropriate means must be utilized to haul a large

amount of gravel. The refuge would need additional

special project funds to pay its share of the cost,

which has not yet been determined. Refuge volunteers could be assigned to monitor trail conditions

and perform minor maintenance tasks.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Horseback riding

causes substantial disturbance of fragile soils, especially during the winter and spring when the ground

is wet and soft, which increases the potential for erosion. Hardening the tread and filling gullies by placing gravel should greatly reduce these impacts, but

will not eliminate the need for regular maintenance.

In addition, horse traffic often results in trampled

vegetation adjacent to the tread. Hikers find the

trails more difficult and unpleasant to traverse

because of hoof holes and manure deposits. Invasive

and exotic plants can be introduced to natural communities via seeds deposited in manure. Conflicts

between hikers and equestrians may arise as use of

the popular and widely promoted River to River
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

320

Trail increases. The partners involved in maintaining the River to River Trail would cooperatively

attempt to minimize and resolve conflicts between

users by dispersing visitors, educational efforts, and

law enforcement patrols.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination::

 Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Horseback riding is restricted to public roads 

and designated trails.

2. The refuge will endorse a memorandum of 

understanding with the River to River Trail 

Society and U.S. Forest Service to define trail 

design, routing, construction and maintenance responsibilities. All parties to the MOU 

will share the costs involved as mutually 

agreed upon.

3. The Crab Orchard Wilderness Management 

Plan will be revised to allow trail construction 

and horseback riding.

4. The refuge reserves the right to close the 

River to River Trail to horseback use, if necessary, during seasons when the ground is 

wet and soft.

Justification: Horseback riding is not a priority

wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

However, the general recreation purpose of the refuge allows non-wildlife-dependent recreational uses.

Some equestrians would likely enjoy opportunities

for wildlife observation and photography. Horses

are considered legal vehicles on most public roads in

Illinois.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

321

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Foxhunting

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Neighboring landowners organize and conduct traditional foxhunting meets or

expeditions on their land and until 1992, had used

parts of the Refuge, particularly the Crab Orchard

Wilderness. This activity typically involves 10 to 20

mounted equestrians with a pack of 10 to 30 hounds

chasing a fox through the fields and forest. The hunt

concludes when the fox is chased “to ground,” meaning its shelter or den. The fox is not killed or otherwise intentionally harmed. Both red and gray fox

are indigenous to the area. The expeditions usually

take place on weekends during the fall, winter, and

spring seasons.

Foxhunting was determined to be not compatible

in 1992. Immediately following that determination,

the refuge manager sent notices to several foxhunting clubs and this activity has not occurred on the

refuge since that time.

Foxhunting is not a priority wildlife-dependent

recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources: It would be difficult for

the Refuge to expend its limited funds and personnel to perform the administrative, maintenance and

law enforcement functions required to monitor and

manage this use given the many other important

needs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Foxhunting from

horseback with unleashed dogs would cause substantial disturbance to resident and migratory wildlife. The heavy volume of horse traffic would result

in trampled vegetation and disturbance of fragile

soils, which increases the potential for erosion.

Other recreational uses occurring over an extensive

area would be adversely impacted by the presence

of numerous horses and hounds running about. Visitors seeking solitude in the Wilderness would

instead encounter numerous horses galloping,

hounds barking, and hunters blowing horns to communicate.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

322

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Not

applicable

Justification: There are substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts associated with this use on the

refuge’s natural resources and priority recreational

uses. It would be imprudent to appropriate funds

and personnel from other essential programs to

adequately manage this use. Foxhunting was determined to be not compatible in 1992, and has not

occurred on the refuge since that time. Permitting

this use would materially interfere with or detract

from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge

System mission and the purposes of the refuge.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

X Use is Not Compatible

Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

323

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Recreational Hunting of Migratory Waterfowl and Game Birds, Resident Game, and Furbearers

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C.

§ 460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows public

hunting of migratory waterfowl and game birds,

resident game, and furbearers in accordance with

Federal, State, and refuge regulations and seasons

on most of the 22,000-acre area of land and water

open for public use. Public hunting is not allowed in

the youth camps at Little Grassy Lake.

Animals hunted include geese, ducks, deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, bobwhite, woodchuck, dove,

woodcock, snipe, crows, raccoon, opossum, skunk,

foxes and coyote. In addition, there are two special

firearm deer hunts (each with 500 permits) over

seven days in the fall on about 14,700 acres of the

22,000-acre restricted use area specifically to control the population. Concurrent with the first

three-day deer hunt, the refuge organizes a special

deer hunt within a separate 2,000-acre portion of the

restricted use area for 25 youth and 25 disabled individuals. The refuge issues 60 regular permits and

12 youth permits for a special turkey hunt which

runs from late March to the beginning of May on

about 14,700 acres within the restricted use area.

The refuge provides controlled waterfowl hunting

opportunities at 18 land blinds and 15 water blinds

around western sections of Crab Orchard Lake.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources manages resident game and furbearers and helps maintain healthy populations by allowing harvest of

surpluses though recreational hunting. Hunters use

a variety of weapons in pursuit of the various games

species, such as shotguns, handguns, muzzleloaders,

small caliber rifles, crossbows, and bows and

arrows. The refuge issues several special use permits annually to disabled deer hunters authorizing

them to use an ATV on designated routes for access

(see attached map).

Availability of Resources: Hunters use the existing network of roads to access the various lands and

bodies of water for hunting. The refuge provides

numerous trails, parking lots, blinds, boat ramps,

docks, restrooms, signs and other facilities for use

by hunters. The refuge provides staff and volunteers to maintain these facilities, disseminate information to visitors, and enforce regulations. All of

the bodies of water open to hunting are artificial

impoundments maintained and managed by the refuge.

Funding for the staff that manages the hunting

program is approximately $60,000 per year. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are about $8,000.

Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing Days (a nonprofit organization) constructs blinds for the controlled waterfowl hunting program managed by the

Friends of Crab Orchard Refuge organization. The

cost of this program to the Service is included in the

O&M cost noted above. Volunteers manage the

hunts for disabled hunters. The Illinois Department
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

324
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

325

of Natural Resources manages the permit system

for hunts in the restricted use area at no cost to the

Service.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Although hunting

causes mortality and temporary disturbance to

waterfowl and other wildlife, harvesting helps maintain populations at the carrying capacity of existing

habitats, which helps to ensure the long-term health

and survival of the species. Hunting deer helps to

keep the herd size at a moderate level which protects refuge habitats from over-browsing and tends

to reduce deer/vehicle collisions on the highways.

Some types of hunting involving firearms, particularly waterfowl, deer and dove, tend to exclude

other uses of the area. Occasionally some individual

hunters commit unlawful acts, such as taking over

the bag limit, taking the wrong type/sex animal, or

vandalizing facilities, but these incidents usually

have only minor impacts to refuge resources.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All applicable Federal, State, and refuge regulations apply.

2. The refuge and the State will monitor wildlife 

populations to ensure their long-term sustainability.

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use, as defined by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

(as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). Hunting supports

the recreation purpose for which the refuge was

established. This use is compatible provided the

above stipulations are implemented. This use will

help meet the missions of the refuge and System by

providing sustainable resources for the benefit of

the American public while conserving fish, wildlife

and plant resources on these lands.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

326

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Industrial Operations

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: There are several industrial

areas covering a total of about 1,100 acres distributed within the “restricted use area.” The refuge

leases 1.2 million square feet of facilities which are

used for manufacturing, cold storage, and explosives

storage. The largest tenant, General Dynamics,

manufactures munitions for national defense. In

support of the industrial operations, the refuge

maintains an extensive transportation and utility

infrastructure. The refuge also provides water and

waste water services to the various industrial tenants, as well as to an adjacent college campus and

water service to the federal prison. As buildings

become unsuitable for occupancy for various reasons, they will be removed and the site restored to

natural habitats.

Industrial operations is a purpose of the refuge,

but it is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources: The annual cost of

administering and managing the refuge’s industrial

operations is about $40,250. The refuge staff

includes a contract compliance specialist who

administers and manages the industrial complex.

The amount of revenue received annually from leasing industrial facilities is about $466,000. Rental

receipts are returned to the refuge and are used as part of

its operation and maintenance budget.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The industrial

areas generally provide poor wildlife habitat

because they consist of buildings, pavement, and

mowed grass. Industrial operations and maintenance activities result in increased traffic, noise levels, and wildlife disturbance from the presence of

humans. Industrial complexes and surrounding

areas are generally off-limits to the public for hunting, wildlife observation and photography, etc.

In terms of socio-economic impacts, the industrial

complex currently has 14 firms leasing space. These

14 firms employ 551 people. Annual rental receipts

total about $466,000. Eleven buildings are currently

vacant, which if leased would employ about 20 people and bring in about $55,000 in rental revenue.

Total industrial output is approximately $27.8 million. 

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

327

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Industrial tenants must operate under the 

terms of their lease contracts and within the 

refuge’s Industrial Use Policy.

Justification: Industrial operations is one of the

legislated purposes of the refuge.

Signature: Refuge Manager: _______________

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

328

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Installation of Nesting Structures by Public

or Groups

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows the installation of nest structures, such as bluebird nest boxes,

by individuals or groups on a voluntary basis. Currently there is only one such project that involves

about 300 bluebird nest boxes maintained by a

group of volunteers. The Refuge Manager gives

site-by-site authorization for nest box installation

via a special use permit. The structures are usually

placed in late winter and monitored throughout the

summer. Structures usually are affixed using posts.

In all cases, the intention of the requesters is to

enhance wildlife populations through providing safe

nesting sites.

Placing artificial nesting structures on the refuge

is not a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use

as defined in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997. The use is a non-essential contributor to

other priority uses such as wildlife observation,

wildlife photography, and environmental education.

Availability of Resources: Permittees use the existing network of roads to access the nesting structure

sites. Minimal refuge resources (less than $1,000 per

year) are required to administer projects involving

installation of artificial nest structures on the refuge

by private individuals or groups. On a strictly voluntary basis, private individuals or groups install,

monitor and maintain structures and bear all associated costs. Should any permittees fail to adequately

maintain the structures, there will be some cost to

the refuge associated with removing abandoned

structures.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The installation of

artificial nesting structures has minimal impact on

the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Structures such as bluebird houses provide nesting

sites for other migratory birds as well. Artificial

nesting boxes are widely credited with helping

increase the population of eastern bluebirds in

North America.

There is some minor, temporary wildlife disturbance caused during placement and maintenance of

the structures. There have been some conflicts associated with placing bluebird nest boxes in pastures

and farm fields, but these usually can be easily

resolved by relocating the structure.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

329

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Approval from the Refuge Manager via a special use permit is required prior to installation.

2. Annual maintenance is required. 

3. Structures must be removed upon the Refuge 

Manager’s request. Some possible reasons 

include: lack of maintenance, improper placement, and variation from approved installation plan.

4. Ownership of any nest structure placed on the 

refuge by private individuals or groups will be 

forfeited to the Service upon installation.

Justification: Artificial nesting structures help to

support the wildlife conservation purpose and do not

materially interfere with or detract from the other

purposes for which the refuge was established.

Nesting boxes for cavity nesting birds like bluebirds

can increase populations when natural cavities are

scarce. At worst, nesting structures are neutral in

their effect; likely there is a positive effect. The aesthetic costs of artificial nest structures are modest

and can be minimized through appropriate siting.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

330

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361

“... for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge conducts wildlife

interpretation and environmental education programs. Refuge staff prepare, schedule, and organize

formal programs for school-aged children and other

organized groups. In most cases, curriculums and

program schedules are prepared in advance. These

curriculums address a number of wildlife conservation issues including wetland and grassland conservation, migratory bird management, and the

conservation of endangered species. Informal programs include self-guided auto tour routes and

nature trails, impromptu presentations and discussions of wildlife conservation issues with interested

citizens, casual visitors, and unscheduled groups.

The visitation and use of the refuge by local educators and their classes on their own for the purposes

of furthering their understanding of natural

resource management issues would also be classified as an informal program.

In addition, this use includes the development of

indoor interpretive areas within the refuge visitor

information center and headquarters. There are

many purposes for these exhibits, including telling

the story of wildlife conservation and the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: The refuge visitor center, trails, and environmental education sites are

available to schools, group camps, and refuge visitors for interpretation and environmental education.

Staff are available to assist teachers with visits to

the refuge, present classroom demonstrations offrefuge, and for refuge group camp visits and presentations. The refuge partners with the Friends of

Crab Orchard NWR and Southern Illinois University’s Touch of Nature center to provide environmental education to teachers and students.

Funding for staff that manage the interpretive

and environmental education programs is approximately $60,000 per year. Operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for these programs is about

$8,000. Recreational fee funds are used to supplement O&M funds and for facilities repair and

replacement.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The overall impacts

to the refuge and its associated wildlife populations

from this use will be minimal. There is likely to be

some minor disturbance to waterfowl and other

wildlife. School buses and personal vehicles will utilize existing parking areas and access trails. The

limited number of nature trails proposed to be

developed will minimize disturbance to vegetation

and wildlife.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

331

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Use of motorized vehicles is prohibited except 

by permit or in designated parking areas, 

access trails, or public roads/tour routes.

2. The refuge will monitor use patterns and densities and make adjustments as needed in timing, location and duration to minimize 

disturbance.

Justification: Wildlife interpretation and environmental education programs are priority wildlifedependent recreational uses, as defined by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). Interpretation and environmental education support the

recreation purpose for which the refuge was established. These uses are compatible provided the

above stipulations are implemented. These uses will

help meet the missions of the refuge and System by

furthering the general public’s understanding and

knowledge of this Nation's wildlife conservation

needs.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

332

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Uses: Priority Wildlife-dependant Recreational

Uses (Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and

Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation) on Lands Proposed to be Acquired

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ..” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Uses: Under the preferred alternative of the Land Protection Plan contained in its

EIS/CCP, the refuge proposes to acquire adjacent

lands or interests therein totaling about 4,242 acres.

These tracts are currently under about 95 individual

ownerships. Depending on the characteristics of the

individual tracts, some or all of the Service’s priority

wildlife-dependant recreational uses may currently

occur there. Generally, if the refuge were to acquire

these lands, the priority uses would be accommodated to the fullest extent practicable.

Once owned or controlled by the refuge, these

lands would likely be open to public hunting of

migratory waterfowl and game birds, resident

game, and furbearers in accordance with Federal,

State, and refuge regulations and seasons.

