DRAFT 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

LOGAN CAVE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Benton County, Arkansas 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

December 2007 
Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 3

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 3

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 4

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5

Introduction and Purposes ............................................................................................................ 5

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 5

Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 9

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 11

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 11

Geology and Topography ................................................................................................ 11

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 12

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 12

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 13

Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 13

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 13

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 13

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................14

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 15

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 15

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 16

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 16

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 16

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 16

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 17

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 17

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .................................................................. 17

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................. 18

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 18

Karst Dependent Species ................................................................................................. 18

Neotropical Migratory Birds ............................................................................................... 19

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................. 19

Logan Cave ....................................................................................................................... 19

Logan Stream .................................................................................................................... 19

Surface Habitat ................................................................................................................. 20

Land Protection .......................................................................................................................... 20

Recharge zone .................................................................................................................. 20

Land Protection .......................................................................................................................... 20
ii Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Recharge zone ................................................................................................................. 20

Bat Foraging Area ............................................................................................................. 20

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 21

Scientific Monitoring and Research .................................................................................. 21

Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 21

Funding and Staffing ......................................................................................................... 21

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 21

Fences/Gates/Boundary Signs ......................................................................................... 21

Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 23

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 25

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 25

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 25

Goal 4. Education and Visitor Services ........................................................................ 31

Goal 5. Refuge Administration ..................................................................................... 32

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 35

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 35

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 35

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 35

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 37

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 38

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 38

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 39

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 39

Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 39

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 39

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 40

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 41

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 43

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 43

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 43

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 44

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 44

Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 44

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 44

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 47

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 49

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 49

Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 49

Alternative 1 - (Current Management) .............................................................................. 49

ALTERNATIVE 2 - (No management) .............................................................................. 50
Table of Contents iii

Alternative 3 - (Proposed Alternative) ............................................................................... 50

Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 51

Resource Management ..................................................................................................... 51

Compatible Uses ...............................................................................................................51

Other Management ........................................................................................................... 51

Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 51

Refuge Revenue Sharing .................................................................................................. 52

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 59

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................59

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 59

Climate Change ................................................................................................................59

Other Management ........................................................................................................... 60

Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 60

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 60

Refuge Revenue-Sharing .................................................................................................. 60

Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 61

Summary of Effects by Alternative .............................................................................................61

Alternative 1 - CURRENT MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 61

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 61

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 62

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ............................................. 63

Wildlife Disturbance ..........................................................................................................63

Vegetation Disturbance ..................................................................................................... 63

User Group Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 63

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 63

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 64

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 64

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 64

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 65

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 65

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 67

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ........................................................ 79

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................. 81

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 93

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................. 95

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 101

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................... 107
iv Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 113

Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review ........................................................................ 113

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 117

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 117

Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 118

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of Logan Cave NWR ......................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Management boundary for Logan Cave NWR ...................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Ark/Red Rivers Ecosystem .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4. Recharge area for Logan Cave NWR showing priority areas for protection ........................ 22

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 40

Table 2. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ................... 41

Table 3. Comparison of the alternatives for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 53
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive 

first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as 

long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for 

which it was established. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the 

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year plan period. This Draft CCP/EA describes 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their 

effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to State and Federal 

government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge 

purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

y Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established; 

y Ensure that refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans and 

contributes to the mission of the ecosystem in which it is located; and 

y Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and the public’s 

participation in carrying out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies, 

organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance 

the mission of national wildlife refuges. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 
2 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Act 

(Act), which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System. The Act established, for the 

first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to 

complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with 

full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural 

resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as 

the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be 

managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the refuge system; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

y Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System hosts over 38 million annual visitors. Economists found that 

these refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to local economies. In 2001, on 

conservation lands throughout the nation, approximately 37.8 million people participated in wildliferelated activities, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. These visitors represented nearly 

40 percent of the county’s adults who spent $108 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 2001, according 

to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau 2002). 

As visitation continues to grow on conservation lands and waters in general, and specifically on 

refuges, adjacent local communities are realizing significant economic benefits. 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $22 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates. 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and 

legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority 

public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in 

planning and management. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated, where appropriate, into this Draft CCP/EA. 

This Draft CCP/EA supports the Recovery Plans for the Gray Bat, Indiana Bat, Ozark Cavefish 

(Amblyopsis rosae), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) and Partners for Amphibians and 

Reptile Conservation (PARC) Plan. 
4 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Recovery Plan. This plan was completed in 1982, and provides 

priorities for protection and management of caves, guidelines for protection of foraging habitat, public 

education, and monitoring procedures. Logan Cave NWR was purchased mainly to protect the 

maternity gray bat colony that uses the cave. 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Recovery Plan. The original plan was approved in 1983, and revised 

in 1999, by the Indiana Bat Recovery Team. The plan provides the current status of the Indiana bat, 

habitat requirements, and limiting factors and actions needed for recovery. 

Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) Recovery Plan. This plan was completed in 1989, and outlines 

distribution, status, habitat requirements, limiting factors, and causes of decline for the Ozark cavefish. 

Several of the recovery actions listed in the plan have been implemented at Logan Cave NWR. 

Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) Recovery Plan. This species was listed as 

endangered in 1993, and the recovery plan was completed in 1996. At that time, C. aculabrum was 

known to exist in only two caves in northwest Arkansas: Logan Cave and Bear Hollow Cave. Since then, 

two additional populations were discovered although together they only represent a total of two crayfish. 

The plan outlines known habitat requirements, limiting factors, and actions needed for recovery. 

Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation Plan. This plan was founded in 1998, to 

address the need for conservation of herpetofauna – amphibians and reptiles – and their habitats. Its 

mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of the ecosystem and 

culture through proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent 

agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and 

collaboration with other State fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the 

course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas and national 

wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the 

overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the State of Arkansas. 

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) is a State-partnering agency with the 

Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered 

species, as well as managing State natural resources, including over 100 lakes and wildlife 

management areas spanning thousands of acres. The AGFC has a perpetual goal to improve 

hunting and fishing opportunities for the sportsmen of the State, but it also realizes that a 

healthy environment for our fish and wildlife assures a healthy environment for the citizens of 

Arkansas. The AGFC’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will 

provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological diversity of fish 

and wildlife in Arkansas. A vital part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is 

integrating common mission objectives where appropriate. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSES 

Logan Cave NWR covers 123 acres near the northwest corner of Benton County, Arkansas (Figures 

1 and 2), and includes a limestone solution cave with approximately 1.5 miles of passageways. 

Logan Cave NWR was established in 1989, to protect cave inhabitants, including the endangered 

gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Benton cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), and the threatened Ozark 

cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). The cave also has historically provided habitat for the endangered 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

There are only two known entry points for the cave: the sinkhole and spring. The sinkhole, located on 

a forested hillside, consists of a steep-sided funnel shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter. 

The spring entrance is located on a hillside under an overhang rock bluff. Most of the refuge consists 

of hillsides, which support a mature climax community of oak and hickory. 

Groundwater surfacing within the cave forms a stream that flows throughout the cave, and at the 

outfall, forms Logan Spring, which drains to Osage Creek just south of the refuge. Osage Creek is a 

major tributary of the Illinois River, which is the main drainage in southwestern Benton County, and 

their confluence is about 1.2 miles south of the refuge. In past years, spring water from the cave had 

a measured flow of approximately 5 million gallons per day and supplied the Logan community, a fish 

hatchery, and 49 fish ponds. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Logan Cave NWR is located within the Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem (Ark/Red), which contains 

approximately 245,000 square miles and extends from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the 

bayous of Louisiana, and includes all of Oklahoma and parts of seven other states, including western 

parts of Arkansas (Figure 3). Elevations within the Ark/Red range from over 14,000 feet ngvd 

(national geodetic vertical datum) to less than 300 feet ngvd along the Red River in Louisiana. 

Because of the diversity in land forms, soils, average annual precipitation, and other factors, the 

Ark/Red supports the greatest diversity of fish and wildlife and wildlife resources of any Service 

ecosystem nationwide. 

There are 16 defined ecoregions that occur within the Ark/Red. One of these ecoregions is the Ozark 

Highlands. The Ozark Highlands Ecoregion (approximately 50,000 square miles) is in the States of 

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and a small portion of Kansas. It is a dome-shaped uplift composed of 

four distinct areas (Boston Mountains, St. Francois Mountains, Salem Plateau, and Springfield Plateau). 

Logan Cave NWR is located within the Springfield Plateau of the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion. 

The highest elevations reach above 1,500 feet ngvd, with the general slope of the area to the 

southwest, and drainage primarily to the Illinois and Neosho rivers. The natural communities of this 

ecoregion are dominated by a western extension of the oak-hickory forest. More mesic floodplain 

forests occur along the major streams of the region. Another dominant feature of the Ozarks 

Highlands Ecoregion is the extensive network of cave habitats formed in the underlying limestone 

bedrock. Numerous rare, endangered, and endemic fish and wildlife species are associated with and 

are dependent upon these habitats. The most critical resource issues in the Ark/Red center on 

management of water quality and quantity. 
6 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of Logan Cave NWR 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Figure 2. Management boundary for Logan Cave NWR 
8 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Ark/Red Rivers Ecosystem 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Factors most likely to limit or cause a decline in the species inhabiting Logan Cave include the 

following: (1) destruction of habitat, including water quality degradation; (2) disturbance by cavers or 

trespassers; (3) collecting; and (4) low reproductive potential of cave fauna. 

1. Groundwater contamination problems are common in cave regions. Unfortunately, most of the 

public perceives that the subsurface cleanses wastewater and subsurface disposal of waste is 

practical and harmless. Most of the water which enters caves and spring systems, such as Logan 

Cave, does not receive effective natural cleansing. Thomas Aley of the Ozark Underground 

laboratory mapped the recharge areas for Logan Spring in 1987, and delineated the areas into the 

following categories: 

A) Low Hazard Areas: These are lands located near, yet apparently outside of the Logan 

Spring recharge areas. 

B) Moderate Hazard Areas: These are lands which are topographically tributary to the Logan 

Spring recharge area. Groundwaters directly beneath these areas do not appear to 

routinely discharge through Logan Spring. Under moderate- and high-flow conditions, 

some waters from these areas will enter the groundwater systems and discharge through 

Logan Spring. 

C) High Hazard Areas: These are lands which are known or presumed to lie within the 

groundwater recharge area for Logan Spring. High Hazard Areas exclude losing stream 

valleys and areas which contribute groundwater solely to Logan Spring. 

D) Extremely High Hazard Areas: These are losing stream valleys in the Logan Spring 

recharge area, or are lands which contribute groundwater solely to Logan Spring. 

According to Aley, two major classes of land-use activities occur in the Logan Cave recharge zones 

and surrounding areas: residential/light commercial development and agriculture. If runoff of high 

concentrations of harmful biological (i.e., fecal Coliform, E. coli) or chemical (i.e., pesticides) 

pollutants occur, or high concentrations of nitrates and phosphates are present, a biological oxygen 

demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) can occur and place an abnormal oxygen 

demand on the aquatic cave, spring, and river fauna. The following are some potential impacts of 

land use activities in the recharge areas of Logan Spring: 

Agriculture and waste disposal activities: Numerous farms with cattle, hogs, and poultry operate 

within the recharge areas of Logan Cave and produce substantial quantities of animal waste. Large 

quantities of animal waste entering groundwater will deplete dissolved oxygen in subsurface water 

and can severely impact aquatic cave fauna. Adequate treatment of animal wastes is typically 

expensive and often not attempted. There is no incentive from local or Federal Government agencies 

to encourage adequate and careful disposal of large quantities of animal waste in Arkansas, therefore 

the cheapest and easiest disposal method is utilized: land application. The waste does serve as 

fertilizer and can enhance grass production in most areas. The farmers are usually left to apply the 

waste as often as they feel necessary and unfortunately without much regard to runoff effects. In 

karst areas like Logan Cave, waste can significantly impact groundwater quality if it rapidly enters 

groundwater systems, especially after rainfall sufficient to cause overland runoff following a recent 

land application of animal waste. 
10 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Residential and commercial land development: Since the construction and operation of the 

Northwest Regional Airport at Highfill, Arkansas, land values in the vicinity of the cave have increased 

substantially, with a great deal of real estate development and road construction in the areas 

surrounding Logan Cave. With the residential development boom, commercial development will 

inevitably follow. Leaks and spills of hazardous materials occur frequently from roads and 

commercial businesses. A substantial amount of the groundwater contamination from residential and 

commercial development occurs from inadequate sewage disposal systems. Septic field systems 

routinely use on-lot disposal in most of northwest Arkansas’ karst region, which produces 

groundwater contamination and pollution. The potential of this impending groundwater contamination 

is sufficient to endanger cave fauna. 

Increasing utilization of the water in the cave poses a threat to the aquatic habitat and the cave’s 

aquatic species. A past attempt to drill into the reservoir of water in the cave was unsuccessful. 

The shaft entered the cave but missed the water, despite surveying by a geologist to direct the 

drilling. Current and future surveying techniques would make drilling directly into the cave stream 

possible. Water is currently being pumped from the pool, which is formed by the spring to supply a 

large poultry operation, several residences, and a plant/tree nursery. During periods of drought, the 

water pumped from the spring could affect water levels within the cave stream, which would obviously 

have a negative impact on the cave’s aquatic habitat and species. 

Transportation and pipeline routes: Construction and maintenance of roads and pipelines can cause 

sediments to enter groundwater systems. This problem can be avoided through the use of good current 

methods to reduce surface soil erosion. Leaks and spills that could occur in the recharge area for Logan 

Cave’s groundwater system could have a serious effect on the water quality and cave fauna. 

Loss of foraging habitat for the gray bat: Development within the recharge area of the cave and 

along the Osage River and surrounding woodlands is decreasing the foraging area for the Logan 

Cave gray bat maternity colony. In 1968, 59 percent of the recharge area was forested; this had 

decreased to 43 percent by 1987, and has steadily decreased until the only forested areas are 

along creek bottoms or ridge tops where it’s too steep for livestock or poultry operations. Adult 

gray bats feed on insects almost exclusively over water and in forest canopies along river or 

reservoir edges. Also, whenever possible, gray bats of all ages fly in the protection of forest 

canopy between caves and feeding areas for increased protection from predators, such as 

screech owls. Construction of houses, paving of roads, and clearing of forests impose a risk of 

lower water quality for this karst area. Insects that the bats feed on are quite sensitive to aquatic 

pollution. Logan Cave’s gray bat maternity colony may decrease as the forest canopy declines 

and development with the inevitable chemical pollution and siltation of the waterways over which 

the gray bats forage increases. 

