Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and... 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Attwater Prairie Chicken
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
December 2011
U.&
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
~:-; ,,- ~l
'+; - ,- ~
:>
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment |
| Description | attwater-draft.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject |
Document Wildlife refuges Planning |
| Location |
Region 2 Texas |
| FWS Site |
ATTWATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | December 2011 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source | NCTC Conservation Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 34517665 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Length | 293 |
| Full Resolution File Size | 34517665 Bytes |
| Transcript | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment December 2011 U.& FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ~:-; ,,- ~l '+; - ,- ~ :><S, ....... , •. '.,. ------- ---- ------ -------------_ ... _---- United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment for the Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The CCP identifies the role that this refuge wiIJ play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The final version of this CCP wiIJ guide management of the Refuge for the next IS years. The CCP has been sent to you because public involvement in the planning process is essential for development of an effective plan. Please review and provide comment on the CCP's contents by January 23, 2012. Conunents should be specific. We wiIJ consider your comments as we prepare the Final CCP. AIJ public comments received, including respondent names and addresses wiIJ be included in the planning record which wiIJ be available for public review. If you, as an individual, wish us to withhold your name or address, state this prominently at the begilming of your cOlmnents. We wiIJ honor your request to the extent aIJowed by law. AIJ comments from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses, wi IJ be avai lable for public inspection. Anonymous comments wiIJ not be considered. Comments should be mailed, e-mailed, or provided oralJy by January 23, 2012 to: Monica Kimbrough, Planning Team Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWRS Division of Planning P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Phone: (505) 248-6642 Emai l: monica_kimbrough@fws.gov Thank you for your participation in our plmming process. Your comments wi IJ help us prepare a better plan for the future of the Refuge. Sincerely, Jeannie Wagner-Greven Chief, Division of Plmming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission Statement The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission Statement The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. -National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ATTWATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Austin and Colorado Counties, Texas Prepared by: Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 519 Eagle Lake, TX 77434 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Division of Planning P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Table of Contents Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i Vision Statement ..................................................................................................................................................... iiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the CCP ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition ................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Refuge Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3 Planning Context ................................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................... 1-12 1.3.2.1 Legal and Policy Guidance ..................................................................................... 1-12 1.3.3 Setting the Stage for Planning: Identifying the Landscape Context ........................................ 1-15 1.3.3.1 Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 1-15 1.3.3.2 National Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................. 1-16 1.3.3.3 Regional Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 1-18 1.3.3.4 State and Local Plans and Initiatives....................................................................... 1-19 1.3.3.5 Species-specific Plans and Initiatives ....................................................................... 1-20 1.3.4 Coordination with the State of Texas ...................................................................................... 1-21 2.0 THE PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Preplanning ............................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Determine Issues ................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.5 Prepare Draft Plan and EA ..................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 Prepare and Adopt Final Plan ................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate ................................................................................................. 2-7 2.8 Review and Revise Plan ......................................................................................................................... 2-7 3.0 REFUGE RESOURCES AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Landscape Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Central Flyway .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Strategic Habitat Conservation and Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative 3-2 3.1.3 Ecoregion Setting ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.3.1 Terrestrial Description .............................................................................................. 3-5 3.1.3.2 Aquatic Description .................................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.4 Protected Areas in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion ......................................... 3-6 3.1.5 Conservation Corridors ............................................................................................................. 3-7 3.1.6 Refuge Location ........................................................................................................................ 3-7 3.1.7 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................. 3-7 3.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.3 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.2.5 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.2.6 Concerns Regarding the Physical Environment ...................................................................... 3-14 Table of Contents ii Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3.3 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.3.1 Habitat Types .......................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.1.1 Vegetation Classes .................................................................................................. 3-21 3.3.1.2 Natural Disturbance Processes ................................................................................ 3-22 3.3.1.3 Historical Habitat Description ................................................................................. 