Animals hunted locally include geese, ducks,

deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, bobwhite, woodchuck, dove, woodcock, snipe, crows, raccoon, opossum, skunk, foxes and coyote. Any bodies of water

on these tracts would likely be open to fishing as

well. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the

refuge would encourage the public to use these

lands for wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education and interpretation.

Availability of Resources: Any additional

resources needed to manage lands acquired would

be minimal. Possibly the greatest expense would be

a boundary survey required on some tracts costing

several thousand dollars. Most tracts would need

boundary signs installed by the refuge staff at minimal cost. For the most part, the public would use

the existing network of roads to access the various

lands and bodies of water. The refuge provides

numerous trails, parking lots, blinds, boat ramps,

docks, restrooms, signs and other facilities in proximity to most tracts. The refuge would incur little

additional expense to provide staff and volunteers to

maintain these facilities, disseminate information to

visitors, and enforce regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: Impacts resulting

from these uses are expected to be ordinary and

minimal. Although hunting and fishing cause mortality and temporary disturbance to waterfowl and

other wildlife, harvesting helps maintain populations at the carrying capacity of existing habitats,

which helps to ensure the long-term health and survival of the species. Hunting deer helps to keep the

herd size at a moderate level which protects refuge

habitats from over-browsing and tends to reduce

deer/vehicle collisions on the highways. Some types

of hunting involving firearms, particularly waterfowl, deer and dove, tend to exclude other uses of

the area. Occasionally some individual hunters and

anglers commit unlawful acts, such as taking over

the bag/creel limit, taking the wrong type/sex/size
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

333

animal, or vandalizing facilities, but these incidents

usually have only minor impacts to refuge

resources. Some temporary and minimal disturbance to wildlife is caused by the presence of people

engaged in wildlife observation/photography and

environmental education/interpretation.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All applicable Federal, State, and refuge regulations apply.

2. The refuge and the State will monitor wildlife 

and fish populations to ensure their long-term 

sustainability.

Justification: Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and

interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as defined by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997). These uses also support

the recreation purpose for which the refuge was

established. These uses are compatible provided

the above stipulations are implemented. These uses

will help meet the missions of the refuge and System by providing sustainable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish,

wildlife and plant resources on these lands.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

334

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Replacement and operation of the Refuge

sewage collection system by the City of Marion 

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 "...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ..." (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: Issuance of a Right-of-Way to

the City of Marion for the replacement and operation of a sewage collection system. The City will

replace sewer force mains (approximately 29,000

feet) and three lift stations, and provide sewage

transport to the City’s sewage treatment plant for

treatment. The Right-of-Way provides access for

the City to replace, test, maintain, inspect, and operate the force main, lift stations, and associated fittings.

Availability of Resources: The Refuge currently

operates its own sewage collection and treatment

system. Once replacement of force main and lift station are completed, the old Refuge sewage treatment plant will be dismantled and area returned to

wildlife habitat. The replacement and operation of

these force mains, lift stations, and sewage treatment by the City of Marion will provide a cost savings to the Refuge.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The proposed use

should have no impact on the purpose for which the

Refuge was created. Initial impacts would be temporary and would result in little or no disturbance to

wildlife or habitat. 

Public Review and Comment: A public notice

describing this project and announcing a 30-day

comment period was published in the Southern Illinoisan on November 17, 2002. 

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

No stipulations are necessary to ensure compatibility.

Justification: The proposed project will serve

Refuge personnel and the public with sewage treatment.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ________________

Concurrence: Regional Chief: _______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

335

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Trapping of Furbearers

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows trapping of

resident furbearers by the public in accordance with

State regulations. This compatibility determination

does not apply to trapping activities where the Service awards a contract or permit for the removal of

animals to facilitate management. Trapping is not a

priority wildlife-dependent recreational use as

defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997.

Trapping is permitted for a wide variety of species, including raccoon, opossum, skunk, weasel,

mink, muskrat, red fox, gray fox, coyote, woodchuck

and beaver. Trapping seasons for the various species run from June through March. Most trapping

activity is concentrated in lowland areas.

Trappers may utilize leghold traps, snares, and

body-gripping (“Conibear” type) traps for the purpose of trapping various furbearers, small game,

and unprotected species of wildlife. Each method is

qualified under State regulation as to trap size and

types of allowable sets in order to protect non-target species, and provide for the safe use of the area

by others. 

Access for trapping is almost exclusively by foot;

some trappers may use boats.

Availability of Resources: There is only a slight

incremental increase, estimated at less than $500, in

administering this activity above the refuge=s general operating costs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Public trapping can

potentially affect wildlife through both direct and

indirect impacts. Direct impacts are those where

there is an immediate cause and effect relationship

between the activity and the resources required to

fulfill the refuge purposes and System mission. Indirect impacts are those where the effects of the permitted activity affect other populations or habitats

that in turn have direct impacts on the refuge and

the System. Impacts, either direct or indirect, may

be negative, neutral, or positive.

Trappers undoubtedly disturb some wintering

waterfowl on occasion, and cause their temporary

displacement from specific and limited areas. These

impacts would be occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. It is possible that

trappers may inadvertently take non-target species,

such as river otter. Any habitat change as a result of

the physical impacts of trapping activity is insignificant.

When considering impacts to the System mission,

impacts also include those to the furbearer populations themselves. Individual animals are harvested

and removed, yet data indicates these furbearer

populations, with the exception of red fox, are

increasing. 
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

336

Public Review and Comment: During preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three

open house public meetings and four focus group

meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues

facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Trapping activity must be conducted in compliance with existing State regulations.

2. Trappers must comply with all applicable refuge regulations.

3. If needed, the refuge may establish zones in 

which trapping is prohibited to avoid disturbance to wintering waterfowl and other wildlife.

Justification: Overall, trapping is a minor public

use of the refuge, but is an important management

tool for management of furbearer populations. Data

from the State of Illinois on trapping activity and

wildlife populations indicate removal of individuals

under the current management scheme is not

resulting in harm to the target populations. The

public trapping program, as managed, does not

materially interfere with or detract from the Service's ability to meet refuge purposes or the mission

of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

337

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Uses: Water-skiing

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows water-skiing

only on the main body of Crab Orchard Lake west of

Highway 148. Crab Orchard Lake has a 40-mileper-hour speed limit overall and several coves and

bays are designated “no-wake” or “no ski” zones.

water-skiing is a popular, seasonal activity, with

most use occurring between Memorial Day and

Labor Day. There are several marinas, boat launching ramps and parking lots on Crab Orchard Lake

to accommodate this use.

Water-skiing is not a priority wildlife-dependent

recreational use identified in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. water-skiing was instituted on Crab Orchard Lake by the USDA Soil Conservation Service before the refuge was established.

This activity is considered to be consistent with the

recreation purpose for which the refuge was established.

Availability of Resources: The refuge provides the

main body of Crab Orchard Lake along with marinas, boat ramps, courtesy docks, parking lots,

access trails, signs, restroom facilities, and staff to

maintain these facilities and enforce regulations.

These facilities will be maintained to meet the needs

of the public primarily engaged in other activities.

water-skiing requires minor amounts of funds and

personnel for administration, maintenance, and law

enforcement. Approximately $3,000 per year is

spent to manage this activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Short-term disturbance to wildlife may occur as a result of this activity, but usually is limited and localized.

Disturbance to wintering waterfowl is minimal

because most activity occurs during the summer

and is restricted to the main body of Crab Orchard

Lake. Water-skiing causes some shoreline erosion

and water turbidity, but relatively minor amounts

compared to that caused by natural wave action.

Sometimes there are conflicts between the various

types of boat users, such as those in sailboats or

fishing boats. There is some undetermined level of

water pollution caused by boat motors, particularly

the ubiquitous 2-cycle engines. This activity should

not result in short- or long-term impacts that

adversely affect the purposes of the refuge or the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

338

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Water-skiing is allowed only in the main body 

of Crab Orchard Lake east of Wolf Creek 

Road. Water-skiing is prohibited in several 

coves and bays adjoining the lake that are 

designated “no wake” or “no ski” areas.

2. Water-skiing must comply with policy contained in Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 

Chapter 632 FW 3, Motorboats and waterskiing, and all other appropriate laws and regulations.

Justification: While water-skiing is not a priority

wildlife-dependent recreational use of Refuge System lands, this activity supports the general recreation purpose for which the refuge was established.

This use should have limited and localized negative

impacts when conducted with the stipulations above.

Administration of this use will require minor

amounts of administrative time and funding.

Signature:Refuge Manager:__________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

339

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

(including the means of access such as hiking, horseback riding on designated trails, and boating)

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge allows general public access during any time of the year to areas designated as open for observing and photographing

general scenery and associated flora and fauna. The

refuge’s “restricted use area” may be available to

the public for observation and photography of wildlife and their habitats during special events, such as

guided bird watching programs. Limited access by

bicycle, horse, and motorized vehicles will be

allowed on designated routes only. Entry on all or

portions of specific areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation,

wildlife populations, or public safety.

Access for wildlife observation and photography

will allow the public to enjoy scenic views and an

array of wildlife including waterfowl, other migratory birds, and resident wildlife. The refuge provides opportunities for the general public to enjoy

wildlife observation and photography not usually

available on adjacent private land.

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and

photography require minimal resources. Refuge

lands designated as open have been used by the

public since they were acquired. Access roads and

trails, parking lots, signs, platforms, blinds, and

other facilities as well as staff to enforce regulations

and maintain these facilities have been provided by

the Service. 

Some public use facilities are sub-standard. The

refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan recognizes these problems and recommends solutions to

improve public access opportunities. Some

enhanced wildlife observation and photography

opportunities will only be provided upon implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Funding for staff that manage these programs is

approximately $15,000 per year. The operations and

maintenance costs are about $2,000. Recreational

fee funds that are used for the rehabilitation,

replacement, or major repair of equipment and/or

facilities varies from $200 to $2,000.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography pose minimal impacts to wildlife. Access is typically by individuals or small

groups on foot. Damage to habitat by walking is

minimal and temporary. Access by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses is limited to designated

trails, public roads and parking lots. There is some

temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human

activity on the land. The greatest impact to refuge

wildlife would be during spring and early summer

nesting and brood rearing of birds and mammals,

but the expected sporadic and limited use by the

public should not create unreasonable impacts.

Activities during the winter pose no impact to nesting birds and little impact to vegetation. Wintering
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

340

Canada geese may be exposed to some disturbances

by wildlife observation when the public exit their

vehicles to observe large flocks near roads. Generally the observers remain in their vehicles and cause

little disturbance to the geese and other waterfowl.

Geese and other waterfowl have habitat inside the

“restricted use area” that is available to them if they

are disturbed in the open area. The winter disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor.

The interspersion of habitats for wintering Canada

geese and other waterfowl scattered throughout the

open and restricted use areas of the refuge minimizes the impacts of wildlife observation and photography. Visitors typically use established foot

trails with little impact on vegetation. Disturbance

to wildlife, such as flushing a nesting bird, can occur

with these activities; however, the disturbance is

temporary and generally not harmful. 

These activities support the wildlife conservation

and recreation purposes for which the refuge was

established.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. 1. Certain modes of access such as motorized 

vehicles, bicycles, and horses are limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking 

lots. ATVs are prohibited. Bicycles and other 

forms of mechanical transport are not allowed 

in Crab Orchard Wilderness.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are permitted only in the concession-operated campgrounds.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

4. Harassment of wildlife or inordinate damage 

to vegetation is prohibited. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography directly support the recreation purpose for

which the refuge was established. Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

341

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wood Cutting and Timber Harvesting

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purposes: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “... for

the conservation of wildlife, and for the development

of the agricultural, recreational, industrial, and

related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable forC (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. ' 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. '

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The refuge may authorize individuals or contractors to remove live or dead, standing or fallen trees. This compatibility determination

applies to all wood removal activities regardless of

the reason for removal or ultimate use of the wood

(e.g. firewood, pulpwood, sawtimber, etc.). Impacts

to the purposes of the refuge and System mission

are similar regardless of why the wood is removed.

This activity will only occur where the Service has

determined that a management need exists to

remove trees from the refuge consistent with the

Habitat Management Plan, Safety Plan, or other

document. 

Wood removal may be done anywhere trees are

present, except in the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

However, fallen or hazard trees may need to be

removed from the Wilderness along Rocky Comfort

Road, a county-maintained road bisecting the area.

Harvest sites will vary in size from a small fraction

of an acre (in the case of individual trees) up to several hundred acres, depending on the site and management objectives.

Wood removal activities may be authorized

throughout the year. Usually, wood removal activities will occur during the summer and fall months

when dry ground conditions facilitate access and

prevent damage to roads, soil, plant roots and cultural resources. 

The scope of the activity will be determined by

the management objective for the area and by the

quantity and quality of available wood. Equipment

used for removal may range from chainsaws to traditional logging equipment such as feller-bunchers

and log skidders. Access may be by pick-up truck,

farm tractor, or larger traditional logging equipment. 

Harvest of wood products may be authorized by a

firewood cutting permit, special use permit, concession contract, timber sale contract or cooperative

farming agreement.

Availability of Resources: The refuge has various

personnel on staff who administer permits and contracts for wood cutting and timber harvesting, and

monitor the operations. These functions are performed as part of their normal duties.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The potential exists

for tree and wood removal activities to directly

impact wildlife by displacement of animals from

localized areas due to disturbance or elimination of

suitable habitat. Removal of certain trees in some

instances will eliminate habitat used by cavity-nesting species. Some impacts on wildlife can be minimized by timing the removal operations to avoid

periods when critical activities such as nesting and

wintering take place. Impacts should be minimal

overall because the extent of activity will be limited

to a small portion of the available habitat.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

342

Vehicular access to and from wood cutting and

timber harvest sites will be carefully controlled to

avoid impacts such as rutting, erosion, and compaction of the soil. Vehicular traffic may impact habitat

by destroying ground cover, creating weed seed

beds, and increasing runoff and sedimentation.

These impacts can be minimized by scheduling

operations and limiting the types of equipment and

vehicles used.

Removal of hazard trees in recreation areas and

along roads will benefit visitors by ensuring their

safety. For some people, there will be a temporary

reduction in aesthetic quality on timber harvesting

sites.

Individuals participating in any wood removal or

timber harvest program will be under permit or

contract, thus site-specific stipulations will ensure

resource protection and achievement of management goals.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Wood cutting and timber harvesting will only 

be done according to the Habitat Management Plan, Safety Plan, or other approved 

document.