2. Trespass into Logan Cave has been frequent in the past. Extensive writing on the walls 

record visits by people from the 1930s until the present. The spring entrance was gated in 1998, 

and the sinkhole was fenced in 2005. Trespass decreased greatly since both entrances were 

fenced and gated. But, despite protection afforded the cave, trespass by cavers will continue to 

be a problem. Disturbance by cavers impacts the physical condition of individual cavefish and 

crayfish. Obligate cave dwellers have a low metabolic level and have limited opportunities to 

feed and reproduce. Physical activity that results from disturbances uses up energy that normally 

would be used in feeding or reproduction for the cavefish and crayfish. Physical disturbance is a 

direct threat because it agitates stream bottom sediments, causing turbidity and reduced visibility, 

which greatly increases the likelihood that a crayfish or cavefish may be stepped on, causing 

injury or mortality. Disturbances can interrupt breeding or feeding activities of the crayfish, 

cavefish, and gray bat, along with other cave species. It is especially important to protect the 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

maternity colony of gray bats at Logan Cave because both the crayfish and cavefish rely 

indirectly or directly on the bat guano (organic input) for food. Disturbance inside the cave or 

near the cave entrances could result in bat mortality, abandonment of the cave, and the loss of 

an energy source for the crayfish and cavefish. 

3. Most troglobitic (cave-adapted) species have a low reproductive rate and need a relatively long 

period to reach maturity. Removal of any cave crayfish or cavefish by collectors will affect the ability 

of the species to reproduce. Loss of mature individuals capable of reproducing obviously causes a 

decline in population levels. 

4. Although the cave entrances are owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service and are protected, most 

of the recharge zone for Logan Cave, Logan Spring, and foraging areas for the bats is privately 

owned. Past water quality studies by the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville have shown that the 

Logan Cave stream has good water quality with the exception of high fecal coliform counts in the 

summer, indicating heavy agricultural use of the watershed that should be monitored carefully along 

with dissolved oxygen that could also be affected by agricultural and residential material. 

Maintaining the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at Logan Cave will require more than preventing 

trespass into the cave and protecting recharge zones. It will require educating adjacent landowners 

and others about the sensitivity of karst systems, and it will take an ecosystem approach to protecting 

the variety of resources dependent on northwest Arkansas’ karst topography through partnerships 

with private landowners, conservation and caving organizations, universities, and State and Federal 

conservation agencies. With the help of these partners, management agreements can be developed 

with private landowners, and easements and lands can be purchased from willing sellers. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Because of its geographic location, northwest Arkansas’ weather is characterized by sudden and 

dramatic changes in temperature and climate as warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico battles it 

out with cold air from Canada and hot dry air from the southwest. The average high temperature 

is 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the average low is 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The recorded high and 

low temperatures are 114 degrees Fahrenheit and -15 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. 

Average rainfall is 45 inches and the average snowfall is 12 inches. The first frost of the cold 

season typically occurs between October 9 and October 13, and the last frost of the season 

typically occurs between April 8 and April 19. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

Logan Cave, is located in the NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 Section 33, T18N, R32W, Benton County, 

Arkansas. The elevation of Logan Spring (lower entrance) is 1,040 feet and the sinkhole 

entrance is at 1,100 feet. This area is typical of the Ozarks with rocky soils, numerous 

caves, losing streams, springs and underground rivers. The landscape around Logan Cave is 

picturesque with gently rolling hills, springs, streams, pasture and wooded hillsides giving way 

to the Osage Creek valley. 

Geographically, Logan Cave NWR is located within the Springfield Plateau geologic province on 

the southwest flank of the Ozark Dome, which is a broad uplift centered in southeast Missouri. 

The Springfield Plateau is comprised of bedrock units formed from sediments deposited by 

Paleozoic seas. These bedrock units dip gently to the south, and many are cut by normal faults 
12 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

with downward motion on their south sides. The upper part of the Springfield Plateau is 

composed of cherty limestone of the Lower Mississippian Boone Formation, which is underlain by 

chert-free limestone of the St. Joe Formation. 

Logan Cave is underlain by generally flat-lying bedrock of the Boone Formation, or possibly by the St. 

Joe Formation. Chattanooga Shale is mapped just beyond the southern boundary of the refuge so it 

probably underlies the Boone or St. Joe Formation at shallow depths below the refuge. The shale is 

exposed to the south because elevations in the area decrease to the south. A normal fault is mapped 

along the east boundary of the refuge. The regional water table, which occurs in the St. Joe-Boone 

aquifer, has been mapped at a depth of 75 feet in the vicinity of the sinkhole entrance to Logan Cave. 

It seems that Logan Cave may have formed because ground water perched on chert beds or lowpermeability limestone beds flowed preferentially through fractures formed by tectonic activity on the 

nearby fault, resulting in dissolution of surrounding limestone. 

SOILS 

According to the Soil Survey of Benton County, Arkansas, Clarksville series soils cover the majority of 

the hill slopes near Logan Cave, whereas Nixa series soils cover the ridge tops. Clarksville soils form 

from very cherty limestone and generally consist of a cherty silt loam with high permeability and 

moderate strength. These soils typically are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil 

Classification System as silty, clayey, or poorly graded gravel. The fine-grained fraction of Clarksville 

soils is non-plastic to slightly plastic and has low potential for swelling and shrinking with variations in 

moisture content. Nixa series soils are very similar to Clarksville soils, except that the Nixa soils have 

very low permeability. Both soil series generally are brown to yellowish brown, although the Nixa 

soils grade to reddish brown near bedrock. Both soil series grade into weathered bedrock and fill 

fractures within the upper parts of the bedrock. 

HYDROLOGY 

The Boone and St. Joe Formations form the dominant groundwater aquifer in northwestern Arkansas. 

Chert content within the Boone Formation ranges from a few to 70 percent, and laterally extensive 

chert layers have been observed to perch groundwater at different zones within the formation. 

Overall, groundwater within the Boone-St. Joe aquifer is perched upon the underlying Chattanooga 

Shale. Both the Boone and St. Joe Formations are dissected by numerous caves and solution 

channels. Groundwater flow within the Boone-St. Joe aquifer occurs preferentially through solution 

channels (including caves), fault zones, and fractures. The widespread occurrence of solution 

channels also affects surface water, resulting in disappearing streams and springs throughout the 

area. More than 90 percent of springs in northwest Arkansas, with discharge in excess 

of 3.4 million gallons per day, are within 1,600 feet of faults, and many fault zones and fault-related 

fractures have associated parallel caves and solution channels that formed by preferential 

groundwater flow. 

The recharge zone for Logan Cave is described by Aley and Aley (1987) as 3.108 ha in an area lying 

north and east of the cave entrance. The recharge zone is the surface and groundwater regions that 

contribute water to the Logan Cave stream and spring. Nearly the entire recharge zone for Logan 

Cave is underlain by the Boone Formation. The surface streams are primarily discrete losing streams 

that flow through mostly agricultural land. In 1968, 59 percent of the recharge zone was forested; this 

had decreased to 43 percent by 1987, and has steadily decreased until the only forested areas are 

along creek bottoms or ridge tops where it’s too steep for livestock or poultry operations. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

AIR QUALITY 

Benton County ranks high in the state and the nation for smog and air borne pollutants and is at the 

top of the list of Arkansas counties for pollutants due to animal waste (primarily poultry). Air quality in 

the area of the refuge is good because of its mostly rural nature. Local industries and urban 

concentrations of vehicles lessen the overall air quality of the county. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY 

Caves, their recharge zones, and surrounding habitats are extremely important to certain species. 

The flora and fauna in and around caves serve as an indicator of the Ozark’s environmental quality 

because it suffers from a number of the same factors affecting the human environment. Groundwater 

quality is vital to the health of most cave dwellers, as well as to the region’s people who rely on wells 

for water. Such is the case with Logan Cave. 

During the 1990s, water quality was tested in Logan Cave and compared with water quality of surface 

streams within the recharge area. Water quality measurements for the cave system were strongly 

correlated with water quality of the surface streams. All water quality sample parameters showed no 

significant difference between surface and cave streams. Water quality for Logan Cave and the 

recharge streams were well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits for 

environmental compounds except for fecal coliform. Fecal coliform counts were always above the 

EPA drinking water standards. Similar comparisons between Logan Cave and recharge streams 

were noted for conductivity, phosphorus and total phosphorus. Alkalinity for Logan Cave was 

comparable to the other highland streams. Water samples tested for heavy metals and pesticides fell 

within the domestic water supply standards set forth by the EPA. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

The Logan Cave area has a very diverse habitat which includes representatives of several Ozark 

Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, floodplain, marshland, bottomland 

hardwood, upland deciduous, and a small prairie. Logan Cave’s ecology has been described as the 

highest quality cave habitat in the entire Ozark region. The cave entrances provide particularly rich 

habitat and consist of extensive rock overhangs with subdued lighting that maintains a higher 

humidity than the surrounding oak-hickory forest. The resulting environment supports a variety of 

plant and animal life forms. 

A spring-fed stream, with an average water flow of 5 million gallons per day, extends the entire length 

of the cave. This stream, fed by small springs that emanate from the cave, flows into a natural oxbow 

lake and then into the Osage Creek, a large tributary of the Illinois River. 

The northwestern third of the refuge consists of hillsides which support a mature climax community of 

oak and hickory. The climax forest growing on the slopes surrounding the cave’s sinkhole entrance 

provides natural organic litter to the cave ecosystem for a food energy base. Leaves that fall through 

the sinkhole and into the stream are the base energy source for the cave’s aquatic fauna. Upstream 

from the sinkhole, the cave area contains several large seeps which cascade down the walls from the 

ceiling. These seeps introduce organic matter in the form of fine particulates and dissolved material. 

These organic materials supply nutrients for many inhabitants of the cave. 
14 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Logan Cave is a large limestone-solution cave with approximately 1.5 miles of surveyed 

passageways. The three ecological classification types (tunnel, seepage, and sinkhole) are present 

in different sections of the cave. The sinkhole and spring entrances are the only two known entry 

points. The sinkhole consists of a funnel-shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter on a forested 

hillside. The spring entrance is located on a hillside under an overhang rock bluff. The cave’s 

passageway is relatively narrow with a low ceiling. In some areas, the ceiling gradually declines 

leaving only a tiny crawl space. Approximately halfway through the cave is an area with a high dome 

ceiling where gray bats congregate their maternity colony. 

For past research projects and descriptive purposes, the cave was divided into three reaches, 

separated conveniently by morphological features. The lower reach is 365 m long and includes the 

distance from the mouth of the cave (spring) to the sinkhole. This section is typified by shallow (10 to 

20 cm) riffles with only a single 10 m long pool (approximately 1 m deep) near the mouth of the cave. 

The middle reach is 220 m in length and consist of one continuous pool located upstream of the 

sinkhole. The pool attains a maximum depth of 2.5 m with a mean depth of approximately 1 m. The 

third reach extends upstream from the pool 685 m to a large ceiling collapse that limits further 

upstream access. The cave’s internal temperature is a constant 55 degrees Fahrenheit. 

WILDLIFE 

Logan Cave’s unique ecosystem provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat (Myotis 

grisescens), endangered Benton Cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), the threatened Ozark 

cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae), and historically, the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

Adult female gray bats utilize the cave from March through August as a maternity site for raising their 

young. Each adult female will give birth to a single young in late May or early June. Most young 

begin to fly within 20-25 days after birth. Late summer emergent counts for Logan Cave average 

around 20,000. The 2005 summer survey yielded 30,000 bats, however, the summer surveys for 

2006 and 2007 yielded only 5,170 and 11,530, respectively. The gray bat is probably one of the most 

restricted to cave habitats of any U.S. mammal. With rare exception, it roosts in caves year-round. 

Because of highly specific roost and habitat requirements, fewer that 5 percent of available caves are 

suitable for occupation by gray bats. 

In the recovery plan for the Indiana Bat, Benton County is historically noted for having Priority Three 

hibernacula (< 500 bats). Logan Cave was utilized in the far past as a hibernacula. 

Logan Cave is one of only four known habitats for Cambarus aculabrum. Cave crayfish are highly 

specialized for living in stable cave environments with low light and low temperatures and are unable 

to cope with changes in their habitats that may be induced by human activities. 

The threatened Ozark cavefish is found in 31 caves and springs in northwest Arkansas, southwest 

Missouri, and northeast Oklahoma. Logan Cave’s population is the second largest known. All of the 

caves with cavefish contain some comparatively large source of allochthonous energy, usually bat 

guano and/or leaf litter. 

Other interesting life forms found throughout the cave include: pseudoscorpions, isopods, amphipods, 

beetles, collembolans and other insects which are blind, without pigment, and strictly adapted to a 

subterranean habitat. 

The oak-hickory forest outside the cave provides a home for a variety of wildlife. The most visible 

mammalian species are squirrels, woodchucks, armadillos, skunks, and white-tailed deer. Several 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

avian, amphibian, and reptilian species can be found around the refuge. Vultures, herons, swallows, 

and hawks are the most visible birds. Amphibians and reptiles that can be observed on the refuge 

include: bullfrogs, green frogs, skinks, snapping turtles, and grotto salamanders. Other species that 

are abundant in the area include northern fence lizard, midland water snake, chorus tree frog, and the 

Ozark redback salamander. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There has never been an archaeological investigation within the refuge by the Service. There is 

evidence of an old homeplace close to the mouth of the cave and in the 1940s, a cannery operated 

close to the mouth of the cave, using the water from the spring. The remnants of an old fish hatchery 

remain just south of the refuge boundary and the old fish ponds were across the road. Water from 

the cave (Logan Spring) supplied the hatchery, fish ponds, and the Logan community. Today, water 

from the spring supplies water for a large poultry operation, several residences, and a tree/plant 

nursery. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Logan Cave NWR lies in the northwest corner of Benton County. Benton County is located in the 

northwest corner of Arkansas and adjoins Oklahoma to the west and Missouri to the north. The 

county seat is Bentonville, in the center of the county. Benton County, established in 1836, was the 

first county in the State of Arkansas. 

Northwest Arkansas is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation and Benton County is the fastest 

growing county in the State. The related development is moving toward regions like the refuge that 

retain a rural atmosphere, yet remain close to cities that are bustling with economic activity. 

Population change can be an indication of economic vitality. However, the types of economic sectors 

likely to be strong can cause development and disturbance impacts on wildlife habitat. The U.S. 

Census Bureau ranks Benton County second in the State for total population. First is Pulaski County 

with the capital city of Little Rock. In April 2000, Benton County had a population of 153,406 and in 

July 2006, a population of 179,756. That’s a 27.8 percent increase (the highest in the State). The 

population percent change from 1990 to 2000 was 57.3 percent. 

Poultry and cattle agribusiness, light manufacturing, retail distribution, retail support, and 

transportation are the most important economic sectors. Important agricultural crops include hay and 

pasture for livestock. Benton County leads the State and is third in the nation for broiler (poultry) 

production. Much of the Tyson’s Foods operation is located in Benton County and headquartered in 

adjacent Washington County. 

There are several large manufacturing industries in Benton County, including Glad Manufacturing 

(Glad plastic bags and cling wrap), Kraft Foods (bulk cheese), Rogers Tool Works (carbide compacts 

for the oil industry and other drills and tools), Allen Canning (one of the country’s top vegetable 

canning companies), Daisy Outdoor Products (the world’s oldest and largest producer of airguns, BB 

guns, pellet rifles, and CO2 pistols), and J.B. Hunt (one of the nations largest trucking companies). 