3-23 3.3.1.4 Estimated Conditions due to Climate Change......................................................... 3-24 3.3.1.5 Concerns Regarding Refuge Habitat ....................................................................... 3-24 3.3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.3.2.1 Priority Species ....................................................................................................... 3-26 3.3.2.2 Focal/Representative Species .................................................................................. 3-28 3.3.2.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 3-28 3.3.2.4 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 3-30 3.3.2.5 Reptiles .................................................................................................................... 3-30 3.3.2.6 Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 3-31 3.3.2.7 Fish .......................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.3.2.8 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................ 3-31 3.3.2.9 Concerns Regarding Wildlife Populations .............................................................. 3-31 3.4 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................................................ 3-33 3.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.4.2 Economy ................................................................................................................................. 3-34 3.4.2.1 Regional Economic Profile ..................................................................................... 3-34 3.4.2.2 Economic Significance of the Refuge ..................................................................... 3-35 3.5 Archeological, Cultural and Historical Resources ............................................................................... 3-36 3.6 Current Management ............................................................................................................................ 3-38 3.6.1 Administration ......................................................................................................................... 3-38 3.6.1.1 Staffing .................................................................................................................... 3-38 Administrative Facilities ......................................................................................................... 3-39 3.6.1.2 Oil and Gas Operations and Management ............................................................... 3-40 3.6.1.3 Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 3-40 3.6.1.4 Memorandums of Understanding and Other Agreements ....................................... 3-40 3.6.1.5 Law Enforcement and Resource Protection ............................................................ 3-41 3.6.1.6 Safety ...................................................................................................................... 3-41 3.6.2 Habitat Management ............................................................................................................... 3-41 3.6.3 Wildlife Management .............................................................................................................. 3-43 3.6.4 Visitor Services and Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 3-45 3.6.4.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Opportunities ........................................................ 3-45 3.6.4.2 Public Use Areas ..................................................................................................... 3-46 3.6.4.3 Public Use Access ................................................................................................... 3-46 3.6.4.4 Public Use Facilities ................................................................................................ 3-46 3.6.5 Special Management Areas ..................................................................................................... 3-49 3.6.5.1 Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................... 3-49 3.6.5.2 Research Natural Areas ........................................................................................... 3-49 3.6.5.3 Other Special Management Areas ........................................................................... 3-49 3.6.5.4 Concerns Regarding Special Management Areas ................................................... 3-50 3.6.6 Land Protection and Acquisition ............................................................................................. 3-50 Table of Contents Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment iii 3.6.7 Cultural Resource Management .............................................................................................. 3-50 4.0 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 4.1 Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................................................... 1 4.2 Goal 1: Habitat Management .................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 Goal 2: Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4 Goal 3: Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................ 4-11 4.5 Goal 4: Facilities Management ............................................................................................................. 4-14 5.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING...................................................................................................... 1 5.1 Personnel and Budget Needs ..................................................................................................................... 1 5.1.1 Personnel ..................................................................................................................................... 1 5.1.2 Budget ...................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2.1 Existing Budget ......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2.2 Additional Budget Needs .......................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Appropriate Refuge Uses and Compatibility .......................................................................................... 5-4 5.2.1 Appropriate Refuge Uses .......................................................................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3 Intra-Service Section 7 (Endangered Species Act Consultation) ........................................................... 5-4 5.4 Step-Down Management Plans .............................................................................................................. 5-5 5.4.1 Current Step-Down Plans .......................................................................................................... 5-5 5.4.2 Future Step-Down Plans ............................................................................................................ 5-5 5.5 Refuge Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.5.1 Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.5.1.1 Habitat Management Projects ................................................................................... 5-5 5.5.1.2 Wildlife Management Projects .................................................................................. 5-6 5.5.1.3 Visitor Services Projects ........................................................................................... 