2. Wood cutting and timber harvesting will comply with all applicable policies and regulations.

Justification: Wood cutting is often necessary to

remove hazard trees in recreational areas and along

roads to maintain safe conditions for visitors, thus it

indirectly supports the recreation purpose for which

the refuge was established. Timber harvesting is the

principal means of manipulating forest habitat conditions, which in turn supports the wildlife conservation purpose of the refuge. The short- and long-term

benefits derived from wood cutting and timber harvesting outweigh the short-term negative impacts.

Signature:Refuge Manager:_________________

Concurrence:Regional Chief:_________________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

343

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Youth Camp Operations

Refuge Name: Crab Orchard National Wildlife

Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Public

Law 80-361 and the Refuge Recreation Act

Refuge Purpose(s): Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established by Public Law 80-361 “...

for the conservation of wildlife, and for the development of the agricultural, recreational, industrial,

and related purposes ...” (61 Stat. 770, dated Aug. 5,

1947)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of

endangered species or threatened species ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and

use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be

accomplished under the terms and conditions of

restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §

460k-460k-4), as amended).

On October 19, 1976, Congress enacted Public

Law 94-557 designating a portion of the Refuge one

of many wilderness areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System “... administered for the

use and enjoyment of the American people in such a

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use

and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of

their wilderness character, and for the gathering

and dissemination of information regarding their

use and enjoyment as wilderness...” (Wilderness

Act, Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 892)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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.

Description of Use: The Refuge leases four campground areas (all located on Little Grassy Lake) to

non-profit organizations which provide recreational

and educational services to their members and

guests. The organizations are: Girl Scouts which

operates Camp Cedar Point; Boy Scouts of America

which operates Pine Ridge Camp; United Methodist

Church which operates the United Methodist

Church Camp; and Presbyterian Church which

operates Camp Carew. The total land area reserved

for youth camp use is about 600 acres. In addition,

all the camps use Little Grassy Lake for swimming

and boating.

Youth camp operations amount to an exclusive

use of government property by these organizations.

Youth camp operations support the general recreation purpose of the Refuge, and provide some environmental education which is a priority wildlifedependent recreational use as identified in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources: The Refuge provides

the facilities and surrounding lands and waters; the

youth camp operators are responsible for general

camp operations and maintenance. The annual cost

of administering and managing the Refuge’s youth

camp operations is about $42,000. The Refuge staff

includes a contract compliance specialist who

administers and manages the youth camp operations, with support from a secretary—all under the

direction of the refuge manager. The Refuge currently receives no revenue from these organizations,

but is proposing to assess a nominal fee to cover its

administrative expenses.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Most of the services provided by youth camp operations are nonwildlife-dependent, although some environmental

education is offered because it is either required by

the Refuge or inherent in the organization’s mission.

Some of the lands occupied by these camps are

developed for human uses, and thus provide poor

habitat for wildlife. The concentration of people in

these recreational areas results in some disturbance

of wildlife. Since the youth camps are closed to public hunting, the opportunities for public hunting are

somewhat reduced.

Public Review and Comment: During preparation

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan three open

house public meetings and four focus group meetings were held to identify and prioritize issues facing the Refuge. Written comments were solicited

from the public about Refuge operations. 

This compatibility determination is being made

as part of an Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will

have an opportunity to review and comment on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix J:Compatibility Determinations

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

344

Determination:

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Youth camps must operate under the terms of 

their lease agreements.

2. Youth camps must provide at least the minimum amount of environmental education to 

campers as specified in their lease agreements.

3. The Refuge will assess and collect a nominal 

fee from each youth camp to help cover its 

administrative expenses.

Justification: Youth camp operations support the

general recreation purpose of the Refuge and provide environmental education, which is a priority

wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ________________

Concurrence: Regional Chief: _______________

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2015

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

345

Appendix K: Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS) and Maintenance 

Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

347

Appendix K: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and 

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)

Project No. Project Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(1,000 of $)

97001 Increase Pest Plant Control: Use a combination of mechanical and chemical 

measures to eliminate autumn olive on the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Natural plant succession is virtually impossible on areas of the refuge due 

to the existence and increasing amount of autumn olive. This exotic woody plant 

is an early invader and tends to out-compete native woody plants. The project 

will reduce and control invasion of autumn olive throughout the refuge. 

$56.808

97003 Conduct Nongame Bird Census: Conduct a nongame bird census on the refuge 

to provide a better understanding of bird use of the refuge with emphasis on 

Midwest species of concern. Information will be used to help the refuge make 

management decisions relating to restoring fragmented forests and grasslands. 

A standardized census method will be used in cooperation with the Illinois Natural History Survey and Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

$34.56

97009 Reduce Forest Fragmentation:Forest habitat fragmentation will be reduced by 

restoring the native hardwood vegetative cover on selected parcels of open land. 

Restoration involves mechanical and chemical site preparation treatment, cover 

crop establishment, planting native seedlings, monitoring forest development, 

and follow-up silvicultural treatments. Providing large blocks of high quality 

habitat should increase nesting success of forest interior bird species and also 

help preserve biological diversity. This project will decrease habitat fragmentation and improve wildlife productivity.

$20.24

97008 Enhance Timber Management:Conduct forest habitat improvement treatments using various silvicultural practices including thinning, stand improvement cutting, and regeneration cutting. A priority project on the Refuge is the 

conversion of 3,500 acres of non-native pine plantations to an oak-hickory forest. 

An inventory of advanced hardwood seedlings and sprouts will be conducted on 

600 acres of pine plantation per year to determine if an adequate number of 

trees are present before the overstory is converted to native hardwoods. 

Removal of pine trees will be done to improve habitat conditions for many species of migratory birds that depend on large tracts of native hardwood forest. 

$181.6

98027 Conduct Indiana Bat survey: Conduct an Indiana bat survey on the Crab 

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the federally endangered Indiana bat and to comply with endangered species laws and 

regulations, surveys will be conducted within refuge pine stands. Conversion of 

3,500 acres of nonnative pine trees to native hardwood forest is a very high refuge priority. 

$27

98036 Provide Shoreline Stabilization for Crab Orchard Lake: Stabilize the shoreline 

of Crab Orchard Lake with filter fabric and rock. Erosion is occurring along 14 

miles of the shoreline of Crab Orchard Lake. Wind driven waves are the primary cause of the erosion and rock will slow the process, reducing siltation and 

improving water quality. Crab Orchard Lake provides habitat for waterfowl, 

herons, egrets, shorebirds and fish. The lake is also used for various forms of 

water recreation. 

$418 
Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

348

RONS Tier 2

03001 Law Enforcement Position Increased Funding: $5

04001 Fulltime Law Enforcement Officer $136

02001 Thin non-native pine plantations to encourage growth of desirable hardwoods $90

02002 Convert fescue pastures to native warm season grasses and better cool season 

non-native grasses

$58

02007 Increase technical oversight of Refuge agricultural program $40

99801 Volunteer Program Enhancement $50

99003 Improve Visitor Services $630

02003 Convert hay fields from cool-season cover to warm-season cover $16

02012 Protect visitors and provide officer safety $31

02005 Maintain early succession habitat (shrubland) with burning and mowing $46

02011 Educate Visitors and schoolchildren $28

02008 Remove woody fence row and roadside vegetation to enhance Refuge grasslands for breeding birds$40

02004 Add 30-foot wide field borders of native warm season grasses to farm fields $4

02010 Install water monitoring devices on the Refuge's 3 large reservoirs $38

98029 Increase aquatic resources surveys and monitoring $102

02009 Remove trees from 140 ammunition storage bunkers $114

98010 Conduct archeological survey of the refuge $595

00003 Protect Visitors and Refuge Resources from illegal activities $160

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)

Project No. Project Title and Description Cost 

Estimate 

(1,000 of $)

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Project No. Project Title CostEstimate

(1000's of $)

00432 Replace / Replace Deficient Heating System in the 

Headquarters Building

$153

00364 Devils Kitchen Dam – Phase I [d] $500

03507 CN Construct Turning Lanes at Visitor Center on SR 

148.

$600

00434 Replace West Gate Road Bridge. $377

00364 Devils Kitchen Dam – Phase II [cc] $1,700

98052 Shoreline habitat restoration and stabilization $3,563

02003 Replace deteriorated 4 inch steel waterline at Crab 

Orchard Campground

$364

98333 CN Repair Devils Kitchen bridge. $139

00130 Replace deteriorated water distribution lines in the 

SE quadrant.

$471

98022 Remove Sewage & Water Treatment Plant $2,279

98042 Construct Visitor & Learning Center 17,092

02001 Repair Deficiencies on Pond A-41 as Outlined in Dam 

Safety Report

$485
Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

349

00130 Replace deteriorated water distribution lines in NW 

Quadrant.

$471

02504 Upgrade Line Roads at Devils Kitchen Area. FHWA 

Route No. 115

$4,500

02502 Repair Devils Kitchen Road. FHWA Route No. 017 $770

86015 Replace deteriorated Pond A-41 Water Control Structure.157

03508 "PE Road, Parking Lot, and Bridge Rehabilitation" $300

86004 Resurface Cambria Point Lane. FHWA Route No. 

105

$153

00130 Replace deteriorated water distribution lines in the 

NE quadrant.

$472

98011 Remove unused warehouses in Area-7 of the industrial area$294

00435 Repair deficient Wolf Creek Bridge at Causeway $110

98020 Remove line roads at Devils Kitchen Lake $281

01019 "John Deere 550B Dozer, 78hp, winch" $152

01028 "Champion 710A Road Grader, 135hp, 12' blade" $142

01047 "Caterpillar D4C III LGP Dozer, 87hp w/cab, 25"" 

track shoes"

$121

02502 Repair Surfacing on Headquarters Parking – FHWA 

Route No. 901 

$180

02503 Repair Surfacing on Chamesstown School Trail Parking - FHWA Route No. 902 $215

02505 Repair Surfacing on Primex Stringtown Parking $339

02506 Repair Surfacing on Images Marina Parking – 

FHWA Route No. 906

$393

02507 Repair Surfacing on SR 13 Boat Landing – FHWA 

Route No. 907

$168

02509 Repair Surfacing on Line 16 Parking – FHWA Route 

No. 914

$122

02510 Repair Surfacing on Wolf Creek Fishing Access Parking – FHWA Route No. 915 $115

02513 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Campground 

Parking - FHWA Route No. 925

$139

02514 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Boat Ramp Parking – FHWA Route No. 926 $146

02515 Repair Surfacing on Tacoma Lake Road Parking – 

FHWA Route No. 927

$105

02524 Repair Surfacing on Primex Warehouse Parking – 

FHWA Route No. 939

$201

02526 Repair Surfacing on Ensign-Bickford Parking – 

FHWA Route No. 941 

$297

02527 Repair Surfacing on Diagraph Corporation Main 

Parking – FHWA Route No. 942

$166

02531 Repair Surfacing on Pigeon Creek Road – FHWA 

Route No. 010

$121

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Project No. Project Title CostEstimate

(1000's of $)
Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

350

02533 Repair Surfacing on Stringtown Road – FHWA Route 

No. 012

$884

02534 Repair Surfacing on Post Oak Road – FHWA Route 

No. 013

$184

02535 Repair Surfacing on Research Road – FHWA Route 

No. 014

$126

02536 Repair Surfacing on Wolf Creek Road – FHWA Route 

No. 015

$919

02537 Repair Surfacing on Tacoma Road – FHWA Route 

No. 016

$998

02539 Repair Surfacing on Odgen Road East – FHWA 

Route No. 018

$292

02539 Repair Surfacing on Odgen Road West – FHWA 

Route No. 019

$686

02541 Repair Surfacing on Old Highway 13 – FHWA Route 

No. 100

$359

02543 Repair Surfacing on Greenbriar Road – FHWA Route 

No. 102

$442

02544 Repair Surfacing on Crab Orchard Campground – 

FHWA Route No. 103

$2,111

02545 Repair Surfacing on Images Marina Road – FHWA 

Route 

$310

02546 Repair Surfacing on Cambria Point Lane – FHWA 

Route 

$152

02547 Repair Surfacing on Haven Access Loop – FHWA 

Route 

$129

02550 Repair Surfacing on Spillway Landing Road - FHWA 

Route No. 109

$148

02551 Repair Surfacing on Propeller Road – FHWA Route 

No. 110

$413

02552 Repair Surfacing on Broken Handle Road – FHWA 

Route 

$207

02553 Repair Surfacing on Bald Eagle Lane – FHWA Route $562

02554 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Campground – 

FHWA Route No. 113

$412

02555 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Boat Ramp 

Access – FHWA Route No. 114

$114

02556 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Line 11 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 115

$571

02558 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Line 13 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 117

$734

02559 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Line 16 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 118

$587

02561 Repair Surfacing on Cedar Point Youth Camp Road – 

FHWA Route No. 120

$285

02562 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Line 3 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 121

$294

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Project No. Project Title CostEstimate

(1000's of $)
Appendix K:Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Mangement System (MMS) Projects

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

351

02563 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Line 5 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 122

$1,036

02565 Repair Surfacing on Devil's Kitchen Line 6 Road – 

FHWA Route No. 124

$177

02566 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Line 6 Loop Road 

– FHWA Route No. 125

$530

02567 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Line 6 Spur Road 

– FHWA Route No. 126

$106

02568 Repair Surfacing on Devils Kitchen Line 6 Loop Spur 

Road – FHWA Route No. 127

$163

02571 Repair Surfacing on Little Grassy Lake Campground 

Road – FHWA Route No. 130

$212

02004 "Freightliner Dump Truck, 52000 GVWR" $100

00399 Visitor Center Dam Rehabilitation [d/cc] $3,000

01NNN Cleanup of Pesticide Contamination in Area 7 Buildings$140

98033 Enhance environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities 

$162

00001 "Develop interpretive, regulatory, and directional 

signing"

$112

99001 Improve access to house boat pumpout station $130

98035 Provide adequate parking for the Playport Marina $370

99003 Improve Visitor Services $630

00003 Protect Visitors and Refuge Resources from illegal 

activities

$160

03001 Demolition and Disposal of an abandoned water tower 

a the south end.

$100

03002 Removal and Disposal of Wharehouse S-4-3. $130

03004 Construct a Building Addition to the Headquarters 

Building

$350

03006 Construct and Office Addition to the Visitor Center. $300

03007 Repair erosion on Little Grassy Dam. $180

03008 Replace deteriorated cyclone fence around Area 6 

Igloo Complex

$804

03009 Replace deteriorated cyclone fence around Area 13 

Igloo Complex.