The world’s largest company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and its subsidiaries, is headquartered in 

Bentonville. Numerous Fortune 500 companies (as well as smaller firms) have regional offices in 

Benton County to support their accounts at Wal-Mart. The newly constructed Northwest Arkansas 

Regional Airport is centrally located in Highfill; which is only a few miles from the refuge. 
16 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

With major industries located nearby and the rapidly increasing population, development in the 

region has skyrocketed in the past few years. Real estate values have increased significantly 

and the once wooded landscape surrounding the refuge is quickly turning into houses, 

apartments, golf courses, and other commercial developments. The refuge is rapidly becoming a 

small island in a sea of development. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

To protect the cave from trespassers and vandalism, the entire refuge, not just the cave, is closed to 

all public use. Both entrances have protection from trespass. The mouth of the cave or the spring 

entrance has a gate located up inside the cave. This was the only feasible way to protect the spring 

entrance and gray bats prefer internal gates. The sinkhole entrance was fenced with a steel fence 

that completely circles the entire sinkhole area. 

To protect this valuable Ozark resource for future generations, it will be necessary for the Service 

to continue protecting the cave, spring, and recharge areas; to improve public understanding of 

Logan Cave NWR’s valuable resources; and to develop and maintain public and private 

partnerships to protect not only the refuge but additional resources that are vulnerable to 

northwest Arkansas’ rapid development. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Due to the sensitive nature of the refuge’s flora and fauna, public use, educational programs, and 

scientific research are limited. No one is allowed inside the cave from March through September to 

protect the gray bat maternity colony. Disturbance inside the cave before young are able to fly would 

cause the young to fall to their deaths as their frightened mothers hurried out of the cave. Also, 

walking through the cave increases turbidity with the potential to step on cavefish and crayfish. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Logan Cave NWR has never been funded or staffed. All operations and maintenance are provided 

through Holla Bend NWR. Site visits to the refuge seldom occur due to lack of staff and distance 

from Holla Bend NWR (160 miles, one way). Visits to the cave generally are for wildlife surveys and 

for maintenance of signs, gates, and fences. The refuge relies to a great extent on karst biologists 

from TNC’s office in northwest Arkansas, and karst biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Ecological Services’ office in Arkansas to keep refuge staff up-to-date on environmental activities and 

issues in the Logan Cave region. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

Early in the process of developing this Draft CCP/EA, the planning team identified a list of issues and 

concerns that were likely to be associated with the conservation and management of Logan Cave NWR. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act 

recommendations, public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of 

the Draft CCP/EA for Logan Cave NWR. This Draft CCP/EA has been written with input and 

assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and 

State agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value 

in setting the management direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge 

staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas 

to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so 

many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge. 

Initial CCP planning meetings were attended by refuge personnel. At these meetings, 

strategies for completing the CCP were discussed, issues and concerns were identified, and a 

mailing list of likely interested organizations and individuals was compiled. 

A planning team consisting of Service personnel from Arkansas and Oklahoma, representatives 

from TNC of Arkansas, and the AGFC was assembled. Members were introduced to the refuge 

and its planning process and asked to identify their issues and concerns. 

A public scoping meeting was held in April 2006. Announcements giving the location, date, and 

time for the public meeting were sent to local newspapers. The planning team met again after 

the public meeting to review individual goals and objectives and identify strategies and projects 

for the Draft CCP/EA. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish 

and wildlife protection, habitat restoration, water quality, recreation, and management of 

threatened and endangered species. Additionally, the planning team considered Federal and 

State mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also 

directed the process of obtaining public input through the public scoping meeting, open 

planning team meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. All public and advisory 

team comments were considered, however, some issues important to the public fall outside the 

scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team considered all issues 

raised during the planning process, and developed a Draft CCP/EA that attempts to balance the 

competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the 

team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the 

significant issues follows. 
18 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important responsibility 

delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Furthermore, Logan Cave NWC was 

established in 1989 to conserve fish or wildlife listed as threatened or endangered. Four threatened or 

endangered animals use, or could use, Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge: endangered Benton cave 

crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), threatened Ozark cavefish 

(Amblyopsis rosae), and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

Logan Cave is one of three caves and one spring in Benton County, Arkansas, where a known 

population of cave crayfish exists. Logan Cave supports the largest population of Cambarus 

aculabrum in Arkansas and the world. Logan stream flows through the entire length of the cave, and 

provides habitat for the crayfish. Population numbers seem to be stable, but are generally low. The 

last survey was completed in 2006, with biologists observing 31 crayfish. Factors most likely to limit 

or cause the decline of the Benton cave crayfish are: 1) destruction of habitat including water quality 

degradation, 2) disturbance by trespassers, 3) collecting, 4) low reproductive rate, and 5) competition 

and predation by troglophilic species. 

Logan Cave is one of 31 caves known to have a population of the Ozark cavefish; however, Logan 

Cave has the second largest population in Arkansas, and throughout its range. The last survey was 

completed in 2006, with biologists observing 43 cavefish. Factors most likely to limit or cause the 

decline of the Ozark cavefish are: 1) habitat destruction, 2) collecting, 3) disturbance by trespassers, 

and 4) low reproductive rate. 

 

The range of the gray bat is concentrated in the cave regions of Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, and Alabama. Gray bats are cave residents year-round; however, they occupy different 

caves in summer and winter. Logan Cave is utilized as a maternity site by approximately ten to 

fifteen thousand female gray bats. Typically, the bats arrive in February/March and leave in 

September/October. This maternity colony utilizes a domed room between the sinkhole and spring 

entrance. Disturbance of the bats is a major concern, especially when newborn young are present. 

Disturbance can result in the young dropping to their deaths from the cave’s ceiling or being 

abandoned by their mother. 

The range of the Indiana bat is in the eastern United States from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin 

east to Vermont and south to northwestern Florida (Harvey 2000). The present total population is 

estimated at 457,374, with more than 67 percent hibernating at only nine locations in Missouri, 

Indiana, and Kentucky. Due to the habitat and internal environment, Logan Cave could be used by 

Indiana bats as hibernacula. The bats hibernate from October to April, depending on climatic 

conditions. Hibernating bats form large, tight, compact clusters normally estimated at 300 – 400 bats 

per square foot. Approximately 2,500 Indiana bats are known to hibernate in 10 Arkansas caves. 

KARST DEPENDENT SPECIES 

As well as A. rosae and C. aculabrum, Logan Cave harbors several other aquatic troglobites. These 

include an isopod (Caecidotea antricola) and an amphipod (Stygobromus ozarkensis), and other 

insects, which are blind, without pigment, and strictly adapted to a subterranean habitat. Troglophiles that 

inhabit the cave include the grotto salamander (Eurycea spelaeus), cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga), 

and dark-sided salamander (Eurycea longicauda melanopleura). Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) and 

epigeal ringed crayfish (Orconectes neglectus) also enter the cave and live in light and dark zones. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Based on compiled 

lists of birds, approximately 75 species potentially use the surface habitat on Logan Cave NWR. 

Although this small refuge cannot provide ideal habitat for forest dwelling birds, potential 

management strategies need to be considered as part of this Draft CCP/EA 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

LOGAN CAVE 

Karst biologists have described Logan Cave as having the highest quality cave habitat in the entire 

Ozark region. Logan Cave is a large limestone-solution cave approximately 1.5 miles in length. The 

three ecological classification types (tunnel, seepage, and sinkhole) are present in different sections 

of the cave. The cave’s internal temperature is 55 degrees Fahrenheit. The terrestrial cave 

environment is extremely stable and such stability is of primary importance to troglobitic organisms 

that inhabit the cave. However, the aquatic cave environment is not as stable due to the relationship 

with surface water entering the cave through the recharge zone. 

The sinkhole and spring entrances are the only two known entry points. The sinkhole consists of a 

funnel shaped depression about 50 feet in diameter on a forested hillside and the spring entrance is 

located on a hillside under an overhanging rock bluff. Upstream from the sinkhole, the cave contains 

several large seeps, which cascade down the walls from the ceiling. These seeps introduce organic 

matter in the form of fine particulates and dissolved material. These organic materials supply 

nutrients for many inhabitants of the cave. 

The cave’s passageway is relatively narrow with a low ceiling. In some areas, the ceiling 

gradually declines, leaving only a tiny crawl space. Deep within the interior of the cave there are 

several waterfalls that cascade down the walls. Approximately halfway through the cave is an 

area where gray bats congregate their maternity colony. This room formed many years ago when 

large rock plates caved-in. 

LOGAN STREAM 

Logan Stream extends the entire length of the cave and emerges at the mouth as Logan Spring, 

which has an average water flow of approximately 5 million gallons per day. The spring flows into a 

natural oxbow lake and then into Osage Creek, a major tributary of the Illinois River. Water clarity in 

Logan Stream is very high, except after storm events that result in increased flow and decreased 

clarity. Water quality is high except for seasonal increases in coliform bacteria associated with 

livestock operations in the recharge zone and traces of pharmaceuticals and other organic 

wastewater constituents from inadequate septic systems. To ensure success of all species in Logan 

Cave, water quality needs to remain at a constant high level. 

As described by Means 1995, Logan Stream is divided into three reaches classified by habitat types. 

The lowermost reach is 365 m long and extends from the cave mouth upstream to the sinkhole. This 

reach consists of runs and riffles with the substrate being primarily rock and rubble. The middle reach 

consists of a 230-m-long pool that extends from the sinkhole to the next upstream riffle. Rock and silt 

comprised most of the substrate, with the maximum depth being 3 m. The third reach is 685 m and 

extends upstream from the pool to a point where the cave roof meets the stream. This reach includes 

pools, riffles, and runs, with gravel, silt, and bedrock substrates. 
20 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

SURFACE HABITAT 

The surface of Logan Cave NWR is a diverse mix of habitats, which includes representatives of several 

Ozark Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, bottomland hardwood, and upland 

deciduous. The refuge was established for the species that utilize the cave, however, the 123 acres of 

surface habitat and potential management techniques need to be addressed in this Draft CCP/EA. 

LAND PROTECTION 

RECHARGE ZONE 

The surface of Logan Cave NWR is a diverse mix of habitats, which includes representatives of several 

Ozark Mountain types: oak-hickory forest, grassland, shrubland, bottomland hardwood, and upland 

deciduous. The refuge was established for the species which utilize the cave, however, the 123 acres of 

surface habitat and potential management techniques need to be addressed in this Draft CCP/EA. 

LAND PROTECTION 

RECHARGE ZONE 

The recharge zone is described by Aley and Aley (1987) as 3,108 ha in area, lying north and east of 

the cave entrance (Figure 4). The surface streams in the recharge zone are primarily discrete sinking 

streams that flow through mostly agricultural pastureland. Two major classes of land use occur in the 

recharge zone: 1) residential/commercial use, and 2) agriculture. The recharge zone has numerous 

livestock operations, including approximately 50 hog and poultry houses from which Aley and Aley 

(1987) identified three potential types of impacts. First, feedlots and animal houses are normally on 

well-drained slopes, which lead to runoff during heavy rains. These runoff waters may contain high 

levels of biological or chemical pollutants, which can have a negative impact on Logan Stream. 

Second, farmers will occasionally dispose of wastes on unused areas of their property. These areas 

may be located in areas where runoff could reach stream sources and eventually Logan Stream. 

Third, toxins and chemicals in animal feeds can pass through the animals and reach streams, via 

land application of wastes. Aley and Aley (1987) stated that two major impacts of 

residential/commercial development are inappropriate sewage disposal and increased erosion or 

storm runoff. Recovery of the species utilizing Logan Cave is directly related to the water quality in 

Logan Stream, which is directly affected by land uses within the recharge zone. 

Aley delineated the recharge zone into hazard areas to identify those surface areas which have 

differing potentials for the introduction of groundwater contaminants into Logan Cave: 1) low hazard, 

2) moderate hazard, 3) high hazard, and 4) very high hazard areas; the higher the hazard, the higher 

in priority for protection of these areas. 

Based on these delineations, this Draft CCP/EA will address strategies to protect these areas. 

Management techniques include conservation easements, fee title acquisition, nutrient management 

plans, and best management practices for landowners in the recharge zone. 

BAT FORAGING AREA 

Summer caves, especially those used by maternity colonies, are nearly always located within a kilometer 

of rivers or reservoirs over which the bats feed. Adult gray bats feed almost exclusively over water along 

river and reservoir edges. Newly volant young gray bats often feed and take shelter in forests 

surrounding cave entrances. Also, whenever possible, gray bats of all ages fly in the protection of forest 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

canopy between caves and feeding areas. Such behavior provides increased protection from predators, 

such as screech owls. Forested areas surrounding caves and between caves and over-water feeding 

habitat clearly are advantageous to gray bat survival. Gray bat feeding areas have not been found along 

sections of rivers or reservoirs where adjacent forests have been cleared. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Due to intolerable disturbances to the gray bats, the cave, and other protected species, the refuge is 

closed to all public use. Entrance into the cave by Service biologists is restricted to scientific 

monitoring and research activities conducted biannually, and all entry is prohibited from March 

through September to protect the gray bat maternity colony from disturbance. Any entrance by nonService personnel is authorized through special use permits only. These activities must have 

approved biological and/or management implications. 

The lack of exposure and awareness resulting from all activities being prohibited to the public 

negatively affects the refuge’s image to the local public. Environmental education and outreach is a 

very important tool to familiarize the local public with Logan Cave NWR and the importance of 

keeping the refuge closed to most activities. As part of an outreach program, refuge staff should 

pursue potential for a Friends group or local volunteer(s) to provide some presence with local citizens. 

SCIENTIFIC MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

The wildlife species that utilize Logan Cave NWR are so specialized that a certain amount of 

monitoring and research needs to be done to provide a means to assess recovery/management 

efforts. All monitoring and research activities need to be considered and only allowed if absolutely 

necessary and have approved biological and/or management implications. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

FUNDING AND STAFFING 

Logan Cave NWR does not receive annual funding for refuge management programs. All costs 

associated with the refuge are absorbed by Holla Bend NWR, which is located in Dardanelle, 

Arkansas, approximately 160 miles to the southeast. There are no full-time employees 

assigned to the refuge. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There have been no known official archaeological investigations within the refuge boundary. 

FENCES/GATES/BOUNDARY SIGNS 

One of the primary management tools for the refuge is to have the ability to keep people out of the 

cave to minimize disturbance to the protected species inside the cave. There are currently cave 

fences and gates at the spring entrance and the sinkhole to deter unauthorized access. There are 

also two steel gates on the north and south sides of the refuge boundary to prevent vehicle entry. 

Boundary signs are maintained to clearly identify the property as a national wildlife refuge that is 

closed to all activities. Although these things sound trivial, they are a vital part of protecting the 

species inhabiting Logan Cave. 
22 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. Recharge area for Logan Cave NWR showing priority areas for protection 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix H. 
24 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats, considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation). 