5-6 5.5.2 Future Projects ........................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.5.2.1 Habitat Management Projects ................................................................................... 5-6 5.5.2.2 Wildlife Management Projects .................................................................................. 5-8 5.5.2.3 Visitor Services Projects ........................................................................................... 5-8 5.5.2.4 Facilities Management Projects ................................................................................ 5-9 5.6 Partnerships ......................................................................................................................................... 5-10 5.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.8 Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................ 5-11 CCP Preparation and Planning Team Terminology Glossary Abbreviations and Acronyms Table of Contents iv Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Appendices Appendix A Key Legislation and Service Policies Appendix B Environmental Assessment Appendix C Species List Appendix D Draft Compatibility Determinations Appendix E Wilderness Review Appendix F Intra-Service Section 7, Consultation Appendix G Evaluation Plan Appendix H Ecoregion Table Appendix I References Figures Figure 2-1. The Planning Process ........................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1. Population Growth from 2000-2008 listed by percentages. ............................................................... 3-33 Figure 3-2. Gulf Coast Region Industrial Employment from 2004-2014. ............................................................ 3-35 Tables Table 2-1. Concerns Grouped by Category and Listed by Stakeholder .................................................................. 2-3 Table 3-1. Austin County Population 2000-2030 ................................................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-2. Colorado County Population 2000-2030 ............................................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-3. Household Income by County ............................................................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-4. Refuge buildings................................................................................................................................. 3-39 Table 5-1. Existing Personnel ................................................................................................................................ 5-2 Table 5-2. Additional Personnel Beyond Current Levels Needed to Implement the CCP ..................................... 5-2 Table 5-3. Current Budget and Additional Budget Needs ...................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-4. Inventorying and Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 5-12 Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... B-24 Table 2. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring .................................................................................................... B-26 Table 1. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative............................................................................... B-58 Maps Map 1-1. Refuge Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Map 1-2. Acquisition Project Area ......................................................................................................................... 1-9 Map 3-1. Landscape Scale Conservation ................................................................................................................ 3-3 Map 3-2. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion ........................................................................................... 3-9 Map 3-3. Vegetation Map, West Section .............................................................................................................. 3-17 Map 3-4. Vegetation Map, East Section ............................................................................................................... 3-19 Map 3-5. Refuge Facilities Map – West ............................................................................................................... 3-47 Map 4-1. Refuge Units........................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Map 4-2. Proposed Trail and Auto Tour Route Changes ..................................................................................... 4-13 Map 4-3. Roads to be Removed ............................................................................................................................ 4-16 Map 4-4. 3 Year Plan (Phase 1) Fence Removal Schedule .................................................................................. 4-19 Map 4-5. 15 Year Plan (Phase II) Fence Removal Schedule ................................................................................ 4-20 Map B–1. Prairie Burn Sequence ........................................................................................................................ B-14 Map B–2. Grazed and Ungrazed Prairies Map .................................................................................................... B-16 Map B–3. Disturbed and Undisturbed Areas ....................................................................................................... B-21 Map E–1. Wilderness Review Map ........................................................................................................................ E-3 Booming Attwater’s prairie-chicken male. CREDIT: Noppadol Paothong Vision Statement Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge will protect and ensure the survival of the Attwater’s prairie-chicken, allowing the population to reach a measurable level of ecological and genetic stability so that it can be downlisted to threatened status and ultimately removed from the endangered species list. The Refuge will preserve and protect one of the last remnant coastal prairies within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion. The refuge will also serve as a resilient source of evolving habitats and ecosystem processes even as structure and composition are altered due to climate change. Through compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, the refuge will promote a strong conservation ethic and foster a greater understanding and appreciation of the coastal prairie ecosystem, Attwater’s prairie-chicken recovery efforts, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will work closely with State and Federal agencies, regional organizations, local landowners, and municipalities to achieve mutual conservation goals for the benefit of present and future generations. [This page intentionally left blank.] Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-1 Sunset at APCNWR. CREDIT: Wade Gurley 1.0 INTRODUCTION Established in 1972, Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or APCNWR) is home to one of the last populations of the critically endangered Attwater’s prairie-chicken (APC) (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri), a ground-dwelling grouse of the coastal prairie ecosystem. The Refuge is one of the largest remnants of coastal prairie habitat remaining in southeast Texas. This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years. The CCP provides a description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance to accomplish the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The CCP and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA) address U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) legal mandates, policies, goals, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The EA (Appendix B) presents a range of alternatives for habitat and wildlife management, visitor services, and facilities management that consider issues and opportunities on the Refuge. It also identifies, describes, and compares the consequences (or impacts) of implementing management alternatives (including current management) on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment described in this CCP. The Final CCP will be developed through modifications made after the public review process and will replace current management direction when it is finalized. The CCP is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides information about why the Service is developing this plan; a brief overview Chapter 1: Introduction 1-2 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment of the Refuge, including its establishment, authorizing legislation, and description of its purposes; information on the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System or System); and the laws, policies, and guidance that sets the stage for management direction. Chapter 2, The Planning Process, explains the process used to develop the CCP consistent with planning requirements. Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Current Management, explains the landscape setting; physical, biological, and socio-economic environment; and the current management programs on the Refuge. Chapter 4, Management Direction, describes the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative B). Finally, Chapter 5, Plan Implementation and Monitoring, describes the various tools the Refuge will use to implement the management direction presented in this plan. 1.1 Purpose and Need for the CCP The purpose of comprehensive conservation planning is to provide long-range guidance for the management of national wildlife refuges, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). The CCP will enhance the management of APCNWR by: • providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge; • providing long-term continuity in Refuge management; • communicating the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge to its partners, neighbors, visitors, and the general public; • providing an opportunity for the public to help shape the future management of the Refuge; • ensuring that management programs on the Refuge are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System and the purposes for which the Refuge was established; • ensuring that the management of the Refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans; and • providing a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. The CCP is needed to provide guidance and rationale for management actions and will be used by the Refuge manager and staff as a reference document when developing work plans, step-down plans, and making management decisions. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the Refuge contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, fulfills the purposes designated for the Refuge, and uses the best available science for adaptive management. The goals established for the Refuge include the following: • Provide quality grassland habitat to support Attwater’s prairie-chickens and other grassland dependent species native to the Gulf coastal prairie ecosystem; • Maintain and enhance healthy populations of wildlife, with the recovery of Attwater’s prairie-chicken being the priority; • Provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy and appreciate the Refuge, its fish and wildlife, and its management activities through compatible wildlife-dependent recreation programs, and • Provide high-quality, safe, environmentally responsible facilities to support Refuge operations and enhance visitor experiences. By preparing this CCP, documenting our goals and objectives, and involving our partners and the public in the process, we can gain a better understanding of the issues—from all sides. Sustaining the nation’s fish and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-3 through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens. This CCP will help explain how Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR fits into the larger landscape and our role in protecting our natural resources for present and future generations. 1.2 Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, located approximately 60 miles west of Houston, Texas, is one of the largest remnants of coastal prairie habitat remaining in southeast Texas and home to one of the last populations of the critically endangered Attwater's prairie-chicken, a ground-dwelling grouse of the coastal prairie ecosystem (Map 1-1. Refuge Location Map). Formerly occupying some six million acres of coastal prairie habitat, the Attwater's prairie-chicken was once one of the most abundant resident birds of the Texas and Louisiana tall grass prairie ecosystem (Lehmann 1941). Presently, less than 200,000 fragmented acres of coastal prairie habitat remain, leaving the birds scattered among three Texas counties (USFWS 2010). The Refuge is one of a handful of national wildlife refuges managed specifically for an endangered species; however, many recovery activities (i.e., captive breeding and release program) for this imperiled bird and management of its declining ecosystem (Coastal Prairie Conservation Initiative) go beyond the Refuge's boundaries. Once numbering near one million birds, the decline of the Attwater’s prairie-chicken population coincided with the period of rapid European settlement of the Texas coastal prairies and their conversion to agricultural use during the late 1800s. The state offered protection as early as 1897 by shortening the length of the hunting season to avoid the breeding season, and hunting seasons for the bird were further shortened and then eventually closed in 1937. A dramatic decline of the Attwater’s prairie-chicken population in the 1960s, combined with increasing national interest in the listing and protection of endangered species, brought about the focused attention of many conservationists and conservation agencies. Since the 1930s, biologist Valgene Lehmann had chronicled the decline in a series of reports, including a Journal of Wildlife Management article in 1963 in which he wrote “Attwater’s prairie-chicken is very definitely beyond the point of no return.” In 1965, Lehmann was approached by I.V. Duncan and his son Gardner Duncan with an offer to sell 2,580 acres of their land in Colorado County, and Mr. and Mrs. David Wintermann agreed to sell an adjoining 840 acres. Under the guidance of former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dr. Ira Gabrielson, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) secured funding to acquire both properties at approximately half their market value to establish a preserve for the Attwater’s prairie-chicken. Both families donated the balance of the value of these initial 3,500 acres. Mr. Howard Dogden, former Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Director in charge of all WWF lands in Texas, hired local retired State game warden Thomas T. Waddell as a part-time caretaker of the original preserve. Mr. Waddell had worked to protect the prairie-chickens in the area of the refuge since the hunting seasons were closed in 1937. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Refuge boundary sign in 1973. CREDIT: USFWS In 1967, the Service contracted Lehmann to update his initial 1937 report on the status of the Attwater’s prairie-chicken. The new report showed alarming trends in the population, from 8,700 birds in 1937 to only 1,070 birds 30 years later. In 1967, the prairie-chicken was designated as endangered when the first list of native fish and wildlife threatened with extinction was published in the Federal Register. The Refuge was proposed for establishment by the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (precursor to the Service) on July 16, 1968, when he formally approved a memorandum from his Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, which recommended the new refuge. In that year, the National Park Service designated the WWF lands as the Attwater Prairie-Chicken Preserve National Natural Landmark, part of their National Natural Landmarks Program. San Bernard River in 1967. CREDIT: USFWS Although these early acquisitions served as the first core sanctuary, the Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge was not officially established until July 1, 1972, when 687 acres were purchased by the Service from the Verhuel Estate at the site of the present refuge headquarters. The WWF managed their 3,467-acre preserve until 1973 when it was leased with an option to purchase by the Service. The original Wintermann lands were finally sold to the Service in 1976, and the former Duncan Tract was donated to the Service in 1977. Several other important tracts were acquired in the 1970s, and by January 1980, a core area of 7,984 acres had been acquired for the refuge. The Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is a permanent "non development" fee title refuge located within the Gulf Coast Ecosystem of Austin and Colorado counties, Texas. The Attwater's Prairie-Chicken Recovery Plan (1993) included a recovery action to protect an additional 20,000 acres of native coastal prairie grasslands as one of its primary actions needed to meet the recovery objective and resultant delisting of the APC. The 1998 Final Land Protection Compliance Documents and Conceptual Management Plan for Proposed Additions to Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge approved an acquisition boundary for an additional 22,000 acres as shown in the Acquisition Project Area Map (Map 1-2). The acquisition of specific lands within the approved acquisition area from willing sellers and donors would establish or reconnect corridors between remnants of coastal prairie in Austin County and the main refuge tract in Colorado County, in hopes of sustaining a healthy APC population. Approximately 2,500 acres of coastal prairie habitat have since been purchased in Austin and Colorado counties, bringing the total refuge management area to approximately 10,538 acres. The Refuge is specifically managed to maintain or improve native coastal prairie communities for APC reintroduction and survival, as well as for the benefit of other important fish and wildlife resources. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-7 1.2.1 Refuge Purpose National wildlife refuges are established under a variety of legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities. These orders and authorities include one or more specific purposes for which the refuge lands are acquired. The purposes are of key importance in refuge planning and are the foundation for management decisions. The purposes of a refuge are 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 subunit. By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes and, unless otherwise indicated by the establishing document, the following rules apply: • Purposes dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats take precedence over other management and administration purposes. • When in conflict, the purpose of an individual refuge may supersede the Refuge System mission. • Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. • When an additional unit is acquired under a different authority then that used to establish the original unit, the addition takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the addition. The establishing authorities and related purposes for the Refuge include: • “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species....or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and; • “...for the development, advancement, management, conservation and protection of fish and wildlife resources...” Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4), as amended, and “...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1), as amended. 1.3 Planning Context The Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is part of a national system of more than 550 refuges. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service places an emphasis on managing individual refuges in a manner that reflects the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. As a result, the CCP must also contribute to meeting the overall system mission and goals. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-8 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment [This page intentionally left blank.] §¨¦10 PRODUCED IN THE DIVISION OF REFUGE PLANNING ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 5/31/09 MAP DATE: May, 2011 BASEMAP: N/A MERIDIAN: N/A FILE: atw_acquisition_5.5.11_shl UTM ZONE 14 NAD 83 0 1 2 4 Miles 0 1 2 4 Kilometers !( !(!( !( !( !( Austin Dallas Houston El Paso Fort Worth San Antonio ^ Attwater NWR Legend Streams Road County Border Pond Private Inholding Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Acquisition Project Area To Columbus To Eagle Lake Sealy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Project Area Austin/Colorado County, Texas Map 1-2. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-11 1.3.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service has a primary responsibility to manage and protect Federal trust species, which includes migratory birds, threatened species, endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, marine mammals, and other species of concern. In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service also operates national fish hatcheries, fishery resource offices, and Ecological Services field stations. The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, administers the Endangered Species Act, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps Native American tribal governments and foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is: “working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Chapter 1: Introduction 1-12 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only existing system of federally owned lands managed chiefly for the conservation of wildlife. Founded in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of Pelican Island as a refuge for brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), the Refuge System consists of over 150 million acres with over 551 refuges and 37 wetland management districts in all 50 states and U.S. territories. National wildlife refuges host a tremendous variety of plants and animals supported by a variety of habitats from arctic tundra and prairie grasslands to subtropical estuaries. Most national wildlife refuges are strategically located along major bird migration corridors, ensuring that ducks, geese, and songbirds have rest stops on their annual migrations. Many refuges are integral to the protection and survival of plant and animal species listed as endangered. The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. The goals of the Refuge System are to: • conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; • develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges; • conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts; • provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation); and • foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. The mission of the Refuge System is: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57). 