$917

03010 Upgrade Crab Orchard Campground Campsites. $360

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Project No. Project Title CostEstimate

(1000's of $)

Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

353

Appendix L: Land Protection Plan

Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

355

Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge

Boundary Modification

Land Protection Plan

June 2004

1. Project Description

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)

was established on August 5, 1947, by Public Law

80-361. This Act of Congress transferred 22,575

acres from the Department of War (Illinois Ordnance Plant) and 21,425 acres from the Soil Conservation Service (Crab Orchard Creek Project) to the

Secretary of the Interior. Since the Refuge was

established, the Service has acquired and divested

several parcels of land. In 1959, the Refuge transferred 921 acres of land located in its southeast corner to the U.S. Department of Justice for

construction of a maximum security prison. In 1969,

the Refuge acquired several scattered tracts of land

in exchange for 160 acres that is now the site of the

John A. Logan College. In a 1974 exchange, the Refuge acquired 15 acres of State of Illinois land in the

vicinity of Little Grassy Fish Hatchery. In a 1979

exchange, Southern Illinois University acquired the

current site of Touch of Nature Environmental Center and the Refuge acquired land south of Little

Grassy Lake. Through the years the Refuge has

purchased a few scattered parcels. In 2000, the Refuge used Natural Resource Damage Assessment

funds to purchase 216 acres on its western edge.

The total acres reported for Crab Orchard NWR in

the Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30,

2002 was 43,888.52.

The Washington Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the study of potential additional refuge lands in 1990. The refuge did not

pursue the study of additional lands until the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process. The

CCP planning effort was the logical time to reexamine all management and land protection issues

related to the refuge. So, during the CCP effort we

again looked at the possible need to adjust the

boundary of the refuge.

The preferred alternative within the environmental impact statement that accompanies the CCP contains a modification of the existing refuge boundary.

This modification could result in the addition of

approximately 4,242 acres to the Refuge. The

boundary adjustment does not include and is independent of a possible land exchange with Southern

Illinois University. The boundary modification

would allow the acquisition of inholdings from willing sellers and moving segments of the boundary to

roads that would better define the limits of the refuge. The boundary modification will increase the

efficiency of management, reduce incompatible land

uses, and enhance public use opportunities.

If acquired, the lands will contribute to the goals

of the Refuge by reducing habitat fragmentation,

removing disruptions to public access, reducing disturbance to wildlife, and reducing potential interference with management activities. If inholdings are

acquired, there is the potential to restore habitats

and further reduce fragmentation, particularly in

the forested southwest portion of the Refuge. If

inholdings are reduced, public access will be interrupted to a lessened extent by essentially reducing

the boundaries with private property internal to the

Refuge. Because developed property is often accompanied by increased human activity and pets, which

can disturb wildlife, acquisition of inholdings and

potentially developed property up to the well

defined boundary of a road will lead to less disturbance of wildlife. Some refuge management activities, prescribed burning and hunting, for example,

benefit from well defined boundaries. By bringing

the refuge boundary to a road and acquiring inholdings, management, particularly burning and hunting programs, will be made more efficient and safer.

Currently, if a landowner wishes to sell or

exchange land that is outside the authorized boundary of the refuge, the Service must complete an

analysis for the individual parcel and complete environmental documents related to the transaction.

This tract-by-tract analyses is inefficient and does

not provide for an overall, cumulative analysis of the

land transactions. The separate analysis also may

delay a land transaction to the detriment of the

seller.

The boundary modification is depicted in Figure

1.
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

356

Figure 1: Crab Orchard NWR Proposed Boundary Modification and Other Assorted Public Lands
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

357

2. Threats to and Status of the 

Resource

Habitat within the proposed modified boundary

includes approximately 2,000 acres of farmland,

some of which has reverted back to grasses, brush

and hardwoods. The other land is composed of a

combination of pasture, old field and mixed stands

of oak, hickory, sycamore and tulip poplar. Without

management, most areas will degrade due to their

size, isolation, and absence of natural processes such

as fire. The areas will continue to face residential

development as population growth and housing

developments continue. Development and incompatible uses in the proposed boundary modification

area also places greater demands on the Refuge in

safeguarding Refuge ecosystem structure and function for the benefit of Service trust resources.

3. Proposed Action and Objective

The Service is proposing to acquire approximately 4,242 acres that includes approximately 95

ownerships. We estimate that the cost of acquiring

all of the land would be from $4.3 million to $8.6 million. The primary funding for acquisition would be

from money appropriated from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. Since acquisition would only be

from willing sellers, it is likely that if this acquisition

were to occur, it would be over a period of decades.

Because CCPs 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 CCP and this Land Protection Plan does

not constitute a commitment for funding for future

land acquisition.

Any acquired lands would become part of the

Refuge. The annual costs for administration, operations and maintenance would be lower than acquiring non-adjacent lands. Operation costs will

ultimately depend upon the amount of land purchased in fee and easement and habitat restoration

requirements.

4. Protection Alternatives

This section outlines and evaluates two strategic

alternatives for the restoration and preservation of

approximately 4,242 acres of habitats surrounded

by or adjacent to Crab Orchard NWR. The two protection alternatives discussed below are included in

the alternatives considered in the Crab Orchard

NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Protection Alternative A is incorporated into Alternative A of the

EIS. Protection Alternative B is incorporated into

Alternatives B, C, D, and E of the EIS.

4.1. Alternative A (No Action):

Under Alternative A, the Service would not seek

realty interests in land and water within or adjacent

to the Refuge. The Refuge would continue to offer

landowners support through the Refuge's Partners

for Wildlife program. The plants and wildlife of the

area would continue to be impacted by residential

and agricultural development and the quality of

wildlife dependent recreational and aesthetic experiences would decline. Public use opportunities

would be limited to private landowners and others

with permission from landowners. If landowners in

the proposed boundary expansion area wished to

sell their land to the Service, each parcel would be

evaluated separately. If acquisition were pursued,

the process would not be completed quickly – to the

detriment of the seller.

4.2. Alternative B (Preferred):

The Service would facilitate the protection of

approximately 250 acres per year from willing sellers using outreach and technical assistance, cooperative management agreements, conservation

easements and fee-title purchase of land (and/or

donations from private parties) or a combination of

all methods, depending on site, circumstances, and

landowner interests. The estimate of 250 acres per

year is based upon historical land acquisition funding levels in the Service's Region 3, which includes

Illinois. Any acquisition of lands would be from willing sellers only, regardless of the type of interest.

The Service would only acquire the minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives for

the area. 

Areas acquired in fee-title through donation or

purchase would be owned by the Service and managed as part of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. Tracts in which an easement or lease is

negotiated would remain in private ownership.

Under any acquisition scenario, administration and

management of the tracts would be done by the staff

at the Refuge. This alternative would be carried out

on a tract-by-tract basis as land and funding become

available over an undetermined period of time.

If acquired, the lands would contribute to the

goals of the CCP by reducing habitat fragmentation,

removing disruptions to public access, reducing dis-
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

358

turbance to wildlife, and reducing potential interference with management activities. If inholdings are

acquired, there is the potential to restore habitats

and further reduce fragmentation, particularly in

the forested southwest portion of the Refuge. Public

access would be interrupted to a lessened extent by

reducing the boundaries with private property

internal to the Refuge. Because developed property

is often accompanied by increased human activity

and pets, which can disturb wildlife, acquisition of

inholdings and potentially developed property up to

the well defined boundary of a road would lead to

potentially less disturbance of wildlife. Some refuge

management activities, prescribed burning and

hunting, for example, benefit from well defined

boundaries. By bringing the refuge boundary to a

road and acquiring inholdings, management, particularly burning and hunting programs, would be

made more efficient and safer.

5. Alternative Preservation Tools

The alternative preservation tools proposed for

the boundary modification area are fee title acquisition, conservation easements, wildlife management

agreements, and private lands extension agreements. Other acquisition methods that could be utilized by the Service include donations, partial

donations, or transfers.

5.1. Wildlife Management Agreements

These agreements are negotiated between the

Refuge Manager and a landowner that specify a

particular management action the landowner will

do, or not do, with his or her property. For example,

a simple agreement would be for the landowner to

agree to delay mowing hay until after a certain date

to allow ground nesting birds to hatch their young.

More comprehensive agreements are possible for

such things as wetland or upland restoration, or

public access. These agreements are strictly voluntary on the part of the landowner and are voided if

the property is sold.

As long as a landowner abides by the terms of the

agreement, this protection can be effective in meeting certain preservation objectives. Unfortunately,

because these agreements are voluntary and temporary, there is no long-term assurance the terms will

continue to be met.

Direct Service costs for this alternative are generally low, but can add up to near fee title or easement costs if the agreement is for several years.

Staff time and administrative costs are relatively

high since agreements must be monitored yearly

and renegotiated when land ownership changes. 

5.2. Leases

Under a lease agreement, the Service would

negotiate with a landowner to receive use of the land

or for some maintenance of the land in a given condition. Generally, the landowner would receive an

annual lease payment. For example, the Service

could lease 40 acres of grassland habitat to provide

safe nesting for ground nesting birds. The landowner would not be able to hay or otherwise disturb

the ground during the lease period.

Cost effectiveness of leases would vary depending on the length and payment terms of the lease. In

many cases, the cost of a lease rapidly approaches

the cost of outright purchase in a few years. Also,

leases do not offer the long-term protection of habitat, and are more complex for the Service to administer than fee title or easement because of the

monitoring, coordination, and administration

requirements.

5.3. Conservation Easements

With a conservation easement, the Service in

effect purchases a specific interest from a private

landowner. For example, the Service may purchase

a wetland easement that protects a wetland from

draining, filling, and burning. The landowner gives

up the right to drain, fill, and burn, but no other land

rights. The wetland may still be cropped, or hayed,

as natural conditions allow.

An easement that is commonly used on refuges is

a conservation or non-development easement. Typically, a landowner would agree to refrain from commercial, industrial, or residential development or

other major alteration of habitat. The landowner

would continue to use the land as before the easement and retain rights such as hunting and control

of trespass, for instance. 

Easements are voluntary and purchased only

from willing sellers. Payments for conservation

easements are generally based on a percentage of

the appraised value of the land and varies according

to the use restrictions imposed. Easements are most

often perpetual and compensation is a one-time, upfront payment.

Easements can be useful when existing land use

of a tract is partially compatible with refuge purposes, and when the landowner desires to use the
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

359

land for some compatible purpose. Examples of land

uses that are normally restricted under terms of a

conservation easement include:

# Development rights, agricultural, commercial

and residential.

# Alteration of natural topography.

# Uses negatively affecting the maintenance of

plant and wildlife communities.

# Excessive public access and use; and

# Alteration of natural water level.

 Depending on the type of easement, this option

may be cost effective in meeting certain Refuge

management purposes. Some easements, however,

may cost the Service more than 75 percent of fee

value and cost efficiency is compromised. If the

easement is not perpetual, long term resource protection is not guaranteed.

Easements are more difficult to manage than fee

title transactions because of the monitoring, coordination, and administrative requirements. If a landowner fails to honor the easement contract, the

Service must take steps to re-establish the terms of

the contract.

In the short run, easements have more impact on

the tax base of local municipalities than cooperative

management agreements and leases, but less

impact than fee-title acquisition. In the long run,

Service acquisition of interest in lands may be beneficial to the tax base of local municipalities because

of increased desirability of land and increased recreational opportunities.

5.4. Fee-Title Acquisition

Fee-title acquisition of land assures permanent

protection of resources. All rights of ownership are

transferred to the Service in fee title acquisition.

Land is purchased only from willing sellers with

offers based on fair market value appraisals. Some

fee title acquisitions are accomplished through

donation or exchange. Although initially the most

costly for the Service, in the long run lands in feetitle are easier to manage and plan for because the

Service has complete control. Staff time is saved by

not having to renegotiate terms for less-than-fee

title arrangements.

In the short run, fee-title acquisition will have the

greatest impact on the tax base of local municipalities of any alternative preservation tools. The

impact from reduced tax revenues to local government is partially offset by revenue sharing payments from the Service. In the long run, Service

acquisition of interest in lands may be beneficial to

the tax base of local municipalities because of

increased desirability of land and increased recreational opportunities.

6. Coordination

In the past the Service has coordinated with public agencies that manage adjacent lands. The primary agencies include Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Southern Illinois University,

USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Department of

Justice. The Service expects to continue its coordination and cooperation with these agencies. In the

past the Service has responded favorably to private

landowner enquiries about possible sales and

exchanges when the sale or exchange would benefit

both parties. In the action that we are proposing

here, we are making known to private landowners in

the proposed boundary modification area the Service's desire to consider the Service as a possible

buyer, if they should ever want to sell. 

7. Sociocultural Impacts

Restoration, preservation, and management of

additional lands by the Service will have little negative effect on the current lifestyles of individuals and

communities in and around the Refuge. Landowners

who choose to sell their land to the Service will be

most affected. Owners of homes or farms who relocate will be reimbursed for moving expenses. Renters also receive certain relocation benefits, including

assistance in finding suitable alternate housing that

is affordable. Under certain conditions, some homeowners may be able to reserve a “life estate” on

their homes, meaning they could remain in their

homes for the rest of their lives after selling to the

Service. This type of reservation does, however,

reduce the amount paid for their homes. Other landowners who negotiate easements or other less-thanfee transactions may have to change certain land

management practices to comply with conditions of

the easement.

All land transactions will be purely voluntary in

keeping with Service policy to purchase lands or

rights only from willing sellers. The property rights

of landowners who choose not to sell their land will

not be directly affected by purchases around them

since they will retain all right of landownership. The

Service will always take into account the interests of

adjacent landowners when managing acquired land.
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

360

Lands in which the Service acquires a fee interest

will be open to public hunting, fishing, hiking, photography and other compatible refuge uses. Public

use of the Refuge will probably not increase markedly over current levels, although the quality of

experience that visitors have may be improved.

8. Summary Of Proposed Action

The priority for acquisition of parcels will be

determined by refuge purposes; goals and objectives in the CCP; the potential to contribute to an

unfragmented landscape component of forest or

grassland; and pending development.

The following is a ranked list of priorities for protecting lands surrounded by and adjacent to the

Refuge. This list will guide the Service in choosing

when and where to use the various available protection tools. The list includes criteria that would rank

the priority of a parcel of land considered for fee

title purchase, although other protection tools would

always be considered first.

This list will help assure that the limited

resources available to the Service are used efficiently and effectively.

High Priority Land: 

# Habitat that immediately contributes to

increasing an unfragmented block of forest or

grassland.

# Habitat that immediately contributes to the

support of a threatened or endangered species.

# Land with a clear likelihood of being developed

for non-compatible uses.

Medium Priority Land:

# Restorable habitat that will eventually

contribute to a larger unfragmented block of

forest or grassland.

# Restorable habitat that will eventually

contribute to the support of a threatened or

endangered species.