Described below is the proposed CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This 

proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to 

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered. Each of these alternatives is described 

in the Alternatives’ chapter of Section B. The Service chose Alternative 3 as the proposed 

management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative will result in maintaining and enhancing water quality and flora 

and fauna at Logan Cave NWR and the surrounding area, while meeting the refuge’s primary 

purpose of protecting its ecosystem and the threatened and endangered species utilizing the cave. 

Specific projects will add the resources necessary to manage, restore, and maintain the habitats and 

wildlife species on and off the refuge. 

VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge will maintain and enhance communities and 

habitats necessary for the continuing existence and recovery of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species. Through communication, cooperation, and 

consultation, the refuge will foster partnerships with private landowners and other 

interested parties for the conservation of important Ozark cave habitat. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public, and are 

presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and the purposes and vision for Logan Cave NWR. The Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 
26 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

GOAL 1. FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Maintain viable, historically diverse populations of native fish and wildlife species consistent with 

sound biological principles. 

Discussion: Population management activities will focus on establishing inventorying and monitoring 

procedures to document species occurrence, habitat association, recruitment, and diversity. 

Threatened and endangered species will be protected and managed toward recovery. All population 

management activities will strive to protect, maintain, and enhance species diversity in the broad 

context of the refuge. 

Objective 1. Benton cave crayfish 

 

Maintain a minimum population of 35 cave crayfish based on ocular surveys. 

Discussion: Provide habitat to maintain current populations of cave crayfish and establish guidelines 

to contribute to the recovery of the species. 

Strategies: 

1. Perform ocular surveys bi-annually in January or February. Survey teams will be properly 

trained and consist of no more than 4 observers. 

2. Identify what percent of the ocular surveys need to be young crayfish to establish a 

recruitment estimate. 

3. Maintain water quality in Logan Cave through partnerships with landowners in the recharge zone. 

4. Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP’s) in recharge zone. 

5. Limit entry into Logan Cave to minimize disturbance to the cave crayfish. 

6. Identify life history and requirements for cave crayfish. 

7. Remove predators, if needed. 

Objective 2. Ozark Cavefish 

Maintain a minimum population of 40 Ozark cavefish based on ocular surveys. 

Discussion: Provide habitat to maintain current population of Ozark cavefish and establish guidelines 

to contribute to the recovery of the species. 

Strategies: (1, 3, 4, and 7 above apply under this objective.) 

1. Identify what percent of the ocular surveys need to be young cavefish to establish a 

recruitment estimate. 

2. Identify life history and requirements for Ozark cavefish. 

3. Limit entry into Logan Cave to minimize disturbance to the Ozark cavefish. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Objective 3. Gray Bat 

Provide habitat for stable or increasing population of gray bats and contribute to the recovery of the 

species. 

Strategies:

1. Limit entry into Logan Cave (no entry from March 15-October 15) to minimize disturbance to 

the maternity colony. 

2. Perform bat guano pile surveys (for population estimates) associated with the 

cavefish/crayfish surveys as soon as possible after bats leave, preferably late October but no 

later than November 30. 

3. Monitor population of gray bats by performing annual exit counts during the summer months, 

utilizing night vision equipment. 

4. Verify/identify current hibernacula used by Logan Cave gray bats. 

5. Continue to work with the AGFC to monitor pesticides levels in gray bats. The AGFC 

 studied four gray bat caves in Arkansas, including Logan Cave. A breakdown product of 

 DDT was found in samples from each cave. No other compounds were found in the 

 samples from Logan Cave, but given the continuing influence of banned pesticides and the 

 increasing use of new compounds in agriculture, periodic monitoring of pesticide 

 concentrations in guano and carcasses of dead bats from Logan Cave is recommended. 

Objective 4. Indiana Bat 

Provide habitat for stable or increasing population of Indiana bats and contribute to the recovery of 

the species. 

Discussion: Indiana bats have not been observed in Logan Cave for many years. Indiana bats use 

caves during hibernation from October to April, depending on climatic conditions of the cave. 

Summer maternity roosts are usually in trees along wooded streamside habitat. 

Strategies:

1. Observe/monitor for presence of Indiana bats during the crayfish/cavefish surveys. 

2. Study micro-climate of Logan Cave to determine suitability for Indiana bats. 

Objective 5. Other Karst Species 

Maintain all populations of karst species, such as pseudoscorpions, isopods, amphipods, beetles, 

collembolems, and other blind insects, adapted to subterranean habitats. 

Discussion: Maintaining these other karst species is vital for the continued existence of Logan’s 

Cave’s threatened and endangered species. Many karsts species break down the raw organic 

energy (leaf litter, guano, etc.), to make the microorganisms that become the base of the food chain. 
28 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

1. Monitor abundance of grotto salamander. 

2. Identify species of special concern. 

Objective 6. Forest Dwelling Birds 

Identify and implement strategies to improve forest conditions for forest dwelling birds. 

Discussion: Forested habitat on Logan Cave NWR is predominantly mature oak/hickory forest. 

Forested habitat covers most of Logan Cave (approximately100). This is small for a forested tract, 

but in an area where the forest is severely fragmented, it can play a large role in the presence and 

reproduction of forest dwelling birds. 

Strategies:

1. Identify avian species utilizing the refuge, including nesting species, baseline occurrence, 

annual, productivity, etc. 

2. Develop a bird list. 

3. Identify all refuge plant species and associations. 

4. Use timber stand improvement techniques to implement favorable avian habitats. 

GOAL 2. HABITATS 

Conserve, restore, and manage the functions and values associated with a unique karst environment 

in order to achieve refuge purposes and wildlife population objectives. 

Discussion: Habitat management will be used to restore the biological integrity, biological diversity, 

and environmental health of refuge lands, as well as lands within Logan Cave’s recharge zone and 

bat foraging areas along Osage creek and other forested riparian areas used by the bats. 

 

Objective 1. Cave Environment 

Manage the aquatic and terrestrial functions associated with this unique karst environment. 

Discussion: A cave’s environment is influenced by many factors, including, but not limited to, water 

quality and quantity, air flow and temperature, and ground cover. These factors have changed at 

Logan Cave in the past 20 years, mostly by unnatural causes. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct cleanup inside and outside of the cave. Cleanup inside (in conjunction with survey trips) to 

remove items left behind by trespassers, and keep debris removed from refuge property topside. 

2. Monitor temperature and humidity of Logan Cave. 

3. Stabilize sinkhole entrance. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

4. Perform botanical and wildlife surveys at both cave entrances. 

5. Monitor water quality and quantity. 

6. Identify surface location of Logan Cave, utilizing cave radiolocation equipment. 

Objective 2. Cave Entrances 

Maintain two known entry points into Logan Cave. 

Discussion: The two known entry points to Logan Cave are on refuge land, which affords the Service 

the opportunity to protect and monitor these entrances. Preventing trespass into the cave is 

imperative to the survival of the species using Logan Cave. Disturbance, especially from 

inexperienced cavers, can have a devastating effect on the bats, cavefish, and crayfish. 

Strategies:

1. Maintain bat friendly enclosures. Inspect and perform necessary maintenance at least every 

six months. 

2. Perform annual maintenance of gates and fences at cave entrances. 

Objective 3. Logan Stream (Logan Spring entrance south to refuge boundary)

Ensure water quality and quantity taken from the stream leave the stream at a level to achieve refuge 

purposes. 

Discussion: Years ago, the stream was dammed to facilitate water withdrawal from Logan Spring for 

the community water supply and adjacent fish farm. Today, water is still being withdrawn for private 

and commercial uses. Effects of water withdrawal on the cave aquatic species, especially during 

drought conditions, need to be evaluated. This unnatural pool of water has never been evaluated to 

determine if it positively or negatively affects the aquatic species in the cave. It does allow more 

competition/predation from epigeal crayfish and fish living in the pool. 

Strategies:

1. Monitor water quality and amount withdrawn from adjacent landowner. 

2. Identify sensitive aquatic species in the pool. 

3. Remove competitors/predators, if needed, to protected threatened or endangered species. 

Objective 4. Bat Foraging Habitats 

Explore opportunities to increase or protect important bat foraging habitat along the Osage 

creek corridor. 

Discussion: The gray bat uses caves year-round, but when it’s not hibernating, it must feed. Since 

the gray bat forages primarily over water along rivers or lakes shores, it makes sense to protect not 

only the caves it utilizes, but also the areas where it feeds. 
30 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

1. Identify important bat foraging habitats. 

2. Obtain FEMA floodplain map for Osage Creek to identify floodplain. 

3. Utilize BMP’s and work with partners and landowners to protect and increase forested riparian 

corridors and improve water quality of Osage Creek and its tributaries. 

Objective 5. Forest Habitat 

Maintain and enhance forest habitat to allow sustained use by forest dwelling birds. 

Discussion: Forested habitat at the refuge can be managed to provide different structural habitat for 

forest birds, and adjacent landowners can obtain assistance from Federal and State agencies to 

enhance and increase forested habitat on their land. 

Strategy:

1. Perform Continuous Forest Inventory (or similar survey) and work with partners and 

landowners to provide additional forested acres surrounding the refuge, especially in the 

recharge zone and bat foraging areas. 

GOAL 3. LAND PROTECTION 

Discussion: Critical to the achievement of the vision for this refuge is the protection of the land and 

development of partnerships with landowners and conservation organizations to improve karst 

habitat, especially within the caves recharge zone. 

Objective 1. Recharge Zone 

Protect all surface acres in the recharge zone, but focus on the very high and high priority areas. 

Discussion: Preventing contamination of the groundwater within the recharge zone is critical to 

continued existence of the aquatic species inhabiting the cave. 

Strategies:

1. Identify all landowners in recharge zone. Identify landowners within the different hazard areas 

of the recharge zone. Contact landowners and establish a working relationship with them. 

2. Establish partnerships with landowners, local governments, and land developers to implement 

BMP’s and various land conservation programs through the NRCS, TNC, AGFC, and the 

Service. 

3. Identify willing sellers within the recharge zone. Lands could be purchased by the Service or 

other cooperating agencies (i.e., TNC). 

4. Re-evaluate delineation of recharge zone. 

5. Evaluate road projects – Gailey Hollow road paving. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

6. Work with Benton County and the Arkansas State Highway authorities to establish county 

roads within the recharge zone as “no hazardous materials” transport roads. 

 

GOAL 4. EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Develop and implement a quality, but limited, environmental education and wildlife-dependent 

recreation program that would lead to a greater understanding and appreciation for karst 

environments and Logan Cave NWR’s fish and wildlife resources. 

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies six high-priority 

wildlife-dependent public use activities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. Fundamental to the provision of these uses are 

viable and diverse fish and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend. These 

priority uses, along with all other proposed uses, must be compatible with the refuge purpose and 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Given the sensitive nature of Logan Cave NWR’s 

wildlife resources, uses will be limited and focused on environmental education and interpretation. 

Objective 1: Develop a community-based volunteer program. 

Discussion: Volunteers play a large role in the success of management programs on refuges across 

the country. They provide the eyes and ears for refuges that have administrative offices hours away 

from the refuge lands. 

Strategies:

 

1. Establish a Cave Stewards Program. 

2. Seek out and educate volunteers on karst environments and management issues. 

3. Utilize volunteers to assist with terrestrial flora and fauna surveys, maintenance of boundary 

 and refuge property, etc. 

Objective 2: Develop a community-based environmental education program in coordination with area 

schools and other area educational organizations. 

Discussion: A quality environmental education program can lead to increased awareness and 

stewardship of the environment and can strengthen the connection between wildlife and people. It is 

very important to instill a land ethic in the local community and especially the local youth. Although 

there are limited opportunities available at Logan Cave NWR, even a few programs can increase the 

local knowledge and respect for this sensitive karst ecosystem. 

Strategies:

1. Develop an outdoor classroom or gathering site, possibly an observation platform, where 

staff-conducted programs allow visitors to safely view gray bats emerging from the 

cave’s sinkhole entrance. 

2. Give programs on karst environments, highlighting Logan Cave to local schools, adjacent 

landowners, 4H groups, county officials, etc. 

3. Develop crayfish/cavefish brochure. 
32 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

4. Construct kiosk with information on karst environments and Logan Cave NWR. 

Objective 3: Explore research opportunities that will assist in the recovery of the threatened or 

endangered species utilizing the cave. 

Discussion: Research on selective cave issue can lead to a better understanding of the cave 

environment and refuge flora and fauna, which leads to better management of the resources. 

Strategies:

1. Explore opportunity of completing underwater film documentary. 

2. Identify the life history and requirements of the cave crayfish. 

3. Identify the life history and requirement of the Ozark cavefish. 

4. Identify hibernacula used by Logan Cave gray bat maternity colony. 

5. Identify Logan Cave gray bat foraging habitats. 

6. Monitor pesticide levels in gray bats. 

7. Study micro-climate of the cave to determine suitability for Indiana bats. 

8. Re-evaluate delineation of recharge zone. 

GOAL 5. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Provide administrative support to ensure that the goals and objectives for refuge habitats, fish and 

wildlife populations, land conservation, and visitor services are achieved. 

Discussion: The administrative functions associated with a refuge include a wide array of activities 

that are critical to the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge. These 

functions include staffing, training, budgeting, planning, refuge access, law enforcement, community 

relations, partnering, and maintenance. Refuges must have appropriate resources in order to 

accomplish their overall goals and objectives. 

Objective 1: Develop a refuge manager position to initiate and manage the needed resource 

conservation projects and hire a public use specialist to develop environmental education programs. 

Discussion: A full-time refuge manager position is needed to oversee and conduct many of the 

studies and surveys and resource protection projects. A public use specialist is also needed to 

achieve the programs as outlined. 

Strategies: 

1. Hire refuge manager (could possibly share this position with the Arkansas Ecological Services 

Field Office or Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

2. Obtain operating resources for Logan Cave NWR. This refuge has never been a stand-alone 

refuge or received any special funds for projects. 

3. Hire public use specialist to develop environmental education program. This position 

could be shared with Holla Bend NWR, the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, or 

Ozark Plateau NWR. 

Objective 2: Develop effective law enforcement program to ensure trust resource protection. 

Discussion: Protection of the resource is vital to the success of refuge management programs. 

Preventing trespass into the cave is as critical to the survival of cave species as conserving and 

enhancing the habitat. Collection of cavefish and crayfish for the pet industry is one factor that leads 

to the decline of these species. Careless spelunkers and guano harvesters disturb the gray bat 

maternity, increase the turbidity of the cave stream, and step on cavefish and crayfish. 

Strategies:

1. Initiate and complete Standard Operating Procedures for cave search and rescue efforts. 

2. Utilize Service law enforcement (Refuge, Zone Officers, and Special Agents) to respond to 

violations. 

3. Coordinate with AGFC’s wildlife officer on protocol for contacting refuge manager on issues. 

4. Perform surveillance as needed utilizing infra-red equipment. 

5. Initiate and maintain a minimum of one trip per month by refuge law enforcement officer. 
34 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation 

of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects 

emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but 

considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for Logan 

Cave NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnership 

opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and plan 

review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their estimated associated costs for fish and 

wildlife population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and 

refuge administration over the 15-year-life of the CCP. This proposed project list reflects the priority 

needs identified by the public, the CCP planning team, and core refuge staff based upon available 

information. These projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and 

strategies (Table 1). 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project 1: Science-based Inventory and Monitoring of Refuge Flora and Fauna

Science-based inventories and monitoring of plant and animal populations are critical to ensuring the 

biological integrity of the refuge. Information collected will serve as the basis for developing habitat 

management plans and will influence all management activities. A systematic inventory and 

monitoring program will enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable 

long-term contributions to national and regional objectives for the threatened and endangered 

species and resident wildlife. All data will be shared with appropriate State and Federal partners in 

an effort to further ecosystem management. A monitoring plan should be developed to describe 

survey methods, survey duration, and frequency of sampling to keep surveys of Logan Cave species 

consistent through the years as staff and partners change. The monitoring plan must incorporate 

ways to minimize turbidity during surveys inside the cave; list needed participants and limits to cave 

entry. Benton cave crayfish monitoring should be incorporated into Ozark cavefish surveys. The 

estimated first-year cost for this project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000 per year. 

(Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, 3 4, 5, and 6; Goal 2, Objectives 1,2,3,4, and 5.) 
36 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 2: Identify Life History and Requirements for Ablyopsis rosae and Cambarus aculabrum for 

the Logan Cave System 

Little is known about the ecology and natural history of troglobitic crayfish, and only limited 

observations have been made of Cambarus aculabrum. Population levels are too low to risk 

individuals in studies that may result in mortality. Studies, such as species habitat utilization, 

fecundity, mortality rate, longevity, food preference, etc., should only be initiated when it is 

determined that such studies will have no impact on the ability of the species to survive. Notes on 

behavior, location, and reproductive status should be taken of any observations of cave crayfish 

during survey trips. Much is known about Amblyopsis rosae, but little is known about what is required 

for successful reproduction of these fish. Spawning is likely triggered by spring floods. Gravid 

females have been observed in Logan Cave during the month of January, when the lowest flows of 

the year are recorded. In many caves, the greatest obstacle may be finding potential mates at the 

right time. Studies are needed to determine the extent of competition and predation on A. rosae and 

C. aculabrum by troglophilic and epigeal species at Logan Cave. Biannual surveys of troglophiles 

and epigeans should be conducted in such a way that they do not harm A. rosae and C. aculabrum. 

The estimated first-year cost for this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000 for study 

duration. (Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 1and 2.)

Project 3: Purchase Night Vision Equipment to Monitor Gray Bats 

Night vision/infrared equipment is needed to perform consistent exit counts of the Logan Cave gray 

bat maternity colony. Two sets of night vision equipment are needed to monitor both entrances at the 

same time. Currently, only one survey is performed by an AGFC contractor. Monthly surveys are 

needed during late spring and through the summer to monitor bat presence and possible disturbance 

to the maternity colony. The estimated cost for this equipment is $10,000. (Linkage: Goal 1, 

Objective 3.) 

Project 4: Conduct Banding/Monitoring Study to Verify/Identify Hibernacula Used by Logan Cave 

Gray Bat Colony 

The hibernacula and transient locations used by Logan Cave gray bats are unknown. Knowing 

where this population of bats spends the winter and its migration routes will allow the Service and 

partners to initiate plans to protect these areas. The refuge would work with the AGFC and Service 

biologists in order to accomplish this project. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 3,000, 

with recurring costs of $1,000 each year for an approximate 5-year study. (Linkage: Goal 1, 

Objective 3.) 

Project 5: Identify Logan Cave Gray Bat Foraging Areas 

Gray bats feed primarily over water along river, stream, and reservoir edges and in forest canopy 

along waters’ edge and take flight in the protection of the forest canopy between the cave and 

feeding areas to avoid predators. Gray bat feeding areas have not been found along sections of river 

or reservoir where adjacent forests have been cleared. Identifying the current feeding areas and 

forested corridors is imperative to the existence of the Logan Cave gray bat colony. Once these 

areas are identified, steps can be taken through partnerships with landowners to protect and enhance 

these areas. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $15,000, with recurring costs of $5,000. 

(Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 3 and 4; Goal 2, Objective 4.) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Project 6: Determine Suitability of Logan Cave for Indiana Bat 

 

Indiana bats could once be found hibernating in Logan Cave. They have not been observed in the cave 

since the mid-1980s. Indiana bats have specific needs for cave temperatures during hibernation. 

Changes in the air flow through caves can change the temperature enough to make it unsuitable for 

Indiana bats. The air flow through Logan Cave has changed significantly over the past 20 years due to 

erosion at the sinkhole entrance, which has almost closed it completely. Temperature and humidity data 

loggers should be installed and monitored to record specific conditions inside the cave to determine if it’s 

suitable for Indiana bats. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 5,000, with recurring costs of 

$500. (Linkages: Goal 1, Objectives 3 and 4; Goal 2, Objective1.)

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project 7: Monitor Micro-climate of Logan Cave 

Degradation of water quality poses the greatest threat to the aquatic species of Logan Cave. Needed 

water quality data include pH, water and air temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biological 

oxygen demand, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, total dissolved and suspended solids, 

nitrates, metals, and pesticides. The cave stream and spring should be sampled monthly for at least 

one year to establish a baseline for future comparisons. Metals should be sampled once for baseline 

and additional tests conducted if warranted. Testing for pesticides, insecticides, or lawn chemicals 

should be conducted after a rainfall of at least one inch. Data needs to be gathered on anthropogenic 

enrichment and organic loading of Logan Cave. Water quantity has an effect on the reproduction 

success of cave aquatic species. Water removal from the cave during periods of drought has an 

effect on the water quality of the cave stream. The estimated first-year cost for this project is 

$20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objectives 1 and 3.)

Water quantity also plays an important role in the survival of the cave’s aquatic species. Past and 

future increases in the utilization of water from the cave will have an impact on water levels in the 

cave, especially during periods of drought. Unnatural decreases in water levels in the cave stream 

could have an adverse impact the cave’s aquatic habitat. The amount of water removed and its 

effects on the cave’s aquatic species and climate should be monitored. The estimated first-year cost 

for this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objectives 1 and 3). 

Project 8: Initiate Sinkhole Stabilization Project Utilizing USGS Data 

In 2004, the USGS studied the geologic conditions at the sinkhole entrance to Logan Cave and 

recommended that it be protected from foot traffic and the slope be stabilized to lessen the erosion, 

which could lead to complete filling of the sinkhole by sediments. Sedimentation around sinkholes of 

caves is normal. But the sinkhole entrance of Logan Cave has had a significant amount of sediment 

mainly from foot traffic (trespass) from the top of the sink to the bottom of the slope, which has almost 

completely blocked the entrance. Recent fencing of the sinkhole has significantly reduced foot traffic, 

but current sediments need to be removed and the slope around the foot trail stabilized to reduce 

further unnatural erosion. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $5,000, with recurring costs 

of $500 (Linkages: Goal 2, Objective 2.) 
38 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project 9: Utilize Cave Radiolocation to Locate and Map Cave to Surface Relationship 

Cave radiolocation is a technique used to locate sections of a cave from the surface. The techniques 

and equipment used allow researchers to map the cave passages and relate those passages to the 

surface. Knowing where the cave passages lay from the surface will greatly enhance the ability of 

management to protect the cave through partnerships with landowners and will aid rescuers in the 

event of an incident. Current and future landowners will know if cave passages lie under their land 

before engaging in land activities that could seriously affect the cave environment. The estimated cost 

for this project is $5,000. (Linkages: Goal 2, Objective 1; Goal 3, Objective 1; Goal 5, Objective 2.) 

Project 10: Increase Resource Protection by Purchasing Specialized Surveillance Equipment for Law 

Enforcement 

This project would provide funding for purchasing state-of-the-art surveillance equipment for refuge 

law enforcement officers to increase the protection of the cave’s natural resources. This equipment 

would also be used to assist local partners with cave resource protection projects. The estimated 

cost is $ 8,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 2.) 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project 11: Develop Logan Cave NWR Brochure

Due to Logan Cave’s sensitive fauna, no outreach occurs at or in the cave proper. Developing a 

general brochure, to include information and pictures about the cave environment and refuge flora 

and fauna, would be an excellent outreach tool to hand out at local events and have available via the 

Internet. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $ 3,000, with periodic costs of approximately 

$600 for additional brochures as needed. (Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 2). 

Project 12: Construct Viewing Platform.

During the summer months, bats can easily be seen exiting the cave’s sinkhole entrance at 

dusk to forage. The cave is fenced and gated and closed to all public entry. If a public use 

specialist or manager were to be hired, a viewing platform near the sinkhole entrance could be 

used for scheduled interpretation and educational activities for local youth groups, clubs, and 

partners. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $20,000, with recurring costs of $500. 

(Linkages: Goal 4, Objective 2)

Project 13. Construct Kiosks 

A wooden kiosk would be constructed at the north entrance gate for year-round information on Logan 

Cave NWR and its resources. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $10,000, with recurring 

costs of $500. (Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 2.) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project 14: Manage Endangered Wildlife and Habitats by Re-establishing the Refuge Manager Position 

In 1994, due to staff reductions, the refuge manager position for Logan Cave NWR was lost. This 

project would re-establish this position to oversee the management of Logan Cave NWR and carry 

out many of the biological surveys. This position could be stationed at the Complex headquarters 

(Holla Bend NWR) or shared with Ozark Plateau NWR, the Conway, Arkansas, or Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

Ecological Services offices. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $160,000, with recurring 

costs of $89,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 1.) 

Project 15: Hire Public Use Specialist.

This project would involve hiring a public use specialist to coordinate and perform outreach for the 

refuge and surrounding karst environment. This position could be stationed at the Complex 

headquarters (Holla Bend NWR) and would be responsible for all of Logan Cave NWR environmental 

education programs. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $160,000, with recurring costs of 

$70,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 1.) 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted for the 

refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine management 

effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and determine how 

effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem team and other 

appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for target and 

non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects will be made. 

Subsequently, the refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be 

described in the step-down management plans. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

To complete the wildlife and habitat management projects and conduct the necessary inventorying, 

monitoring, analyses, mapping, and outreach, staff is required. The planning team and the public 

identified the need for staff at Logan Cave NWR. The proposed positions listed above are needed for 

the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies. The annual estimated cost of operating the 

refuge, including salaries and benefits of the two positions listed above, is projected to be $160,000. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and State and Federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity of the 

refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with local landowners, 4-H and scout groups, land 

developers, caving clubs, and Audubon groups. At regional and State levels, partnerships may be 

established or enhanced with organizations such as TNC, NRCS, AGFC, USDA Forest Service, and 

the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan 

provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services’ management. Stepdown plans (Table 2) are also developed in accordance with NEPA, which requires the identification and 

evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 
40 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

Table 1. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

1 Science-based Inventory and 

Monitoring of Refuge Flora and Fauna $20,000 $2,000 

2 

Identify Life History and Requirements 

for A. rosae and C. aculabrum for the 

Logan Cave system. 

$20,000 $5,000 ** 

3 Purchase Night Vision Equipment to 

Monitor Gray Bats $10,000 * 

4 Conduct Study to Identify Hibernacula 

Used by Logan Cave Gray Bat Colony $ 3,000 $1,000 ** 

5 Identify Logan Cave Gray Bat Foraging 

Areas $15,000 $5,000 ** 

6 Determine Suitability of Logan Cave 

for Indiana Bats $ 5,000 $ 500 

7 Monitor Micro-climate of Logan Cave $20,000 $5,000 

8 Initiate Sinkhole Stabilization Project $5,000 $500 

9 Utilize Cave Radiolocation to Locate 

and Map Cave to Surface Relationship $5,000 * 

10 Purchase Surveillance Equipment for 

Law Enforcement $8,000 * 

11 Develop and Print Logan Cave 

Brochure $ 3,000 $ 600 

 12 Construct Viewing Platform $ 20,000 $ 500 

 13 Construct Kiosk $ 10,000 $ 500 

 14 Re-establish Refuge Manger Position $160,000 $89,000 1 

 15 Hire Public Use Specialist $160,000 $70,000 1 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

 Grand Total $ 464,000 $ 168,600 2 

 * No recurring cost. 

** Recurring cost for duration of the study and not included in total recurring costs. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The Final CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. It 

will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions 

change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a major 

refuge expansion. The Final CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 

Table 2. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Wildlife Management Plan 2010 

 Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 2010 

 Nuisance Animal Control 2010 

 Exotic Plant Control 2010 

Habitat Management Plan 2009 

 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan 2009 

 Forest Management Plan 2010 

Law Enforcement 2009 

 Safety/Search and Rescue Plan 2009 

Visitor Services 2010 

 Environmental Education and Interpretation 2010 
42 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 43

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge has been prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It discusses the purpose and 

need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge which is located in Benton 

County, Arkansas, and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts that could be expected 

from each of the management proposals outlined in the plan. This analysis assists the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in determining if it will need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the refuge’s CCP. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the nation’s primary conservation agency concerned with the 

protection and long-term management of wildlife resources. The Service administers the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, a system of more than 540 national wildlife refuges embracing over 93 

million acres, much of which is primarily managed for the enhancement of migratory bird populations 

and federally listed threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management direction for Logan Cave 

National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and to 

describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified three 

alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected Alternative 3 as 

the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning team, Alternative 3 is 

the best approach to guide the refuge’s future direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of 

the refuge, thus necessitating the need for the CCP. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an 

alternative to implement the CCP for Logan Cave NWR. The Final CCP will include a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an 

evaluation of the Service and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was 

established, and other legal mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of 

the CCP will begin and will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 
44 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Logan Cave NWR is a 123-acre Ozark Mountain refuge, which includes a limestone-solution cave, 

located in Benton County, Arkansas, 20 miles west of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and two miles north of 

U.S. Highway 412. 

The planning study area for this EA includes lands outside the existing refuge boundary that are 

being studied for inclusion in the Refuge System or partnership planning efforts. This EA will identify 

management on refuge lands, as well as those lands proposed for conservation by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this Draft CCP/EA in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described in this Draft CCP/EA also meet the requirements of 

NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance with NEPA through the involvement of the public and 

the incorporation of this EA in the Draft CCP, with a description of the alternatives considered and an 

analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV, Section B). 

When fully implemented, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Logan Cave NWR. 

The Draft CCP/EA’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the 

purposes. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service 

allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or 

does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

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

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlifedependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety.” 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for Logan Cave NWR. This Draft 

CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation 

organizations, and employees of local and State agencies. The participation of these stakeholders 

and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for Logan Cave NWR. 