Low Priority Land:

# Habitat blocks that are dependent on other

acquisitions to contribute to a larger

unfragmented block of forest or grassland.

# Other fish and wildlife habitats.

# Lands that improve the management efficiency

of existing Service lands.

# Lands with significant development that

require extensive restoration.

Preservation of any tract would first be sought by

working with the landowners to achieve conservation goals they are interested in and that are consistent with Service interests. If a landowner is

interested in other options, such as an easement or

in selling fee rights to the property, the Service

would base its decision of whether to acquire an

interest in the land upon the availability of funds

and the priority of the tract for preservation. Assistance to landowners for conservation work on their

property will be provided through the Service's

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and through

any other programs which may be available in the

future. Figure 2 illustrates proposed boundary modification tracts and their priority. Figure 3 and Table

1 depict and summarize the proposed action by

tract.
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

361

Figure 2: Crab Orchard NWR Boundary Modification Tracts and Their Priority
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

362

Figure 3: Crab Orchard NWR Boundary Modification Numbered Tracts
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

363

Table 1: Crab Orchard NWR Boundary Modification Tracts Identification Number, Approximate

Acreage, Acquisition Priority, Possible Acquisition 

Tract # Acreage Priority Owner Possible Acquisition

1725 51 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1726 39 High Private Easement/Fee

1727 21 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1728 40 High Private Easement/Fee

1729 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1730 8 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1731 12 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1732 19 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1733 23 Low Private Easement/Fee

1734 10 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1735 6 Low Private Easement/Fee

1736 34 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1737 2 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1738 4 Low Private Easement/Fee

1739 3 Low Private Easement/Fee

1740 18 High Private Easement/Fee

1741 114 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1742 2 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1743 13 High Private Easement/Fee

1744 14 High Private Easement/Fee

1745 82 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1746 18 High Private Easement/Fee

1747 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1748 15 High Private Easement/Fee

1749 46 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1750 22 High Private Easement/Fee

1751 6 High Private Easement/Fee

1752 5 High Private Easement/Fee

1753 114 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1754 42 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1755 30 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1756 11 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1757 30 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1758 11 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1759 43 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1760 5 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1761 37 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1762 88 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1763 82 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1764 42 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1765 41 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1773 42 High Private Easement/Fee
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

364

1774 2 High Private Easement/Fee

1775 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1776 39 High Private Easement/Fee

1777 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1778 62 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1779 105 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1780 39 High Private Easement/Fee

1781 25 High Private Easement/Fee

1782 39 High Private Easement/Fee

1783 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1784 7 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1785 19 Low Private Easement/Fee

1786 41 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1787 37 High Private Easement/Fee

1788 5 High Private Easement/Fee

1789 60 High Private Easement/Fee

1790 22 High Private Easement/Fee

1791 19 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1792 76 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1793 2 High Private Easement/Fee

1794 41 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1795 39 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1796 190 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1797 44 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1798 5 High Private Easement/Fee

1799 3 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1800 2 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1801 2 High Private Easement/Fee

1802 1 Low Private Easement/Fee

1803 44 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1804 21 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1811 25 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1812 15 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1813 16 High Private Easement/Fee

1814 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1815 11 Low Private Easement/Fee

1817 8 Low Private Easement/Fee

1818 40 Low Private Easement/Fee

1819 40 Low Private Easement/Fee

1820 40 Low Private Easement/Fee

1821 2 High Private Easement/Fee

1822 52 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1823 38 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1824 41 High Private Easement/Fee

Table 1: Crab Orchard NWR Boundary Modification Tracts Identification Number, Approximate

Acreage, Acquisition Priority, Possible Acquisition (Continued)
Appendix L:Land Protection Plan

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

365

1825 70 High Private Easement/Fee

1826 21 Low Private Easement/Fee

1827 1 Low Private Easement/Fee

1828 22 High Private Easement/Fee

1829 80 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1830 82 High Private Easement/Fee

1831 21 High Private Easement/Fee

1832 103 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1833 167 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1834 92 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1835 21 High Private Easement/Fee

1836 65 Low Private Easement/Fee

1837 3 High Private Easement/Fee

1838 27 High Private Easement/Fee

1839 16 Low Private Easement/Fee

1840 85 High Private Easement/Fee

1841 208 High Private Easement/Fee

1842 77 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1843 12 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1844 29 High Private Easement/Fee

1845 42 Low Private Easement/Fee

1846 17 Medium Private Easement/Fee

1847 41 High Private Easement/Fee

1848 42 High Private Easement/Fee

1849 49 High Private Easement/Fee

1850 34 High Private Easement/Fee

Table 1: Crab Orchard NWR Boundary Modification Tracts Identification Number, Approximate

Acreage, Acquisition Priority, Possible Acquisition (Continued)

Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

367

Appendix M: Comparison of Objectives and 

Strategies by Alternative

Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

369

Appendix M: Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative 

Alternatives

ABCDE

Goal: Maintain or enhance populations of federal and, where compatible,state threatened and endangered species that occur at or near Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Objectives

Assure that federally listed species and state-listed species and federally proposed species and their habitats are protected.XXXXX

Strategies

No disturbance of Bald Eagles will take place during critical periods 

within protective zones as described in the 1983 Northern States 

Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, Appendix E. Areas are designated 

closed through signing and brochures.

XXXXX

Forest management activities, such as thinning and prescribed 

burning, will require close coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ecological Services personnel. These activities will require 

standard surveys to determine whether Indiana bats are present in 

a given forest unit and/or forest management activities will be 

scheduled outside of the season when Indiana bats are likely to use 

Refuge forests.

XXXXX

Goal: Maintain or enhance resident fish and wildlife populations consistent

with management activities for federal trust resources in cooperation with

the Illinois DNR.

Objectives

Manage Refuge fisheries with emphasis on mixed-species, warmwater

sport fishing.

XXXXX

Manage Refuge resident wildlife populations at levels that allow

opportunities for sport hunting of game species.

XXXXX
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

370

Strategies

Continue cooperative management of Refuge fisheries with Illinois 

DNR. Continue managing fish populations and habitat through 

activities such as: setting length and creel limits, seasonal closures 

of spawning bed areas, habitat enhancements, annual surveys, and 

fish stocking.

XXXXX

Continue managing the Refuge agriculture program with methods 

that benefit resident game species, such as: leave 25 percent of the 

corn crop unharvested, plant winter wheat in soy bean fields each 

fall, use low tillage planting techniques, keep fields in clover 2 years 

out of the 5-year rotation, delay mowing until after August 1, and 

use no insecticides.

XXXXX

Incorporate beneficial practices such as those suggested in the 

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative: convert cool-season to 

warm-season grasses and burn and thin pine plantations.

XXXXX

Allow controlled hunting for turkey and deer in the restricted use 

portion of the Refuge.

XXXXX

Goal: Visitors, cooperators, tenants, and local residents will understand Refuge goals, issues and activities. Service personnel will understand the

expectations and concerns of the general public by being receptive to their

feedback.

Objectives

The positive attitude toward Refuge management will increase among

visitors, cooperators, tenants, and local residents throughout the life of

the plan.

XXXXX

Strategies

Issue press releases, hold Refuge open houses and hold regularly 

scheduled forums.

XXXXX

Within 2 years of the Plan’s approval, create and maintain a 

“listening log” of written and verbalpublic input submitted to the 

Refuge. Review this log quarterly and address voiced community 

concerns.

XXXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

371

Provide annual reports on the “State of the Refuge.” Distribute 

these reports upon request at the Visitor Center and by mail and 

post the current year’s report on the Refuge website.

XXXXX

Continue to permit selected annual and special events that are 

sponsored by nonprofit organizations, provided they do not damage 

Refuge resources or interfere with wildlife-dependent recreation.

XXXXX

Goal:Protect the integrity of Refuge biological and cultural resources and the

health and safety of visitors and the Refuge staff.

Objectives

Refuge lands and waters are safe for fish, wildlife, plants, and people. X X X X X

Visitors will feel safe on the Refuge and illegal harvest of fish and

wildlife will be reduced.

XXXXX

Manage or eliminate invasive species on the Refuge. X X X X X

Protect the cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources of federallyowned lands within the Refuge.XXXXX

Strategies

Work with USEPA, Illinois EPA, Departments of Interior and 

Justice, and responsible parties to remediate contaminated sites.

XXXXX

Maintain full-time law enforcement staff. X X X X X

Write and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan 

following guidance developed by the Service’s “Promises Invasive 

Species Team.”

XXXXX

Implement the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Cultural 

Resources within the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge 

(Godfrey and Stubbs 2001).

XXXXX

Ensure archeological and cultural values are described, identified, 

and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. 

Notify the Regional Historic Preservation Officer early in project 

planning or upon receipt of a request for permitted activities. 

XXXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

372

Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify 

archeological resources and for developing a preservation program.

XXXXX

Complete accessioning, cataloging, inventorying, and preserving the 

museum collection at the Refuge in accordance with “Survey of 

Collections at Crab Orchard NWR” by Mayda S. Jensen.

XXXXX

Goal: Protect the ecological integrity, preserve the wilderness character,

restore natural conditions to the extent practicable, and provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation within the Crab Orchard Wilderness.

Objectives

Recommend the designation of two parcels (120 acres) as Wilderness

within two years of approval of the CCP.

XXXXX

Revise and implement the Crab Orchard Wilderness Management

Plan within 5 years of approval of the CCP.

XXXXX

Restore native hardwood forest on 325 acres of pine and pine-hardwood forest in the Crab Orchard Wilderness within 15 years of approval

of the CCP.

XXXXX

Control or eradicate invasive species (especially autumn-olive, multiflora rose, Amur honeysuckle, white poplar, and Oriental bittersweet)

over the 15-year life of the CCP.

XXXXX

Explore ways to increase cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service on

management of the Crab Orchard Wilderness and the adjoining Panther

Den Wilderness within two years of approval of the CCP.

XXXXX

Provide opportunities for primitive recreation, such as hiking, hunting, nature study and wild food collection, over the 15-year life of the

CCP.

XXXXX

Within 5 years of approval of the CCP, determine an appropriate level

of opportunities to offer equestrians based on an evaluation of the current level and extent of horseback riding use and its effects on the Wilderness.

XXXXX

Strategies

Prepare and submit a Wilderness Study Report according to policy 

in Part 610 Chapter 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

XXXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

373

Prepare and implement a Wilderness Management Plan according 

to policy in Part 610 Chapter 6 of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual.

XXXXX

Thin the pine plantations (229 acres) and pine-hardwood stands (96 

acres) in the Wilderness to promote establishment and growth of 

native hardwoods. Thinning would be conducted in several phases 

over a 10- to 15-year period to mimic the natural process of 

succession where pines are gradually replaced by hardwoods. 

Individual pines would be killed by cutting, girdling or injecting 

herbicide. No trees would be removed from the site. Treatments 

would be conducted so that the results would appear natural as 

much as possible. However, trees along heavily used trails may need 

to be felled to avoid personal injury to visitors, in which case this 

zone may appear unnatural for several years. Eventual removal of 

all the non-native pines would restore the natural vegetative cover of 

the area and enhance wilderness characteristics.

XXXXX

Prescribed burn the pine and pine-hardwood stands during the 

dormant season (November through March) on a 3- to 5-year cycle 

to enhance habitat conditions and promote desirable hardwood 

regeneration. Control lines would be established by hand tools 

where necessary, using natural firebreaks as much as possible.

XXXXX

Prepare and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan 

following guidance developed by the Service’s “Promises Invasive 

Species Team.”

XXXXX

Contact the Forest Supervisor of the Shawnee National Forest and 

discuss ways our agencies could work together in managing the 

adjoining wildernesses.

XXXXX

Continue current primitive recreational opportunities. X X X X X

Prepare and distribute a wilderness brochure and conduct 

interpretive programs to inform the public about primitive 

recreational opportunities available.

XXXXX

Map the existing network of trails in the Wilderness; assess the 

condition of trails; determine whether trails meet design standards; 

evaluate the proposed River to River Trail route; cooperate with 

partners to plan, construct and maintain a sustainable trail system.

XXXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

374

Goal: Volunteers and Refuge support groups will be stewardship partners and

strong advocates for the Refuge.

Objectives

Improve Refuge support for volunteer and Friends of Crab Orchard

activities to a point where 95 percent of volunteers and Friends members

feel like valued contributors to the success of Refuge programs and

endeavors.

XXXXX

Strategies

Continue to manage volunteer and support programs in accordance 

with Service guidelines detailed in “A Guidebook for Working with 

Volunteers.” Maintain an active liaison with support groups and 

partners.

XXXXX

Provide in-depth initial training to Refuge volunteers that will 

enable them to effectively and efficiently complete projects and 

responsibilities. Encourage involvement in diverse volunteer 

activities that match volunteer interests. 

XXXXX

Continue demonstrating Refuge appreciation for volunteer 

contributions and Friends support annually through a Volunteer 

Appreciation Banquet. Present awards for service hours in 

accordance with Service guidelines.

XXXXX

Goal: Provide habitat for wintering Canada geese in support of the Mississippi Valley Population Canada Goose Management Plan.

Objectives

Provide enough food for wintering Canada geese to support 6.4

million goose-use-days.

XXXXX

Cropland Strategies

Maintain 4,500 acres of cropland in agricultural production. Manage 

1,100 acres of pasture and 800 acres of hay fields.

X

Maintain 4,400 acres of cropland in agricultural production. X X

Maintain 4,800 acres of cropland in agricultural production. X

Maintain 4,300 acres of cropland in agricultural production. X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

375

Continue managing the Refuge agriculture program with methods 

that benefit Canada Geese, such as: leave 25 percent of the corn 

crop unharvested, plant winter wheat in soybean fields each fall, use 

low tillage planting techniques, keep fields in clover 2 years out of 

the 5-year rotation.

XXXXX

Moist-soil Units Strategies

Manage 450 acres of moist-soil units. X X

Manage 500 acres of moist-soil units. X X X

Other Management Strategies

Continue fall mowing around selected ponds. X X X X X

Maintain seasonal closure to boating on the east end of Crab 

Orchard Lake.

XXXXX

Goal: Maintain or enhance populations of forest, early successional and

grassland birds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in Partners

in Flight Physiographic Area Bird Conservation Plans.

Forests

Objectives

Complete about 240 acres of reforestation as outlined under the existing Refuge reforestation plan to benefit forest wildlife species.X

Manage two portions of the Refuge as large forest blocks to benefit

area-sensitive forest birds. The first area (about 13,000 acres) extends

from the southern end of Grassy Bay east to Caney Creek, and south

including the wilderness area. The second area (about 1,700 acres)

extends from the federal prison north and includes the Crab Orchard

Creek bottomlands. This will include about 490 acres of reforestation of

open habitat to consolidate large blocks of forest habitat.