The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has 

contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the 

passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 45

Initial CCP planning meetings were attended by refuge personnel. At these meetings, strategies for 

completing the Draft CCP were discussed, issues and concerns were identified, and a mailing list of 

likely interested organizations and individuals was compiled. A planning team, consisting of Service 

personnel and representatives from TNC and AGFC, was assembled. A public scoping meeting was 

held. Attendees were invited to register their comments, input, observations, and preferences 

concerning the refuge. Announcements giving the location, date, and time for the scoping meeting 

were sent to local newspapers. 

The planning team met again after the public scoping meeting to review individual goals and 

objectives and to identify strategies and projects for the Draft CCP/EA. The planning team’s 

identified issues and concerns were expanded to include those generated by the citizens from the 

local community. These issues and concerns, identified in the Draft CCP, formed the basis for the 

development and comparison of the different alternatives described in this EA. 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the planning 

process. Many issues that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decision to 

be made within this planning process. In some instances, we cannot resolve issues some people have 

communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, and have 

developed plans that attempt to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D. 
46 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 47

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
48 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 49

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision, and the goals identified in the Draft CCP; the 

goals of the Refuge System; and the mission on the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are 

formulated to address the significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the 

public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological 

conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed 

to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, 

each alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was 

evaluated based on how much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues 

related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, 

visitor services, and refuge administration. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and objectives were developed to help achieve the 

refuge’s purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired conditions or 

outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three alternatives. 

These alternatives represent different approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-year time 

frame, while still meeting the refuge purposes and goals. The three alternatives are summarized 

below. A comparison of each alternative follows the general description. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 - (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

This alternative represents the status quo, i.e., no change from current management of the refuge. 

Under this alternative, 123 acres of refuge lands would be protected and maintained for resident 

wildlife, migratory non-game birds, and threatened and endangered species. The refuge would 

continue to be an un-funded refuge with no dedicated staff person to oversee management activities. 

Refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with little baseline 

biological information. All refuge management activities would be directed toward achieving the 

refuge’s primary purpose (to properly administer, conserve, and develop the 123-acre area for 

protection of a unique cave ecosystem that provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat, 

endangered Benton cave crayfish, the threatened Ozark cavefish, and other significant cave-dwelling 

wildlife species). Active habitat and wildlife management would continue to be limited to protection of 

the cave entrances and limited access to surface and subsurface habitats. Little to no environmental 

education and wildlife interpretation would occur. No improvements would be made to the exterior for 

wildlife observation or photography. Under this alternative, the refuge would not seek out 

partnerships with adjacent landowners nor other State and Federal agencies to contribute to the 

overall natural resource conservation effort in the area. 
50 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERNATIVE 2 - (NO MANAGEMENT) 

Under this alternative, no refuge management or resource protection would occur; fish and wildlife 

populations would not be monitored; habitats would not be managed or monitored; no land protection 

would occur; and no law enforcement activities would be performed. The Service would probably 

enter into management agreements with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and/or The 

Nature Conservancy. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 - (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

All management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purpose 

(to properly administer, conserve, and develop the 123-acre area for protection of a unique cave 

ecosystem that provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat, endangered Benton cave crayfish, 

the threatened Ozark cavefish, and other significant cave-dwelling wildlife species), while contributing to 

other national, regional, and State goals to protect and restore karst habitats and species. 

The primary focus under this alternative would be to add a staff person and equipment in order to 

manage, maintain, restore, and protect the refuge’s habitats and wildlife species. Wildlife and plant 

censuses and inventory activities would be initiated and maintained to obtain the biological 

information needed to continue current refuge management programs and implement crucial 

management programs on and off the refuge. 

Active habitat management would be implemented to maintain and enhance water quality and quantity 

within the cave system, the recharge zone (groundwater recharge areas), and waterways within the bat 

foraging areas through best management practices, easements, and partnerships with private 

landowners and other Federal and State agencies. Continuous groundwater quality monitoring is crucial 

to the existence of the aquatic species utilizing the cave stream and groundwater corridors. 

The Benton cave crayfish and Ozark cavefish populations would be maintained at a minimum of 35 

and 40 individuals, respectively. A properly trained survey team (no more than 4 observers) would 

perform ocular surveys biannually in January or February. During these surveys, the occurrence of 

any Indiana bats would be noted. The refuge would study the micro-climate of the cave to determine 

suitability for Indiana bats. Gray bats would be counted annually during July by exit counts. At least 

two trained persons would count bats at the same time on the same evening as the bats emerge from 

the spring and sinkhole entrances. Bat guano would be measured each year as soon as possible 

after the maternity colony exits the cave. No more than three persons would conduct guano 

measurements and this would be done in conjunction with the crayfish/cavefish surveys when 

possible. The refuge would maintain all other populations of karst species, such as pseudoscorpions, 

isopods, amphipods, beetles, collembolans, and other blind insects adapted to subterranean habitats. 

The abundance of the grotto salamander would also be monitored. 

The refuge would identify and implement strategies to improve conditions on- and off-refuge lands for 

forest-dwelling birds. The primary purpose of this effort would be to work with partners and private 

landowners to provide a forest system of sufficient size and carrying capacity to reach regional 

objectives associated with area-sensitive neotropical migratory birds. This would also help protect 

and enhance the foraging area for the gray bats, especially along Osage creek and its tributaries. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, such as wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, would be provided. Utilizing various partners, the refuge 

would develop a small environmental education program focusing on karst environments. Although 

the cave is gated and entrance is limited to biological surveys, some cave environmental education 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 51

could still occur; i.e., supervised visits by small groups to observe emergence of gray bats from a safe 

distance during the summer. Limited staff- or volunteer-guided wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation would occur on the surface. 

The refuge would develop a community-based volunteer program by establishing a Cave Steward 

program. Volunteers would be educated on management issues and utilized to help complete wildlife 

and plant surveys, maintenance projects, and public recreation and education programs. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual 

alternative descriptions. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Entry into the cave would continue to be limited to Service personnel and cooperators for the purpose 

of wildlife surveys and limited research. This is necessary to minimize disturbance to the sensitive 

aquatic species and the bats. All entry is prohibited from March through September to prevent 

disturbance to the gray bat maternity colony. Annual monitoring and maintenance of cave gates and 

fences would continue. 

COMPATIBLE USES 

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

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and 

waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be found to be 

compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may 

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect natural resources, including subsurface mineral 

reservations, soil, water and air, and historical and archaeological resources, or that could affect utility 

lines and easements, would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. The Service has a 

legal responsibility to consider the effects of its actions on cultural resources. Under all alternatives, 

the Service would manage these resources in accordance with public law and agency policy. 

Individual projects would require additional consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office. Additional consultation, surveys, and 

clearance would be required where project development is conducted on the refuge or when activities 

would affect properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Land acquisition of tracts adjacent to Service-owned lands, lands within the recharge zone, and 

lands along bat foraging areas would be given priority. Conservation easements and leases 

can be used to obtain interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives. The Service can 

negotiate management agreements with local, State, and Federal agencies, and accept 
52 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

conservation easements. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING 

Refuge revenue-sharing payments are payments made by the Service to counties to offset the loss of 

property tax payments for those tracts taken off the tax rolls. Payments to Benton County would 

continue at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the 

payments would increase accordingly. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Table 3. Comparison of the alternatives for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective Alternative 1 (Current Management) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alte

(Propos

Goal: Fish and Wildlife Populations Objective 1: Benton cave crayfish 

Perform ocular survey biannually. No monitoring. Same as Alter

maintain minim35 individualsrecruitment espredators, if n

Objective 2: Ozark Cavefish 

Perform ocular survey biannually. No monitoring. Same as Alter

maintain minim40 individualsrecruitment espredators, if n

Objective 3: Gray Bat 

Monitor population by annual exit counts and guano surveys. 

No monitoring. Same as Alter

habitat for stapopulation. 

Objective 4: Indiana Bat 

Observe/monitor for presence during crayfish/cavefish surveys. 

No monitoring. Same as Alter

micro-climate suitability. 

Objective 5: Other Karst Species 

The current level of limited monitoring/surveying will continue. 

No monitoring. Maintain all po

species, such pseudoscorpioamphipods, beand other blind subterranean abundance of Identify specieconcern. 
54 Logan Cave Na

Objective Alternative 1 (Current Management) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alte

(Propos

Objective 6: Forest Dwelling Birds 

The current level of limited surveying will continue. 

No surveys. Extensive mon

will occur: basannual, produbird list. 

Goal 2: Habitats Objective 1: Cave System 

Cleanup inside and outside of cave. Identify surface location of the cave, utilizing cave radio equipment. 

No management. Same as Alter

water quality atemperature/hmonthly. Perfwildlife surveyMonitor water adjacent landoeffects on cav

Objective 2: Cave Entrances (Spring and Sinkhole) 

Maintain bat-friendly enclosures once a year. 

No maintenance on enclosures. Inspect and m

at least twice a the sinkhole esediment erostraffic. 

Objective 3: Logan Stream (spring entrance south to Refuge boundary) 

The current level of limited surveying would continue. 

No management. Ensure water 

taken remains refuge purpossensitive aquapool. 

Objective 4: Bat Foraging Habitats 

No management. No management. Identify bat for

BMP’s and wolandowners to increase forescorridors. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Objective Alternative 1 (Current Management) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alte

(Propos

Objective 5: Forest Habitat 

Maintain forest habitat to allow sustained use by forest dwelling birds. 

No management. Perform Conti

Inventory (or swork with partowners to provforested acres refuge, includizone. 

Goal 3: Land Protection Objective 1: Recharge Zone 

Identify landowners in the high, medium, and low areas of the recharge zone. 

No management. Same as Alter

establish partneasements wigovernments, through variouprograms. 

Objective 2: Bat Foraging Area 

No management. No management. Obtain FEMA 

Osage Creek areas through and BMP’s. 

Goal 4: Education and Visitor Services Objective 1: Volunteer Program 

Continue with few to no volunteers. 

No volunteer recruitment. Establish Cav

Educate volunmanagement surveys, mainuse projects. 
56 Logan Cave Na

Objective Alternative 1 (Current Management) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alte

(Propos

Objective 2: Environment Education 

Continue with limited outreach activities. 

No outreach activities. Develop crayf

brochure and environmentainterpretation on karst enviro“bat watch” pr

Objective 3: Scientific Monitoring and Research 

Continue with minimal research and monitoring projects. 

No research and monitoring. Utilize univers

and Federal oexplore reseawould assist in threatened anspecies. Explcompleting undocumentary. 

Goal 5: Refuge Administration Objective 1: Funding and Staffing 

Continue with no refuge resources. 

No refuge resources. Purchase equ

refuge managLogan Cave aposition with EHire public use develop enviroprograms (shaNWR). 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Objective Alternative 1 (Current Management) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alte

(Propos

Objective 2: Law Enforcement 

Continue with occasional site visits from Holla Bend NWR (3-hour trip, one-way. 

No law enforcement activities would occur. 

Complete StaProcedures forescue effortsofficers, FWS AGFC wildlife violations. Peas needed utilequipment. Inminimum of onrefuge law enf
58 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 59

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can 

be reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three alternatives described in the 

previous chapter. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through the 15-year life 

of the CCP. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects would be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President 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 with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is 

anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

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 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon emissions 

and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The conclusions of the 
60 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve 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. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface mineral 

reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and archaeological 

resources would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, any existing and 

future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge would be managed 

identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the same. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers would come from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund; the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; Endangered Species Act; or donations from 

conservation and private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can be used to obtain 

the minimum interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately 

manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate management 

agreements with local, State, and Federal agencies, and accept conservation easements. The 

Service would work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and 

provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Potentially negative effects could include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and 

development of water impoundments within the recharge zone. The National Historic Preservation 

Act requires that any actions by a Federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical 

resources be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must 

be avoided or mitigated. The Service’s policy is to preserve cultural, historic, and archaeological 

resources in the public trust, and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 

For lands under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for protecting and preserving 

cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to destroy archaeological 

artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for cultural resource 

interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Benton County would continue at similar rates 

under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would 

increase accordingly. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 61

OTHER EFFECTS 

Alternative 3 would have minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water quality and quantity; noise; 

transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous materials; waste management; 

aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. Alternatives 1 and 2, however, 

given current and future land development, especially within the recharge zone of the cave, would 

have a significant negative impact on the cave habitat and surrounding environment, thus affecting 

the cave dwelling species and local flora and fauna. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 - CURRENT MANAGEMENT 

The Current Management alternative would maintain the status quo and was developed using 

anticipated conditions in the area of Logan Cave NWR through the year 2022. It assumes that 

current conservation management and land protection programs and activities by the Service and 

State and local agencies would continue to follow past trends over the next 15 years. 

Limited wildlife population monitoring/surveys would occur under Alternative 1. Monitoring and 

surveys would continue to be limited to threatened and endangered species. The refuge’s 

existing forest habitat would continue to receive no treatment; thus forest conditions would not 

improve for forest-nesting birds. No land protection or conservation actions would occur within 

the recharge zone of the cave. This would eventually lead to a significant decline in the refuge’s 

threatened and endangered species populations. Access to the refuge would continue to be 

limited to Service and State employees for wildlife population monitoring. Public use would 

remain closed. Continuing under current conditions, the refuge’s resource management activities 

would be based on decisions made 160 miles away, at Holla Bend NWR, and maintenance and 

law enforcement activities would seldom occur. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 - (NO MANAGEMENT) 

This alternative would mean no management on or in the area of Logan Cave NWR through the year 

2022. It assumes that no conservation management and land protection programs or activities would 

occur from the National Wildlife Refuge System for the next 15 years. This alternative would be 

detrimental to the refuge resources and would not achieve the vision and goals of the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 - PROPOSED ACTION 

Implementing Alternative 3 is considered to be the most effective management action for meeting the 

purposes of Logan Cave NWR and contributing to a sustainable ecosystem. This alternative would 

benefit the recovery of the refuge’s threatened and endangered species and is the Service’s 

proposed management action. 

Under the proposed action, extensive wildlife population monitoring/surveying would occur to assess 

population status, trends, wildlife habitat associations, and population responses to habitat 

management. Monitoring and surveys would be conducted for a broad range of species including: 

all cave-dwelling species, forest-dwelling birds, grassland birds, white-tailed deer, furbearers, 
62 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

amphibians, reptiles, and other resident wildlife. Some surveys would be conducted annually, while 

others would be conducted only frequently enough to determine population status and trends. 

Cave protection, reforestation and forest management, water quality monitoring and management on 

refuge lands and priority lands outside the refuge boundary, especially within the recharge zone of 

the cave, would be the primary habitat management activities. Partners would be utilized to protect 

and enhance habitat on priority lands outside the refuge boundary. 

Under this alternative, conservation efforts would focus on protecting lands within the recharge zone 

of the cave and forested areas along Osage Creek. This would be accomplished through various 

conservation easement programs and through partnerships with private landowners; State, Federal, 

and local governments; and developers. 

This alternative would result in the establishment of a cave steward program where volunteers would 

be educated on management issues and used for surveys, maintenance, and public use projects. 