X XX

Manage the southern portion of the Refuge as a large forest block to

benefit area-sensitive forest birds. This area (about 9,500 acres) extends

south from Grassy Road and includes the wilderness area.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

376

Strategies

Conduct reforestation activities which may include site preparation 

(mechanical clearing and/or applying herbicides to unwanted 

vegetation), planting hardwood tree seedlings, and follow-up 

mechanical or chemical treatments.

XXXXX

Reforest about 290 acres of crop fields, 130 acres of fallow fields, and 

90 acres of perennial grasslands. This may include site preparation 

planting a cover crop, planting tree seedlings, and weed control 

treatments.

X XX

Reforest 1 fallow field (52 acres) south of Grassy Road. This may 

include site preparation, planting a cover crop, planting tree 

seedlings, and weed control treatments.

X

Pine Plantations

Objectives

Accelerate succession of all (about 3,300 acres) pine plantations to

hardwood forest.

XX XX

Accelerate succession of pine plantations south of Grassy Road and

outside the wilderness area (about 650 acres) to native hardwood forest.

X

Strategies

Thin pine plantations to promote establishment and growth of native 

hardwoods. Most thinning treatments will be conducted under 

contract by commercial timber harvesting firms.

XXXXX

Conduct prescribed burning during the dormant season (November 

through March) on a 3 to 5 year cycle to enhance habitat conditions 

and promote desirable hardwood regeneration.

XXXXX

In some cases, remove pine overstory to release young hardwoods. X X X

Early Successional Habitat

Objective

Maintain about 300 acres in early successional habitat. X X X X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

377

Strategies

Use prescribed fire or mechanical treatment (mowing, discing) to 

disturb about 200 acres every 3 to 5 years. Add about 100 acres of 

30-foot-wide borders of native warm-season grasses in row crop 

fields in the open portion of the Refuge.

XXXX

Grasslands

Objectives

Maintain 240 acres of native warm-season grassland to benefit grassland birds, such as northern bobwhite, eastern meadowlark, and Henslow’s sparrow.X

Maintain 260 acres of native warm-season grassland. X X X X

Strategies

Prescribed burn all native warm-season grasslands on a 2 to 3 year 

cycle to favor grassland vegetation and control undesirable plants. 

Apply mechanical or herbicide treatments to control vegetation, 

when needed.

XXXXX

Pasture, Hay and Clover Fields

Objectives

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 700 acres of hay fields, and about

1,600 acres of clover fields with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds.

XXX X

Maintain 1,000 acres of pasture, 500 acres of hay fields, and about

1,500 acres of clover fields with increased emphasis on habitat quality for

grassland birds, along with an emphasis on cattle production on pastures.

X

Strategies

All mowing of pastures, hay fields, and clover fields will take place 

after August 1.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

378

Remove 124 acres of linear forest habitat and 8 miles of hedge rows. 

Install fences to create paddocks within pastures to enable greater 

control of grazing intensity. Convert fescue pastures to other 

coolseason and native warm-season grasses by preparing the site 

and reseeding. The typical Refuge pasture would become three or 

four paddocks with a paddock of cool-season grass and two or three 

paddocks of native warm-season grasses. Cattle would enter the cool 

season grass paddock in the spring, switch to the warm season 

grasses in the summer, and move back to the cool season grass in the 

fall. The native warm season grass will provide the grassland birds 

with nesting, migration, and winter habitat. Vegetation structure 

will be managed by the amount of grazing applied to each paddock. 

Most of the pasture grass would not require fall mowing and would 

be taller than 6 inches during the winter. All mowing of hay fields, 

pastures, and clover fields will take place after August 1.

XX X

Remove 15 acres of linear forest habitat and 2 miles of hedge rows. 

Increase forage diversity in fescue pastures by adding legumes, 

other cool-season or warm-season grasses by reseeding or 

interseeding. Subdivide larger pastures for rotational grazing to 

increase cattle production. All mowing of hay fields, pastures, and 

clover fields will take place after July 15.

X

Goal: Maintain or enhance populations of ducks, shorebirds, and other waterbirds, with emphasis on priority species, as identified in the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North

American Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Objectives

Provide 350 to 450 acres of moist soil habitat during fall, winter and

spring for migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds.

X X

Provide 450 to 500 acres of moist-soil habitat during fall, winter and

spring for migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds.

XX X

Strategies

Maintain dikes and water control structures. Manipulate water 

levels and vegetation to encourage production of food. 

X X

Construct 50 to 70 acres of new moist-soil habitat. Maintain dikes 

and water control structures. Manipulate water levels and 

vegetation to encourage production of waterfowl foods.

XX X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

379

Goal: Provide and manage for quality of water in streams and lakes at Crab

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

Objectives

Keep Refuge soil erosion and chemical inputs at low levels. X X X

Improve the quality of water within the watershed of the Refuge. X X

Strategies

Work with farmers to establish buffer strips and keep stock away 

from water. Continue using current soil and water protection 

measures in the Refuge farm program: use no insecticides, use only 

Service-approved herbicides, use minimum tillage practices, and use 

winter cover crops.

XXXXX

Continue cleanup of contaminated industrial sites. Ensure Refuge 

industrial operations conform to prescribed environmental 

standards.

XXXXX

Cooperate with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to 

monitor water quality. Identify landowners and land uses in the 

watershed. Provide education and technical assistance to 

landowners with particularly sensitive riparian areas. Work with 

municipalities and developers to enhance on-site storm water 

retention.

X X

Goal: Hunters, anglers, viewers and photographers of wildlife, general visitors, and students enjoy high-quality experiences through a variety of opportunities that promote an understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's

natural and cultural resources and their management.

Hunting

Objectives

Provide hunting opportunities at the levels offered in 2001. X

Increase the quality of hunting opportunities to a level where 90 percent of hunters experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and satisfaction with their overall experience. Instill a sense of awareness among hunters of Crab

Orchard as a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System and of

hunting as a wildlife management tool. 

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

380

Increase the quality of hunting opportunities to a level where 75 percent of hunters experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and satisfaction with their overall experience. Instill a sense of awareness among hunters of the Refuge

as a component of a National Wildlife Refuge System and of hunting as a

wildlife management tool. 

XXX

Strategies

In the open area of the Refuge, continue the policy of providing 

hunting opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and 

federal regulations. 

X

In the restricted use area of the Refuge, maintain current hunting 

opportunities by permit during shotgun deer and shotgun spring 

turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun deer season hunting 

opportunities for youth and persons with disabilities.

X

Continue providing waterfowl hunting opportunities in the 

controlled area through an agreement with a partner organization.

X

In the open area of the Refuge, continue the policy of providing 

hunting opportunities based on state hunting seasons and state and 

federal regulations.

XXXX

In the restricted use area of the Refuge, maintain current hunting 

opportunities by permit during shotgun deer and shotgun spring 

turkey seasons. Maintain shotgun deer season hunting 

opportunities for youth and persons with disabilities and, within 3 

years of the plan's approval, provide these groups with opportunities 

for shotgun spring turkey season hunting when populations 

warrant.

XXXX

Within 6 years of the plan's approval, establish additional special 

hunts to encourage participation in the Refuge hunting program by 

non-traditional segments of the public such as youth, persons with 

disabilities and women.

X

Within 10 years and in cooperation with a partner organization, 

improve all hunting blinds used in the controlled goose hunting 

program. Administer goose hunts in the controlled area through an 

agreement with a partner organization. 

XXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

381

Over the life of the plan, promote ethical hunting behavior and 

increase hunter adherence to federal and state regulations through 

effective informational brochures and signs. Increase the visibility of 

Refuge law enforcement.

XXXX

Over the life of the plan, enhance public understanding of Refuge 

hunting opportunities, ethical behaviors, the role of hunting in 

wildlife management, and Crab Orchard Refuge as a component of a 

National Wildlife Refuge System by increasing the quality of maps, 

signs, and wording within brochures. 

XXXX

Fishing

Objectives

Provide fishing opportunities at the levels offered in 2001. X

Increase the quality of fishing opportunities to a level where 90 percent of anglers experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and satisfaction with their overall experience. Enhance angler understanding of the issues, strategies,

and policies involved in Refuge fisheries management and conservation.

Instill anglers with a sense of awareness of Crab Orchard Refuge as a

component of a National Wildlife Refuge System.

X

Increase the quality of fishing opportunities to a level where 75 percent of anglers experience uncrowded conditions, no conflicts with other

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity, and satisfaction with their overall experience. At least 75 percent of anglers understand the issues,

strategies, and policies involved in Refuge fisheries management and

conservation. 

XXX

Strategies

In the public fishing areas, continue the policy of providing fishing 

opportunities based on state and federal regulations.

XXXXX

Continue to provide bank and boat fishing opportunities in 

accordance with state and federal regulations. Maintain existing 

Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking facilities. 

X

Within 5 years of the plan's approval and in cooperation with other 

partners, promote current and develop additional fishing 

opportunities and programs to encourage participation by nontraditional segments of the public such as youth, persons with 

disabilities, and women.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

382

Continue to provide bank and boat fishing opportunities in 

accordance with state and federal regulations. Maintain existing 

Refuge boat ramps, fishing piers, and parking facilities. Study the 

feasibility for constructing accessible fishing facilities at Little 

Grassy Lake and Devils Kitchen Lake within 4 years of the plan's 

approval.

XXXX

Over the life of the plan, promote Refuge fishing opportunities and 

encourage conservation practices such as catch-and-release fishing 

through the development and maintenance of high-quality maps, 

signs, and the Refuge web page. 

XXXX

Ensure that the fishing public clearly understands the fish 

consumption advisories for Crab Orchard Lake through signs and 

brochures within 2 years of the plan's approval.

XXXX

Over the life of the plan, provide insight to anglers regarding Refuge 

strategies, issues, and policies for fisheries management and 

conservation by redesigning and developing more effective 

informational signs and brochures. Increase angler awareness of the 

Refuge as a component of a National Wildlife Refuge System by 

improving the quality and content of maps, signs, and brochures.

XXXX

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Objectives

Provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities at the

levels offered in 2001.

X

Ensure that viewing and photograpghy opportunities meet the needs

of 95 percent of participants. Establish and maintain viewing and photography opportunities for all major Refuge habitat types and optimum

seasons. 

XXXX

Strategies

Continue popular, established programs and tours like the October 

Discovery Auto Tours, January Eagle Tours, and Spring Wildflower 

Walks that enhance visitor experience, bring visitors in closer 

proximity to resources, and provide optimum seasonal opportunities 

for observation and photography.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

383

Continue popular, established programs and tours like the October 

Discovery Auto Tours, January Eagle Tours, and Spring Wildflower 

Walks that enhance visitor experience, bring visitors in closer 

proximity to resources, and provide optimum seasonal opportunities 

for observation and photography., and continually evaluate these 

programs for effectiveness.

XXXX

Maintain existing photo blinds, observation blinds, and identified 

observation areas. 

X

Within 2 years of the plan’s approval, develop an annual observation/

photography fact sheet for the Refuge that will include a calendar of 

established tours, programs, and events; information on identified 

and recommended viewing and photography areas; guidelines to 

enhance viewing enjoyment; and a Refuge map delineating trails, 

blinds, platforms, and identified viewing areas.

XXXX

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, improve the existing 

photography/observation blinds and platform by adding camouflage 

as needed to enhance viewing opportunities. Evaluate location of 

existing blinds and platforms and move as needed. Position 

interpretive and identification panels in or near blinds and platform 

to promote understanding and appreciation of Refuge resources. 

Enhance panels to promote awareness of the Refuge as a component 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

XXXX

Within 5 years of the plan's approval, evaluate need for and add 

additional blinds/platforms, including interpretive and identification 

panels, where and if needed to ensure observation and photography 

opportunities in all major Refuge habitat types. Maintain all 

identified viewing and photography sites.

XXXX

Over the life of the plan and in cooperation with other partners, 

encourage utilization of the Refuge for birding and other wildlife 

observation through development of informational materials, 

programs, tours, and special events. Promote Crab Orchard as a site 

for quality wildlife and cultural observation and photography 

through participation in selected community and regional birding, 

nature, and photography festivals and events. 

XXXX

Within 8 years of the plan's approval, identify and create a Refuge 

birding trail that may include enhancement and coordination of 

existing trails, viewing areas, and signs, and creation of a birding 

trail brochure and map.

XXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

384

Over the life of the plan, expand the Refuge web site to promote 

wildlife observation and photography. Include updates on Refuge 

and area sightings of rare birds and other wildlife; profiles of 

selected seasonally-occurring and resident species; suggested 

optimal viewing times and locations; and current Refuge programs, 

facilities, tours, and other opportunities for observation and 

photography. 

XXXX

Interpretation

Objectives

Provide interpretive opportunities and materials at the levels offered

in 2001.

X

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge interpretive program such

that 85 percent of visitors gain a better understanding of three primary

concepts: (1) the value and unique purposes of the Refuge, (2) the Refuge as a component of a national network of refuges, and (3) the significance and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Heighten

awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts. Encourage visitors to adopt ethical behaviors and to take positive actions that support

Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission.

X

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge interpretive program so that

70 percent of visitors gain a better understanding of three primary concepts: (1) the value and unique purposes of the Refuge, (2) the Refuge as

a component of a national network of refuges, and (3) the significance

and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts. Encourage visitors to

adopt ethical behaviors and to take positive actions that support Refuge

goals and the Refuge System mission.

XXX

Strategies

Continue to maintain and replace damaged and outdated 

interpretive and information panels on Refuge kiosks, wayside 

exhibits, trails, ramps, and other facilities. Ensure all panels comply 

with Service standards.

X

In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and other partners, conduct a 

variety of quality interpretive programs annually. Continue popular 

and established interpretive programs and special events, such as 

the Families Understanding Nature program and National Wildlife 

Refuge Week.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

385

Continue to plan interpretive auto tour route, using existing roads, 

that will facilitate opportunities for wildlife and cultural resource 

observation and provide visitors with an overview of the Refuge, its 

resources, and its management. 

X

Within 3 years of the plan's approval, develop the interpretive 

portion of the Refuge Visitor Services Plan outlining a 

comprehensive, multifaceted approach emphasizing selected themes 

and key Refuge resources. Themes will be selected based on 

importance to Refuge and System goals and relevance to 

surrounding communities. All interpretive materials, tours, and 

programs will focus on one or more of these Refuge themes, along 

with the three basic concepts of the Refuge and Refuge System. 

Refuge interpretive themes may be in a storyline form that includes 

three or more themes. Themes may include: Exploring the 

Diversity of Wildlife, Understanding the Past, Protecting the 

Balance, and Communicating Visitor Opportunities.

XXXX

Within 4 years of the plan's approval, renovate and replace damaged 

and outdated interpretive and information panels on Refuge kiosks, 

wayside exhibits, trails, ramps, and other facilities. Ensure that all 

panels comply with Service standards.

XXXX

In cooperation with Refuge volunteers and other partners, conduct a 

variety of high-quality interpretive programs annually. Continue 

popular and established interpretive programs and special events, 

such as the Families Understanding Nature program and National 

Wildlife Refuge Week. Ensure interpretive programming remains 

current and dynamic by continually creating new programs, 

incorporating new ideas, updating information, and revitalizing 

ongoing programs. Focus each interpretive program on one or more 

Refuge themes. 

XXXX

In cooperation with other partners, continue publication of a 

quarterly newsletter that includes interpretive articles, information 

on Refuge management activities, and a calendar of events. 

Distribute this newsletter at the Visitor Center, as well as a separate 

events calendar for the year. Post this newsletter on the Refuge web 

site.

XXXX

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, redesign and remodel Visitor 

Center exhibits to create professional displays that effectively 

illustrate one or more Refuge themes while incorporating the three 

basic concepts of the Refuge and Refuge System. Exhibits will be 

well maintained and designed for easy repair and replacement as 

needed.

XXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

386

Over the life of the plan and in cooperation with Friends of Crab 

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, revise Refuge 

interpretive brochures, handouts, and other written materials as 

needed to improve consistency and to meet Service standards.

XXXX

Within 1 year of the plan's approval, create a custom audiovisual 

program that provides visitors with orientation information about 

the Refuge. Ensure this program and a variety of other wildliferelated audiovisual programs are made available for view at the 

Visitor Center and for use in interpretive programs.

XXXX

Within 3 years of the plan's approval, establish and maintain an 

interpretive auto tour route, using existing roads, that will facilitate 

opportunities for wildlife and cultural resource observation and 

provide visitors with an overview of the Refuge, its resources, and 

its management. Include identified stations with interpretive panels.

X

Within 3 years of the plan's approval, establish and maintain an 

interpretive auto tour route, using existing roads, that will facilitate 

opportunities for wildlife and cultural resource observation and 

provide visitors with an overview of the Refuge, its resources, and 

its management. Include identified stations with interpretive panels 

and corresponding, radio-broadcasted interpretive messages.

XXXX

Environmental Education

Objectives

Provide environmental education programs and materials at the levels offered in 2001.X

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge environmental education

program so that 90 percent of participants gain a better understanding

and appreciation of the resources, purposes, and value of the Refuge and

the Refuge System. Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts and encourage participants to take positive actions on the

Refuge and in their community that support Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

387

Increase the effectiveness of the Refuge environmental education

program so that 75 percent of participants gain a better understanding

and appreciation of the resources, purposes, and value of the Refuge and

the Refuge System. Heighten awareness of conservation and stewardship concepts and encourage participants to take positive actions on the

Refuge and in their community that support Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission.

XXX

Strategies

Continue currently-offered environmental education programs done 

by request, including on-site and off-site programs, special 

educational events, group camp programs, and special interest 

group programs. 

X X

Continue the development and maintenance of a multi-faceted 

environmental education resource library, available for use by 

educators and in Refuge educational programs, comprised of books, 

videos, posters, audio tapes, written materials, and environmental 

education kits.

X

Conduct an annual review of the Refuge environmental education 

program. Invite feedback from area educators. Revise as necessary.

X XXX

Within 1 year of the plan's approval, select primary Refuge concepts 

and key resources that will be emphasized as central themes in the 

environmental education and interpretive programs. Themes will be 

selected based on importance to Refuge and System goals and 

relevance to surrounding communities. All educational materials 

and programs will focus on one or more of these Refuge themes.

XXXX

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, develop the environmental 

education portion of the Visitor Services Plan outlining a 

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach structured to be 

compatible with state learning standards.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

388

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, develop the environmental 

education portion of the Visitor Services Plan, outlining a 

comprehensive, curriculum-based approach structured to be 

compatible with state learning standards and national 

environmental education guidelines. Emphasize key Refuge 

resources, the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

selected Refuge themes. These themes will be based on importance 

to Refuge and System goals and relevance to surrounding 

communities. All environmental education materials, facilities, and 

programs will focus on one or more of these Refuge themes, along 

with the basic concepts of the Refuge and the Refuge System. 

Refuge themes may be in a storyline form that incudes three or 

more themes. Themes may include: exploring the diversity of 

wildlife, understanding the past, protecting the balance, and 

communicating visitor opportunities.

XXXX

Within 3 years of the plan's approval and in cooperation with Friends 

of Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, 

create an array of environmental education kits, each focusing on 

one or more aspects of Refuge themes. Educational kits will include 

interactive materials and a detailed instructional and activity guide 

designed with a clear, consistent format and coordinated with state 

learning standards. Develop and maintain a multi-faceted 

environmental education resource library, available for use by 

educators and in Refuge educational programs, comprised of books, 

videos, posters, audio tapes, written materials, and environmental 

education kits. 

XXXX

Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in cooperation with other 

partners, establish an environmental education complex that 

incorporates an outdoor amphitheater with educational displays, a 

set of associated trails, the Refuge Visitor Center, and an educator's 

trail specifically designed to facilitate environmental education 

activities and function as an outdoor classroom. 

XXXX

Within 4 years of the plan's approval and in cooperation with other 

partners, create an Educator's Guide to Crab Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge that provides an orientation, guidelines, grade-level 

and state learning standards information, maps, and site-specific 

activities that focus on one or more Refuge themes. Incorporate 

input from area educators to ensure that the Refuge guide meets 

area teachers' needs.

XXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

389

In cooperation with other partners, conduct or host bi-annual 

teacher workshops that encourage area educators to incorporate 

environmental education into their curriculum and to utilize Refuge 

materials, staff, and resources, both in the classroom and during 

field trips. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, develop a Refugespecific teacher workshop to demonstrate methods for combining 

use of the Educator's Guide, environmental education kits, and the 

educator's trail. Explore continuing education credit options for all 

teacher workshops.

X

Over the life of the plan, establish a positive, cooperative 

relationship with educators and schools in surrounding 

communities. Promote use of the Refuge, environmental education 

resources, and staff through e-mail newsletters to educators, the 

Refuge web page, informational fliers and materials, targeted 

special events, and involvement in area parent-teacher and other 

organizations.

X

Continue currently-offered environmental education programs done 

by request, including on-site and off-site programs, special 

educational events, group camp programs, and special interest 

group programs. Over the life of the plan, expand the environmental 

education program to include additional on-site and off-site 

programs, special educational events, group camp programs, and 

special interest group programs. Develop pre- and post-visit 

activities in addition to on-site activities.

XXXX

Over the life of the plan, establish partnerships with selected local 

schools, agencies, and nonprofit organizations to more effectively 

develop and expand environmental education programs. Involve 

volunteers in educational programs and explore the potential for 

environmental education interns through Southern Illinois 

University and John A. Logan College. Explore the potential for 

creating a grant program to help area schools with field trip 

expenses.

XXXX

Conduct a biannual review of the Refuge environmental education 

program. Invite feedback from area educators. Revise as necessary.

X

Promote the use of the Refuge as an outdoor classroom and 

incorporate national environmental education guidelines and state 

learning standards into programs and materials.

X

Manage the envrionmental education program as described in 

Service policy.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

390

In cooperation with other partners, conduct or host annual teacher 

workshops that encourage area educators to incorporate 

environmental education into their curriculum and to utilize Refuge 

materials, staff, and resources, both in the classroom and during 

field trips. 

XXX

Goal: Visitors will enjoy high quality, land- and water-based activities that

fulfill the recreation purpose of the Refuge.

Objectives

Maintain and gradually improve the quality of boat launches, marinas,

beaches, picnic areas, and campgrounds at levels offered in 2001.

X

Maintain the quality of non wildlife-dependent recreation facilities

and activities at the levels offered in 2001 until facilities are transferred

in a land exchange. Improve the quality of facilities not a part of the

exchange to industry standards within 5 years of completion of

exchange.

X

Improve the quality of boat launches, marinas, beaches, picnic areas,

and campground to industry standards within the life of the CCP.

XXX

Strategies

Use recreation fee funds and compete for Maintenance Management 

System funds to improve facilities. Follow guideline for evacuating 

concession operations.

X

Maintain picnicking at Greenbriar, Wolf Creek, Chamness Trail, and 

Visitor Center recreation areas. Within 2 years of the land exchange 

convert the Cambria Neck recreational area to foot traffic only.

X

Explore the potential for a bicycle route within the restricted area of 

the Refuge. The route would run along old railroad beds. 

XXXX

Continue current policies on swimming at Devils Kitchen, Little 

Grassy, and Crab Orchard Lakes.

XXXX

With in 5 years of the plan's approval, upgrade boat ramps and 

associated parking at Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy and Crab 

Orchard Lakes.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

391

Continue current policies on lake zoning on Crab Orchard Lake with 

the additional zoning of no-wake east of Highway 148.

X

Camping at Devils Kitchen would be discontinued to allow the 

Service to upgrade Little Grassy Campground to standards 

comparable to others in the area.

XXXX

Maintain picnicking at the Refuge recreational areas of Greenbriar, 

Wolf Creek, Harmony Trail, Cambria Neck, Playport Marina and 

the Visitor Center. Explore the option of concession-operated picnic 

shelters at Little Grassy and Crab Orchard Campgrounds.

XXX

With in 10 years of the plan's approval, upgrade boat ramps and 

associated parking at Devils Kitchen, Little Grassy and Crab 

Orchard lakes.

XXX

Continue current policies on lake zoning on Crab Orchard Lake with 

the additional zoning of no-wake east of Highway 148.

XXX

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, consolidate Playport and 

Image marinas on Crab Orchard Lake. Image marina slips will be 

moved to Playport marina. Within 5 years of the plan's approval, 

remove the building at Image Marina and develop the area into a 

large access area to the lake with a comfort station.

XXX

Gas Motors on Devils Kitchen Lake

Implement the zoning of motorized boating at Devils Kitchen Lake. 

Gas motors would be prohibited south of the southernmost boat 

ramps on Devils Kitchen Lake and ponds within the open area of the 

Refuge. 

X X

Gas motors would be prohibited at Devils Kitchen Lake. X

Gas motors would be permitted on Devils Kitchen Lake. X

Horseback Use

Horseback use on the Refuge would be confined to designated trails 

only (see map) and erosion due to trail use would be actively 

controlled through maintenance and/or seasonal closures. 

XX X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

392

Horseback use would be prohibited on the Refuge. X

Goal: Visitors of all abilities will feel welcome and enjoy a safe visit to an 

area that they recognize as a national wildlife refuge.

Objectives

Meet Service standards for signs, information sources, facilities, and

opportunities for visitor feedback at the levels offered in 2001.

X

Provide visitors with a safe and enjoyable visit and a feeling of security.X

Improve Refuge signs, kiosks, and facilities so 90 percent of visitors

feel welcome and secure, enjoy their visit, and recognize the area as a

national wildlife refuge.

XXXX

Strategies

Maintain and gradually improve kiosks, rest rooms, boundary 

signing, and opportunities for visitor feedback as time and resources 

permit.

X

Conduct annual safety inspections of all Refuge facilities and 

reaffirm compliance with Service standards.

X

Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that clearly identify public 

hunting areas. 

X

Respond to notification of safety problems and unsafe situations 

promptly and in accordance with Service standards. 

X

Within 5 years of the plan's approval, develop and install distinct and 

consistent identification markers that allow visitors to recognize and 

distinguish between each type of Refuge facility, including trails, 

observation platforms, photography blinds, bank fishing areas, 

public hunting areas, and other similar locations. Design all such 

markers in accordance with Service standards. 

X

Within 3 years of the plan's approval, revise information on existing 

kiosks, trailhead and other identification markers, boundary signs, 

and other such signs as necessary to meet Service standards.

XXXX

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

393

Within 5 years of the plan's approval, create and install additional 

kiosks where needed at Refuge access points to ensure all visitors 

are greeted and informed that they are entering a national wildlife 

refuge. Ensure that all structures comply with Service standards.

XXXX

Verify annually that visitors are welcomed and treated courteously 

by staff and volunteers. Confirm customer service standards during 

employee and volunteer orientations. Provide visitors with 

opportunities for feedback through suggestion cards, verbal reports, 

written mail, and e-mail through the Refuge web page. Address 

customer service issues promptly and professionally according to 

Service standards.

XXXX

Within 2 years of the plan's approval, develop a Refuge brochure 

with detailed information on accessible facilities, trails, programs, 

and recreational opportunities at the Refuge.

XXXX

Conduct semi-annual safety inspections of all Refuge facilities and 

reaffirm compliance with Service standards.

XXXX

Maintain recognizable, consistent signs that clearly identify public 

hunting areas. Increase awareness among non-hunting visitors of 

hunting areas and seasons through effective signs and brochures.

XXXX

Respond to notification of safety problems and unsafe situations 

promptly and in accordance with Service standards. Increase 

visibility of Refuge law enforcement, particularly during periods of 

heavy visitation.

XXXX

Goal: Provide opportunities for agricultural uses on Refuge lands that help

attain wildlife conservation goals.

Objectives

Continue farming operations on about 4,500 acres of row crops. X

Continue farming operations on about 4,400 acres of row crops with

greater emphasis on conservation practices.

X X

Continue farming operations on about 4,500 acres of row crops, and

reclaim and farm about 300 acres of former fields with greater emphasis

on conservation practices.

X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

394

Continue farming operations on about 4,300 acres of row crops with

greater emphasis on conservation practices, along with reasonable

allowances to cooperators.

X

Continue grazing operations on about 1,000 acres of pastures X

Continue grazing operations on about 1,000 acres of pasture with

greater emphasis on conservation practices and reasonable allowances

to cooperators. 

X

Continue operations on about 700 acres of hay fields. X

Continue farming operations on about 700 acres of hay fields with

greater emphasis on conservation practices.

X X

Continue farming operations on about 500 acres of hay fields with

greater emphasis on conservation practices.

X

Continue farming operations on about 500 acres of hay fields with

greater emphasis on conservation practices.

X

Enhance nesting habitat for grassland birds while maintaining or

increasing the value for grazing on about 1,000 acres of pastures.