Literature and environmental education programs, focusing on karst environments, would be 

developed. This would allow for the public to learn about karst systems, including Logan Cave. 

Local universities and State and Federal organizations would be utilized to explore research 

opportunities that would assist in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. With these 

outreach opportunities, awareness of conservation, and of the Service and the Refuge System, 

should increase along with community support. 

Under the proposed action, a refuge position would be added to oversee and participate in all 

activities at Logan Cave NWR. This position would provide technical assistance for local landowners 

interested in restoring or maintaining fish and wildlife habitat on their property and would encourage 

partnerships with local landowners to achieve wildlife and habitat objectives. Another position would 

be utilized to develop karst-related environmental education programs and would assist local 

teachers with curriculum and support materials for use on and off the refuge. These positions would 

also allow for a proactive and preventive law enforcement program. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative 1, the current management alternative, numerous unavoidable impacts would result, 

including law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting the resources; continued degradation of the 

biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat due to surrounding land development 

and groundwater degradation; and a continued decrease in biodiversity. Over time, if these issues were 

not addressed, they would continue to impact refuge resources. 

Under Alternative 2, the no-action alternative, refuge flora and fauna would be significantly impacted. 

Without wildlife and habitat management, law enforcement, environmental education, and active 

partnerships, resources would decline and karst-dependent species would be significantly impacted. 

Under Alternative 3, the proposed alternative, there are some unavoidable impacts. These impacts 

are expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge would attempt to 

minimize these impacts whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge 

would employ to mitigate and minimize the potential impacts that would result from implementation of 

the proposed alternative. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 63

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE AND USE OF HERBICIDES 

Soil disturbance due to trail maintenance and the construction of an observation deck are expected to 

be minor and of short duration. To further reduce potential impacts, the refuge would use best 

management practices to minimize the erosion of soils as well as seasonal restrictions. 

 

Public use would be very limited and foot traffic would have a negligible impact on soil erosion. To 

minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge would include informational signs that request trail 

users to remain on the trails in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems. 

Due to the proximity of the cave and potential for adverse effects on aquatic cave species, no 

herbicides would be used for exotic plant control. Any removal of exotic plants on refuge property 

would be done by hand. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities, such as wildlife observation, may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative would be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered to 

be significant. Nevertheless, the refuge would manage public use activities to reduce impacts. Any 

future hunting opportunities would also be managed with restrictions that ensure minimal impact on 

other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. If the 

refuge determines that impacts from the expected visitor uses are above the levels that are 

anticipated, those uses would be discontinued or have additional restrictions. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that require the 

clearing of non-sensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a minor short-term impact. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

Logan Cave NWR’s resources are too sensitive to allow general public use, therefore, public 

programs would not occur on the refuge without supervision or attendance by refuge staff. Since all 

activities would be planned and prearranged, the only conflicts would be between trespassers and 

law enforcement officials. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, and increased opportunities for viewing wildlife. 
64 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum; there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined in the 

proposed alternative. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. 

The actions proposed for implementation include: wildlife and population management, resource 

protection, and limited public use. These would have direct effects but should not lead to any indirect 

effects that would lead to increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Indirect effects that may result from implementing the proposed alternative include minor impacts 

from siltation due to the disturbance of soils and vegetation when creating a new foot trail and 

constructing the observation deck. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed are dedicated to maintaining the long-term 

productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for long-term productivity far outweigh any 

impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of an observation deck and creation of a 

new trail. While these activities would cause short-term negative impacts, the educational values and 

associated public support gained from the improved visitor experience would produce long-term 

benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. Management actions 

under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, 

implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and land 

conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 65

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which are presented in this Draft CCP/EA. It lists 

the meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in its preparation. No biological or public use reviews were conducted; therefore, no 

biological or public use review teams were formed. 

The following meetings, contacts, and presentations were undertaken by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service during the preparation of this Draft CCP/EA. 

The Service formed a planning team to identify the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge 

management. The team met twice; October 2005 and June 2006. Key tasks of the team 

involved defining and refining the vision; identifying, reviewing, and filtering issues; outlining the 

alternatives; and defining the goals, strategies, and objectives. In April 2006, the planning team 

held a public scoping meeting to gain the insights of local citizens and their perceptions of the 

issues and concerns facing the refuge. 

The planning team members included: 

y Ben Mense, Refuge Manager, Holla Bend/Logan Cave NWR’s 

y Carla Mitchell, Assistant Refuge Manager, Holla Bend/Logan Cave NWR’s 

y David Kampwerth, Karst Biologist, Ecological Services, Conway, Arkansas 

y Steve Hensley, Refuge Manager, Ozark Plateau NWR 

y Tim Snell, Director, Ozark Karst Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fayetteville, Arkansas 

y Blake Sasse, Non-Game Mammal Biologist, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

Jim Besley, GIS Specialist, USFWS, Ecological Services – Conway Field Office, Conway, Arkansas, 

provided Geographical Information Systems, Cartography. 
66 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 67

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: A process in which policy decisions are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help managers 

determine whether current management should continue as is or 

whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Allochthonous: Organic matter synthesized within a drainage basin and brought to lakes 

or streams in various forms of detritus. 

Anthropogenic: A term that refers to the environmental effects, processes, or materials 

from the chemical or biological wastes that are produced from human 

activities. 

Aquifer: Underground water contained in water-holding geological layers. 

Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s): 

Practices determined by State and Federal agencies to be the most 

effective and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of 

water pollution generated by various land uses and construction. 

Biological Diversity: 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 (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

BOD: The biological oxygen demand (BOD) is an approximate measure of the 

amount of biochemically degradable organic matter present in a water 

sample. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 
68 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 

(a)). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible 

uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure 

compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps achieve 

the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets 

other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: 

Conservation: 

Conservation 

Easement:

See Issue 

Conserving natural resources for future generations while using them 

wisely, as opposed to exploitation or total nonuse. 

A legal agreement with a property owner to restrict the clearing of 

habitat, construction, or other activities within a specified zone which 

may be detrimental to wildlife, or their habitat, in return for financial 

benefit such as a payment of an income or estate tax reduction. 

Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators or to escape 

the adverse effects of weather. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. 

Inventories may involve various levels, including background literature 

search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed physical 

manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 
Section C. Appendices 69

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and extent 

of known cultural resources, previous research, management objectives, 

resource management conflicts or issues, and a general statement on how 

program objectives should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview 

should reference or incorporate information from a field office’s background 

or literature search described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Detritus: Dead or decaying organic matter. 

Disturbance: 

Ecoregion:

Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecological region as determined by the Service, but defined by 

geographic similarities. 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

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 basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 
70 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Endemic: 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

Native or confined to a certain region; having a comparatively restricted 

distribution. 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for 

an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence 

and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Epigeal: A term that refers to species that live or grow on or right above the 

surface of the ground. 

Exotic: A plant or animal species not native to the area and introduced 

intentionally or unintentionally. 

Fauna: Animals, including lesser forms, such as insects, mites, etc. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Flora: Plants and trees. 

Floodplain: The flat floor of a valley which is periodically flooded by a river. 

Forage Areas: Vegetated areas with some degree of canopy closure of tree and tall 

shrubs (greater than seven feet in height). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 
Section C. Appendices 71

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar 

plant communities at climax stage. 

Hibernacula: Places where bats hibernate over the winter. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Invertebrates: Animals without a backbone, such as insects or snails. 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

Maternity Cave: Cave used by bats to raise their young. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 
72 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA 

with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making 

(40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all 

national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six 

public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened 

with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by 

the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; 

wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl 

production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory 

Birds: 

Numerous species of birds that spend the winter in the Caribbean, and 

Central and South America and migrate in the springtime across the 

Gulf of Mexico to their breeding and nesting areas in North America. 

 
Section C. Appendices 73

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639). A noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, timespecific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration 

of the environmental influences on the site, such as soils, temperature, 

elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general 

kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision-maker] to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge 

System mission; addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species 

include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) species 

or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines within 

a specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate 

(e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, commercial, 

and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public views 

is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 
74 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit. For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge 

(Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recharge Zone: The surface and groundwater regions that contribute water to Logan 

Cave stream and spring. 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the Federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Reforestation: The natural or artificial restocking of an area with forest trees. 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Riparian: Of or relating to land lying immediately adjacent to a water body and 

having specific characteristics of that transitional area, such as riparian 

vegetation. A stream bank is an example of a riparian area. 

Roost Caves: Caves used by bats to sleep during the day or when they are not 

feeding. 

Sinkhole: A depression in the ground 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching land birds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 
Section C. Appendices 75

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U).

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP, the study area includes the lands within the 

currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge expansion 

areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

Troglobites A term used to refer to cave-adapted species that show lack of eyes and 

pigmentation, with greater development of other sensory organs. 

Troglophiles Species that are commonly found in caves but are also found in suitable 

habitats on the surface. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 
76 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System Mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 
Section C. Appendices 77

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-time equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full-time 

RM Refuge Manual 

ROD Record of Decision 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

TFT Temporary Full-time 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
78 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 79

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 

Aley, T. and Aley, C. 1987. Final Report: Water quality protection studies for Logan Cave, 

Arkansas. Ozark Underground Laboratory contract report to Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 61pp. + Tables and Maps. 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005, Revised 2006. The Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. 1647 pp. + appendices. 

Boyd, Gianetta L. 1997. Metabolic Rates and Life History of Aquatic Organisms Inhabiting Logan 

Cave Stream in Northwest Arkansas. M.S. Thesis. 107pp. 

Brown, Arthur V. 1980. A Proposal to Purchase Logan Cave and the Accompanying Property in 

Benton, County, Arkansas. Unpublished Document, University of Arkansas Fayetteville, 

21pp. 

 Means, Myron L. 1993. Population Dynamics and Movement of Ozark Cavefish in Logan Cave 

National Wildlife Refuge, Benton County, Arkansas, with Additional Baseline Water Quality 

Information. M.S. Thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 126pp. 

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC). 2004. PARC Brochure. Accessed online 

5-31-07 at http://www.parcplace.org/publications.html#about. 

Schultz, William H., and McKenna, Jonathan P. 2004. Engineering Geologic Conditions at the 

Sinkhole Entrance to Logan Cave, Benton County, Arkansas. U. S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2004-1357. 15pp. + App and Maps. 

Sasse, Blake D. 2005. Pesticide Residues in Guano of Gray Bats in Arkansas. Journal of the 

Arkansas Academy of Science. Vol. 59: pp. 214-217. 

The Nature Conservancy, Ozarks Ecoregional Assessment Team. 2003. Ozarks Ecoregional 

Conservation Assessment. Minneapolis, MN: The Nature Conservancy Midwestern 

Resource Office. 48 pp. + 5 appendices. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Accessed online 5-18-2007 at http://www.factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in cooperation with the Gray Bat Recovery Team. 17 pp. + App. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Ozark Cavefish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Atlanta, Georgia. 15pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) Recovery Plan. 

 Atlanta, Georgia. 37pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery 

Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53pp. 
80 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Refuge 

Expansion Environmental Assessment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Community Growth Best Management Practices for 

Conservation of the Cave Springs Cave Recharge Zone. Prepared by David Kampwerth, 

USFWS, Arkansas Field Office. Conway, Arkansas. 14pp. 
Section C. Appendices 81

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive 

Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by Federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American Society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

Strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with Federal funds, or leased by a Federal agency comply 

with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources, and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 
82 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on Federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on Federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge Federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

This Act has as its objective the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

Section 401 of the Act requires that federally permitted activities 

comply with the Clean Water Act standards, State water quality 

laws, and any other appropriate State laws. Section 404 charges 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of 

dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, including 

wetlands. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires States to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of State programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered species 

and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

Federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

Federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

Contains several provisions that contribute to wetland conservation. 

The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert 

wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the law are 

ineligible for most farm program subsidies. It also established the 

Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands through 

easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands 

on such easement areas. 
Section C. Appendices 83

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

Minimizes the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the 

unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of Federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the Federal Government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of Federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the use 

of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other Federal, State 

and local agencies, farmers’ associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each Federal land-managing 

agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an 

office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on 

the agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

States, including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry, 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment, and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources, including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 
84 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

State fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under Federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 Passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife programs 

and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation 

Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts 

and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects 

and appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all Federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Section 15c of the Act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on 

virtually all Service-administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1970, as 

amended 

Designed to help states protect their native game animals and to 

safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign species. This 

Act prohibits interstate and international transport and commerce of 

fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus Federal 

land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 
Section C. Appendices 85

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act” it requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and 

Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the 

protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over Federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of Federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be 

considered in environmental impact statements, and requires that 

Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related 

decision-making and develop means to ensure that unqualified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along 

with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

Established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 
86 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. 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. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single Federal law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966. This Act defines the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses, establishes a formal process 

for determining “compatible uses” of System lands, identifies the 

Secretary of the Interior as responsible for managing and protecting 

the System, and requires the development of a comprehensive 

conservation plan for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

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. North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend 

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for 

up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal lands). 
Section C. Appendices 87

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

Authorizes 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. It 

authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational facilities 

and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund, to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

State fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 Federal funds, at least 1/3 Foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 State funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of Federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior 

to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United 

States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and 

wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the 

Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable 

waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals 

to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, 

and requires Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies be given 

priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military 

reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

Provides, upon determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, that real property no longer needed by a 

Federal agency can be transferred, without reimbursement, to the 

Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory 

birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 
88 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st 

Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives, including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also 

established a grant program to assist States in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

Selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other 

similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every roadless area of 

5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of size 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to recommend 

suitability of each such area as wilderness. The Act permits certain 

activities within designated Wilderness Areas that do not alter 

natural processes. Wilderness values are preserved through a 

“minimum tool” management approach, which requires refuge 

managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and 

facilities necessary for administering the areas. 
Section C. Appendices 89

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to 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, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall 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. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas that are negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Directs Federal agencies are directed to provide 

leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, 

loss of degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring Federal agencies to use the State process to 

determine and address concerns of State and local 

elected officials with proposed Federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires Federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
90 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with State, local, and Tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is the adopted 

standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Directs Federal agencies to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with States and 

Tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on Federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs Federal 

agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and 

their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of Federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Directs Federal agencies 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, accurately 

monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of 

native species and habitat conditions, conduct 

research to prevent introductions and to control 

invasive species, and promote public education on 

invasive species and the means to address them. 

This EO replaces and rescinds EO 11987, Exotic 

Organisms (1977). 
Section C. Appendices 91

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs Federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
92 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 93

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

The process for developing a Draft CCP/EA usually begins with biological and public use reviews. 

Since the planning team members were the most knowledgeable persons as to the biological 

resources of the refuge, and since the refuge is currently closed to all public use, these reviews were 

not conducted. 

On October 28, 2005, the Logan Cave Planning Team was formed to identify issues and concerns 

regarding the refuge and its wildlife, habitats, and management. This team consisted of key staff 

members from Holla Bend and Ozark Plateau NWRs, individuals from the AGFC, TNC, and the 

Service’s Ecological Services’ Office in Conway, Arkansas. The Holla Bend NWR staff included the 

project leader and assistant manager. Ozark Plateau NWR staff included the refuge manager. 

Ecological Services also provided a karst biologist. Outside agency participants included TNC Ozark 

Karst Program biologist, and a State non-game wildlife biologist. The planning team held its initial 

meeting in late 2005, to develop a vision, outline management goals, and provide direction for 

organizing public meetings. 

A Draft CCP/EA mailing list was developed that included the names of individuals from the general 

public, landowners, State agencies, organizations, governments, and other interested agencies. In 

March 2006, announcements of the first public scoping meeting were included in local (Benton 

County) newspapers and one State-wide newspaper. 

On April 20, 2006, a public scoping meeting was conducted at the Logan Community Building to 

obtain comments and concerns about the refuge. A total of 30 people attended the meeting. 

Comment sheets and maps of the refuge and recharge zone were available at the meeting. A brief 

presentation on the planning and environmental compliance processes was given by the project 

leader for Logan Cave NWR. The assistant refuge manager provided the audience with an overview 

of the refuge and wildlife management activities. Following the formal presentations, attendees were 

given the opportunity to express their concerns, thoughts, and ideas on refuge management. 

The planning team met again on June 21, 2006, to finalize the vision statement for the refuge and to 

develop refuge goals, strategies, and projects to be included in the Draft CCP/EA. 

The team meetings and the public scoping meeting provided a list of priority issues that participants 

believed needed to be addressed in the Draft CCP/EA. A list of alternatives to address identified 

issues was developed. The proposed action formed the basis for development of objectives and 

strategies that are expected to achieve the goals identified by the planning team. This process 

ensured that the most important issues would be resolved or given priority over the life of the CCP. 

The planning team identified a number of issues relating to the following: fish and wildlife protection, 

habitat protection and restoration, management of threatened and endangered species, habitat and 

wildlife population surveys, water quality monitoring, contamination monitoring, environmental 

education programs, urban encroachment monitoring, law enforcement, and refuge staffing and 

resources. 
94 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

The public identified the following issues: effects of road paving on the karst environment, effects of 

noise from local development projects on bats, effects of local poultry and livestock operations on 

groundwater quality and cave species, use of cave water for private and public use, land purchases, 

opening of Logan Cave surface land to the public, and staffing the refuge. 

Among the issues identified during the public scoping meeting, several were outside the scope of the plan 

and the authority or the policy of the Service to address. The public was favorable of having the refuge in 

the community and wanted to see the presence of staff and opportunities for public use. 

Priority Issues Addressed by Alternatives: 

y Perform surveys of threatened and endangered species; 

y Provide and protect cave habitat and bat foraging areas; 

y Identify and monitor karst species in the cave, especially those of special concern; 

y Monitor and ensure water quality and quantity for cave aquatic species; 

y Maintain cave entrances and bat friendly enclosures; 

y Develop environmental education and outreach; 

y Establish partnerships with local landowners, governments, and developers; 

y Continue research and monitoring project through the local university; and 

y Hire refuge staff and purchase equipment needed for law enforcement surveillance activities. 
Section C. Appendices 95

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses – These uses as defined by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are determined to be 

appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

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

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. This law provides the 

authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “. . . it is the policy of the 

United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
96 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes 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. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife-dependent recreational development or 

protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of 

off-highway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or 

closed to off-highway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize 

conflict among the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; 

and amend or rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. 

Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles 

when it is determined that the use causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take 

precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 
Section C. Appendices 97

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
98 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ___Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge__________________________________________

Use: ___Research and Monitoring______________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

 X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Section C. Appendices 99

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ___Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge__________________________________________

Use: ___Environmental Education and Interpretation____________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

 X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _ _ No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
100 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 101

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were found to be appropriate and evaluated to determine their 

compatibility with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of the refuge. 

1) Refuge Resource Research and Monitoring; and 2) Environmental Education and 

Interpretation. 

Refuge Name: Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: March 14, 1989. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): The Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, located in 

Benton County, Arkansas, was established on March 14, 1989, by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose: For lands acquired under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C., Section 1534), 

the purpose of the acquisition is “.....to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species..... ” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended 

by Executive Order 10989) 
102 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR 

Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, U.S.C. 668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” and the succeeding sections, “Literature Cited,” “Public Review,” and the “Approval of 

Compatibility Determinations” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive 

use and become part of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

Description of Use: Refuge Resource Research and Monitoring. 

This use will allow university students and professors and governmental scientists’ access to the 

refuge’s cave environment to conduct both short-term and long-term research projects. Allowing this 

research will result in better knowledge of our cave resources and improved techniques to manage, 

monitor, and protect these resources. The refuge will support research of two endangered species, 

the gray bat and cave crayfish, and one threatened species, the Ozark cavefish. A strong effort will 

be made to continue and expand our partnerships with the University of Arkansas on researching 

these rare and unique species. 

Availability of Resources: No additional staff or monetary resources are needed to allow this use. 

Existing staff can administer permits and monitor use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: As long as sound scientific methods are used to conduct research, 

no significant negative impacts should occur from scientific studies on the refuge. The knowledge 

gained would provide information to improve management techniques and better understand the 

needs of these trust resource species. Impacts, such as trampling vegetation and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife, will occur but will be minimal. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

comment period. 
Section C. Appendices 103

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

would be examined on its individual merit. If sound scientific methods are being proposed and refuge 

staff determines that requested research can be conducted without significantly affecting wildlife 

resources, the use will be allowed. The researcher will be issued a special use permit stating the 

conditions that must be followed. Progress will be monitored and researchers will be required to 

submit annual progress reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. Since the 

cave is home to a large maternity colony of gray bats, any research will be done in the winter months 

so there will be no disturbance to the colony. 

Justification: The benefits from scientifically sound research provide a better understanding of this 

very unique habitat and the species that occur there. These benefits far outweigh any short-term 

disturbance that might occur. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation. 

This use will allow limited scheduled and guided environmental education and interpretation 

at the refuge. Off-refuge programs will be conducted to the extent possible. Educating the 

public about the natural resources in their community is the best way to gain their 

cooperation and understanding of refuge management projects.

Availability of Resources: Current and any future refuge staff will be present for on-refuge 

programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: No significant negative impacts will occur from 

environmental education. The knowledge gained by the public will allow a better 

understanding of the trust resource species. On-refuge programs will have impacts, such as 

trampling vegetation and temporary disturbance to terrestrial wildlife, but should be minimal. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

comment period. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
104 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-refuge programs will be scheduled with 

refuge staff conducting the program. No entrance into the cave will be allowed at any time. 

Off-refuge programs can be administered by refuge staff or volunteers. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation about refuge resources provide the 

public a better understanding of this very unique habitat and the species that occur here. 

These benefits far outweigh any short-term disturbance that might occur. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 
Section C. Appendices 105

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
106 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 107

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

Originating Person: Ben Mense 

Telephone Number: 479-229-4300 

E-Mail: ben_mense@fws.gov 

Date: May 30, 2007 

PROJECT NAME:

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Arkansas/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for Logan Cave NWR by adopting the proposed alternative of Ecosystem Emphasis, which will 

provide guidance, management direction, and operation plans for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: Logan Cave Refuge provides essential 

habitat for the endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), endangered Benton cave 

crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), the threatened Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae), 

and historically the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist). 

 Adult female gray bats utilize the cave from March through August as a maternity site 

raising their young. Late summer emergent counts for Logan Cave average around 

20,000 bats. The gray bat is probably one of the most restricted to cave habitats of 

any U.S. mammal. With rare exception, it roosts in caves year-round. Because of 

highly specific roost and habitat requirements, fewer than 5 percent of available caves 

are suitable for occupation by gray bats. 

 Logan Cave is one of only four known habitats for the Benton cave crayfish. Cave 

crayfish are highly specialized for living in stable cave environments with low light and low 

temperatures and are unable to copy with changes in the habitats that may be induced by 
108 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

human activities. Logan has the largest known population of Benton cave crayfish in the 

country. 

 The threatened Ozark cavefish is found in several caves and springs in northwest 

Arkansas, southwest Missouri, and northwest Oklahoma. Logan Cave’s population is 

the second largest known. All of the caves with cavefish contain some comparatively 

large source of allochthonous energy, usually bat guano or leaf litter. 

 Logan Cave was once used a hibernacula site for the Indiana bat, although none have 

been observed for decades. 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) E 

 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) E 

 Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) T 

 Benton cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) E 

 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Arkansas/Red River No. 15 

B. County and State: Benton, Arkansas 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): Section 33, T18N, 

R32W.

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Twenty miles southeast to 

Springdale, AR 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

 Gray bat – females utilize cave during spring and summer as maternity 

 site. 

 Benton cave crayfish – known to occur throughout the cave, most occurrences in 

 upper reaches of the cave stream. 

 

Ozark cavefish – known to occur throughout the cave, most occurrences 

 in upper reaches of the cave stream. 

Indiana bat – historical use of cave as winter hibernacula, no known current use. 

 
Section C. Appendices 109

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

 Gray Bat No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 

 Benton cave crayfish No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 

 Ozark Cavefish No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 

 Indiana Bat No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

 Gray Bat Maintain protection of cave and expand protection of foraging 

habitats. 

 Benton cave crayfish Maintain protection of cave and expand protection of groundwater 

within recharge area of cave stream.

 Ozark Cavefish Maintain protection of cave and expand protection of groundwater 

within recharge area of cave stream.

 Indiana Bat Maintain cave as potential hibernacula. 

 
110 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED NE NA AA

 Gray Bat X Concurrence 

 Benton cave crayfish X Concurrence 

 Ozark Cavefish X Concurrence 

 Indiana Bat X Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested 

is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title
Section C. Appendices 111

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

Title Office 
112 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 113

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of Federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man s 

work substantially unnoticeable; 

2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3) has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

4) does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored through 

appropriate management, at the time of review; and 

5) may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historic 

value. 

SUMMARY OF REFUGE WILDERNESS REVIEW 

The Service inventoried refuge lands within the planning area and found no areas that meet the 

eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, the 

suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not analyzed further in this plan. 
114 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 115

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS OBSERVED ON THE REFUGE 

Great Blue Heron Wood Thrush 

Green Heron American Robin 

Little Blue Heron Gray Catbird 

Canada Goose Loggerhead Shrike 

Wood Duck Northern Mockingbird 

Turkey Vulture Brown Thrasher 

Bald Eagle European Starling 

Red-tailed Hawk Cedar Waxwing 

Killdeer Tennessee Warbler 

Great Horned Owl Black-and-white Warbler 

Morning Dove Northern Parula 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Black-throated Green Warbler 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Yellow Warbler 

Belted Kingfisher Yellow-rumped Warbler 

Red-headed Woodpecker Yellow-throated Warbler 

Red-bellied Woodpecker American Redstart 

Downy Woodpecker Ovenbird 

Hairy Woodpecker Warbling Vireo 

Northern Flicker Kentucky Warbler 

Pileated Woodpecker Hooded Warbler 

Acadian Flycatcher Common Yellowthroat 

Eastern Wood-peewee Yellow-breasted Chat 

Eastern Phoebe Summer Tanager 

Great Crested Flycatcher Eastern Towhee 

Barn Swallow Chipping Sparrow 

Chimney Swift White-breasted Nuthatch 

White-eyed Vireo Field Sparrow 

Louisiana Waterthrush Lincoln’s Sparrow 

Yellow-throated Vireo White-crowned Sparrow 

Red-eyed Vireo White-throated Sparrow 

Blue Jay Dark-eyed Junco 

Fish Crow Northern Cardinal 

American Crow Rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Carolina Chickadee Indigo Bunting 

Tufted Titmouse Red-Winged Blackbird 

Carolina Wren Eastern Meadowlark 

Winter Wren Common Grackle 

Ruby –crowned Kinglet Brown-headed Cowbird 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Baltimore Oriole 

Eastern Bluebird House Finch 

Swainson’s Thrush American Goldfinch 

Hermit Thrush 

 
116 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

OTHER SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR ON THE REFUGE 

Mammals 

 

Gray Bat 

Indiana Bat 

Eastern Pipistrelle 

Big Brown bat 

Beaver 

Raccoon 

Gray and Fox Squirrels 

White-tailed Deer 

Cottontail Rabbits 

Coyote 

Fish and Crustaceans 

Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae)

Cave CrayfishBenton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) 

Banded Sculpin 

Epigean Crayfish

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Cave Salamander 

Grotto Salamander 

Rat Snake 

Copperhead Snake 

Green Treefrog 

Northern Spring Peeper 

Pickerel Frog 

Vegetation 

Blackjack Oak 

Post Oak 

Southern Red Oak 

White Oak 

Black Hickory 

Shagbark Hickory 

River Birch 

American Elm 

American Sycamore 

Sweetgum 

Persimmon 

Flowering Dogwood 

Eastern Redbud 

Poison Ivy 

Green brier 

Common Periwinkle (Vincia minor) 

Various Sedges, Grasses, and Ferns 
Section C. Appendices 117

Appendix J. Budget Requests 

Ben Mense, Project Leader, Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Dardanelle, Arkansas 

Carla Mitchell, Assistant Manager, Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Dardanelle, Arkansas 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

 

RONS Project # 

(Projects Not 

Ranked) 

Project Title One-time 

Cost 

 Annual 

Cost 

07001 Science-based Inventory and Monitoring of 

Refuge Flora and Fauna $20,000 $2,000

07002 

Identify Life History and Requirements for A. 

rosae and C. aculabrum for the Logan Cave 

system. 

$20,000 $5,000 

07003 Purchase Night Vision Equipment for 

monitoring T & E species. $10,000 0

07004 Conduct Study to Identify Hibernacula Used 

by Logan Cave Gray Bat Colony $ 3,000 $1,000 **

07005 Identify Logan Cave Gray Bat Foraging Areas $15,000 $5,000 

07006 Monitor Micro-climate of Logan Cave $ 5,000 $ 500

07007 Monitor Water Quality and Quantity of Logan 

Stream and Spring $20,000 $5,000

07008 Initiate Sinkhole Stabilization Project $5,000 $500

07009 Utilize Cave Radiolocation to Map Cave and 

Surface Relationship $5,000 0

07010 Purchase Surveillance Equipment for Law 

Enforcement $8,000 0

07011 Develop and Print Logan Cave Brochure $ 3,000 $ 600

 07012 Re-establish Refuge Manger Position $160,000 $89,000

 07013 Hire Public Use Specialist $160,000 $70,000
118 Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 

SAMMS 

Project # 

(Small Construction) 

Project Title Estimated 

Cost 

2007734361 Construct Information Kiosk at Logan Cave 

NWR $10,000 

will be assigned by 

Regional Office if 

funded 

Construct Viewing Platform $20,000