XX X

Strategies

Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in support of agricultural 

operations. Address erosion with buffer strips. Enlist technical 

oversight from Natural Resource Conservation Service and the 

University of Illinois Extension.

X

Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in support of agricultural 

operations. Address erosion with buffer strips. Identify and drop 

farmed wetlands from the farm program. Permit cooperator to 

harvest corn remaining in the field in the spring. Emphasize 

Johnsongrass control. Prohibit mowing of clover in the crop rotation 

until after August 1. Enlist technical oversight from Natural 

Resource Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension.

XX X

Prohibit mowing of hay until after August 1. Maintain an updated 

rate charge for hay.

XX X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

395

Convert fescue pastures to other cool-season grasses and native 

warm season grasses with higher wildlife value. Divide existing 

pastures into three or four paddocks with a paddock of cool season 

grass and two or three paddocks of native warm season grasses. 

Rotate grazing cattle among the paddocks during the season. Enlist 

technical oversight from Natural Resource Conservation Service 

and University of Illinois Extension.

XX X

Maintain infrastructure (roads, fences) in support of agricultural 

operations. Address erosion with buffer strips. Drop small, less 

profitable fields (less than 5 acres) from row cropping and convert to 

other cover (about 15 fields totaling 52 acres). Identify and drop 

farmed wetlands from the farm program. Permit cooperator to 

harvest corn remaining in the field in the spring. Emphasize 

Johnsongrass control, for example: allow cooperators adjust 

rotation by planting soybeans in two successive years in one field 

annually. Prohibit mowing of clover in the crop rotation until after 

August 1. Enlist technical oversight from Natural Resource 

Conservation Service and University of Illinois Extension.

X

Prohibit mowing of hay until after August 1. Maintain an updated 

rate charge for hay.

X

Remove 15 acres of linear forest habitat and 2 miles of hedge rows. 

Increase forage diversity in fescue pastures by adding legumes, 

other cool-season or warm-season grasses by reseeding or interseeding. Subdivide larger pastures for rotational grazing to increase 

cattle production. All mowing of hay fields, pastures, and clover 

fields will take place after August 1. Enlist technical oversight from 

Natural Resource Conservation Service and University of Illinois 

Extension.

X

Goal: Provide an industrial complex and attendant utility and transportation

infrastructure, which conform to prescribed safety, health, environmental and

maintenance standards.

Objectives

Meet the guidelines of the Industrial Policy established December

1981.

X

Consolidate the areas occupied by industry. X X X X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix M:Comparison of Objectives and Strategies by Alternative

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

396

Strategies

Maintain roads, as well as water and sewer lines, in industrial areas 

as appropriations become available. Building and grounds 

maintenance responsibility of lessee in accordance with lease 

requirements.

X

Update Industrial Policy. Maintain the current infrastructure to 

support existing facilities.

X X

Remove buildings that are no longer suitable for occupancy for 

reasons of contamination, safety or lack of structural integrity and 

restore to natural habitats. 

XXXX

Non-munitions-related tenants would not be replaced as they leave 

the Refuge.

X X

Alternatives

ABCDE
Appendix N:Wildlife and Habitat Matrix

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

397

Appendix N: Wildlife and Habitat Matrix

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

399

Appendix N: Wildlife and Habitat Matrix

Numbers in the matrix represent the habitat potential for the wildlife

for each land cover type. The potential ranks are: 0=no; 2=medium;3=high. Habitat potential rankings were based on the integrated lifecycle of each species as determined by Fish & Wildlife Service biologists.

Scientific Name Refuge 

Breeder

Crab Orchard 

Abundance

Eastern Redcedar Forest 

(old field)

Mixed Hardwood 

Upland Forest

Mixed Hardwood 

Bottomland Forest

Eastern Red-cedar - 

Mixed Hardwood 

Forest (old field)

Pine 

Mixed 

Double-crested Cormorant N Common 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Goose (Resident) Y Common 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Goose (Migrant) N Abundant 0 0 0 0 0 Wood Duck Y Common 0 1 3 1 1 American Black Duck N Uncommon 0 0 1 0 0 Mallard Y Common 0 0 2 0 0 Blue-winged Teal N Common 0 0 1 0 0 Northern Pintail N Uncommon 0 0 0 0 0 Canvasback N Uncommon 0 0 0 0 0 Bald Eagle Y Uncommon 0 0 1 0 0 Red-shouldered Hawk Y Uncommon 1 2 3 1 1 American Woodcock Y Uncommon 1 1 1 1 1 Chuck-will's-widow Y Uncommon 1 2 2 1 1 Whip-poor-will Y Uncommon 1 2 2 1 1 Red-headed Woodpecker Y Uncommon 1 2 2 1 2 Northern Flicker Y Uncommon 1 1 1 1 1 Acadian Flycatcher Y Uncommon 1 3 2 2 2 Loggerhead Shrike (migrans)

N Occasional 0 0 0 0 0 

Bell's Vireo Y Occasional 0 0 0 0 0 Wood Thrush Y Uncommon 1 3 3 2 2 Blue-winged Warbler Y Occasional 1 1 1 1 1 Prairie Warbler Y Uncommon 1 0 0 0 0 Cerulean Warbler Y Rare 1 3 3 2 2 
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

400

Worm-eating Warbler Y Uncommon 1 3 3 2 2 Louisiana Waterthrush Y Uncommon 1 3 3 2 2 Kentucky Warbler Y Uncommon 1 3 3 2 2 Field Sparrow Y Uncommon 1 0 0 0 0 Grasshopper Sparrow N Occasional 0 0 0 0 0 Dickcissel Y Common 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern Meadowlark Y Common 0 0 0 0 0 Indiana Bat N Unknown 0 1 2 1 1 

Scientific Name Refuge 

Breeder

Crab Orchard 

Abundance

Eastern Redcedar Forest 

(old field)

Mixed Hardwood 

Upland Forest

Mixed Hardwood 

Bottomland Forest

Eastern Red-cedar - 

Mixed Hardwood 

Forest (old field)

Pine 

Mixed 
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

401

Scientific Name Bald-cypress 

Plantation Swamp 

Forest

Early 

Successional Oak 

Forest (reforested)

Upland Mixed 

Shrubland (old 

field)

Willow Wet 

Shrubland

Buttonbush 

Swamp 

Shrubland

Restored 

Native 

Grassland

Double-crested Cormorant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Goose (Resident) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Goose (Migrant) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood Duck 1 0 0 1 2 0 American Black Duck 1 0 0 1 1 0 Mallard 1 0 0 1 1 1 Blue-winged Teal 1 0 0 1 1 1 Northern Pintail 1 0 0 1 1 0 Canvasback 1 0 0 1 1 0 Bald Eagle 1 0 0 0 0 0 Red-shouldered Hawk 1 1 1 1 1 1 American Woodcock 1 3 2 3 2 1 Chuck-will's-widow 0 0 1 0 0 0 Whip-poor-will 0 0 1 0 0 0 Red-headed Woodpecker 1 1 1 1 0 0 Northern Flicker 1 2 2 1 1 1 Acadian Flycatcher 1 1 0 0 0 0 Loggerhead Shrike (migrans) 0 1 2 1 1 2 Bell's Vireo 0 1 2 1 1 1 Wood Thrush 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue-winged Warbler 1 2 2 1 1 0 Prairie Warbler 0 2 2 1 0 1 Cerulean Warbler 1 0 0 0 0 0 Worm-eating Warbler 0 1 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Waterthrush 1 1 1 0 0 0 Kentucky Warbler 1 1 1 0 0 0 Field Sparrow 0 1 2 1 1 2 Grasshopper Sparrow 0 0 0 0 0 3 Dickcissel 0 0 0 0 0 3 Eastern Meadowlark 0 0 0 0 0 3 Indiana Bat 1 1 0 1 1 0 
Crab Orchard National Wild

life Refuge / Draft EIS/CCP

402

Scientific Name Perennial 

Grass Crops

Wet Herbaceous 

Meadow

 Common 

Reed Marsh

Cattail 

Marsh

Aquatic 

Herbaceous 

Marsh

Agricultural Field Open W

Double-crested Cormorant 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Canada Goose (Resident) 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Canada Goose (Migrant) 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Wood Duck 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 American Black Duck 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 Mallard 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 Blue-winged Teal 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 Northern Pintail 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 Canvasback 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 Bald Eagle 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 Red-shouldered Hawk 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 American Woodcock 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Chuck-will's-widow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whip-poor-will 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red-headed Woodpecker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Flicker 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Acadian Flycatcher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loggerhead Shrike (migrans) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bell's Vireo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood Thrush 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue-winged Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prairie Warbler 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cerulean Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worm-eating Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Waterthrush 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Field Sparrow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grasshopper Sparrow 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Dickcissel 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern Meadowlark 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Indiana Bat 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 
Crab Orchard

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft EIS/CCP

Index

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

403

A

Agriculture

 I, i, ix, x, xiv, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 1, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20,

21, 22, 24, 28, 38, 39, 70, 76, 80, 84, 87, 89, 105, 112,

123, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 177, 183, 184, 285,

286, 370, 375

Amphibians

 IV, xi, xiii, 84, 88, 89, 91, 94, 222

Area designations

 i, 27, 97

Auto tour

 xiii, 10, 37, 47, 48, 62, 96, 100, 179, 382, 383, 385,

386

B

Bicycling

 13, 23, 287, 390

Birds

 i, iii, iv, viii, xi, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii, xxiv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,

17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 41, 44, 54, 57, 65, 69, 72, 73, 83,

88, 89, 91, 94, 129, 131, 136, 139, 143, 144, 146,

148, 151, 152, 154, 159, 162, 163, 164, 175, 176,

183, 347, 348, 358, 375, 377, 378, 394

Raptors

 iv, xi, xiii, xiv, xx, xxiv, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 37,

47, 72, 84, 89, 91, 94, 95, 101, 108, 129, 130,

133, 134, 139, 144, 148, 151, 164, 176, 179,

213, 214, 369, 382, 383

Songbirds

 xiii, 17, 19, 84, 89, 94, 137, 176, 213, 286, 287,

288

Waterfowl

 iii, xi, xiii, 7, 8, 11, 36, 45, 57, 65, 69, 73, 84, 86,

89, 94, 96, 98, 101, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 129,

131, 136, 139, 144, 148, 151, 155, 176, 184,

213, 378, 380

Boating

 iii, vi, viii, xiii, xvi, xvii, xxii, xxv, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 28, 32, 37, 39, 49, 50, 57, 65, 69, 76, 89, 96, 98,

103, 121, 122, 123, 124, 138, 142, 147, 150, 153,

157, 158, 165, 175, 182, 285, 286, 288, 375, 391

Boy Scouts of America

 10, 29, 107, 169, 287

C

Camping length of stay

 i, vi, xvii, xix, xxv, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 75, 141,

147, 153, 165

Cemeteries

 109, 111

Concessionaires

 viii, xiii, xix, 14, 28, 63, 64, 96, 100, 105, 123, 124,

141, 142, 146, 147, 153, 154, 157, 182, 184, 390, 391

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club

 vi, viii, xiii, 21, 37, 39, 50, 55, 63, 64, 96, 100, 103,

126, 142, 147, 154, 169, 182, 184, 285, 286

Crab Orchard NWR

Visitor Center

 xiii, xiv, 12, 23, 48, 49, 50, 62, 63, 96, 101, 103,

108, 121, 180, 181, 182, 348, 351, 371, 385,

386, 388, 390, 391

D

Devils Kitchen Campground

 xiii, 75, 100, 141, 157, 350

Devils Kitchen Lake

Boating

 viii, xiv, 17, 18, 19, 20, 50, 52, 63, 68, 69, 76,

103, 137, 141, 142, 146, 147, 150, 153, 165,

168, 182, 287, 391

F

Farming

 viii, 38, 53, 54, 57, 64, 68, 76, 86, 115, 118, 119,

120, 123, 126, 129, 147, 151, 158, 159, 183, 393, 394
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Draft EIS/CCP

404

Fees

 I, i, vi, 29, 30, 38, 105, 114, 124, 159, 202, 204, 286,

287, 288, 390

Fishing tournaments

 xiii, 30, 95, 100

Forest management

 22, 131, 175, 176, 177, 369

G

Group camps

 I, i, vi, xiv, xxv, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 37, 49, 62,

75, 103, 107, 138, 141, 142, 147, 150, 154, 166, 181,

287, 387, 389

H

Horseback riding

 viii, xiii, xxvi, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 50, 53, 63,

68, 75, 96, 105, 109, 138, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147,

150, 151, 153, 154, 163, 166, 182, 287, 372, 391

I

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

 ii, iii, xiii, 4, 10, 12, 30, 83, 91, 93, 94, 95, 162, 169,

286, 347, 359

J

Jackson County

 xv, 79, 80, 95, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125

L

Land acquisition

 IV, i, iv, 54, 55, 143, 154, 185, 189, 195, 196, 355,

357, 358, 359, 360, 363

Law enforcement

 10, 23, 24, 46, 53, 60, 64, 70, 100, 116, 178, 181,

183, 185, 202, 286, 348, 371, 381, 393

M

Marinas

 xiii, xvii, xxv, 10, 13, 18, 19, 20, 38, 39, 50, 55, 63,

64, 70, 71, 75, 96, 100, 103, 123, 124, 138, 142, 147,

150, 153, 154, 157, 165, 182, 184, 286, 287, 390, 391

N

National Wildlife Refuge System

 i, vi, viii, xviii, 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, 28, 29, 45, 46, 47,

48, 60, 61, 62, 83, 111, 178, 179, 180, 286, 287, 288,

379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384

O

Operational policies

 III, 27

P

Partnerships

 xv, 5, 8, 27, 49, 63, 126, 181, 184, 185, 287, 389

Personal watercraft

 xxii, 285, 286, 287, 288

Potential species occurrence

 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 137, 139, 144, 146, 148,

151, 152

Private clubs

 xxvi, 138, 142, 147, 150, 154, 166

Public involvement

 4, 168

R

Roads

 iv, ix, xiv, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 32, 37, 38, 48, 54, 55,

62, 68, 83, 86, 98, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 129, 132,

134, 183, 190, 196, 285, 349, 355, 385, 386, 394,

395, 396

T

The Haven

 vi, 37, 39, 50, 55, 63, 75, 142, 170

Tourism

 xiv, xxiii, 14, 108, 126, 169, 170, 185, 286

W

Williamson County

 ix, xiv, xv, 80, 108, 109, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120,

125, 126, 162, 168, 169, 170, 185

Z

Zoning on lakes

 I, vii, xv, xxii, xxv, 50, 51, 52, 63, 76, 138, 165, 182,

286, 391