1.3.2.1 Legal and Policy Guidance Refuge management and administrative activities are dictated, in large part, by the legislation that created the unit and its purposes and goals. However, other laws, regulations, and policies also guide management. The Refuge is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System, Service policy, Federal laws and Executive orders, and international treaties. The list of all laws, treaties, and Executive orders pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources is provided in Appendix A. Key laws and policies directly related to comprehensive conservation planning are further discussed in the following text. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-13 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, states that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which the individual refuge was established. It also requires that any use of a refuge be a compatible use—a use that will not materially interfere with nor detract from, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge. The 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 identified a number of principles to guide management of the Refuge System. They include the following: • Conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System • Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System • Coordinate, interact, and cooperate with adjacent landowners and State fish and wildlife agencies • Maintain adequate water quantity and quality to meet refuge and Refuge System purposes and acquire necessary water rights • Maintain hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System • Provide opportunities for compatible priority wildlife-dependent public uses with the Refuge System • Provide enhanced consideration for priority wildlife-dependent public uses over the other general public uses in planning and management • Provide increased opportunities for families to experience priority general public uses, especially traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting • Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge The Improvement Act establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge System; requires a CCP for each refuge by the year 2012; and provides guidelines and directives for the administration and management of all areas in the Refuge System, including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. To maintain the health of individual refuges and the National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole, managers must anticipate future conditions. Managers must endeavor to avoid adverse impacts and take positive actions to conserve and protect refuge resources. Effective management also depends on acknowledging resource relationships and acknowledging that refuges are parts of larger ecosystems. Refuge managers work together with partners—including other refuges, Federal and State agencies, tribal and other governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and groups, and private landowners—to protect, conserve, enhance, or restore native fish, wildlife (including invertebrates), plants, and their habitats. Appropriate Use Policy This policy describes the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use as defined by the Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual) is a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions: • The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-14 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment • The use contributes to the fulfilling of 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. • The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. • The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Chapter 5 of this CCP includes additional information on appropriateness of refuge uses. Compatibility Policy Lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple use public lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. The Improvement Act states, “... the Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety.” In accordance with the Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2 of the Service Manual) that includes guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a national wildlife refuge is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. A compatible use is defined in the policy as a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Sound professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when they are compatible. If financial resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the State and other conservation interests. Additional information regarding compatibility determinations (CDs) is provided in Chapter 5, and the CDs prepared in association with this CCP are provided in Appendix D. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” To implement this directive, the Service has issued the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3 of the Service Manual), which provides policy for maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. The policy is an Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-15 additional directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving the refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuge and associated ecosystems. Further, it provides refuge managers with an evaluation process to analyze their refuges and recommend the best management direction to prevent further degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded components where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. 1.3.3 Setting the Stage for Planning: Identifying the Landscape Context 1.3.3.1 Climate Change Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226, signed January 19, 2001, and reinstated on February 22, 2010, by Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment No. 1, states that “there is a consensus in the international community that global climate change is occurring and that it should be addressed in governmental decision making… This Order ensures that climate change impacts are taken into account in connection with Departmental planning decision making”. Additionally, it calls for the consideration of anticipated impacts of climate change into long-term planning documents such as this CCP. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that direct temperature measurements at weather stations worldwide suggest that the surface of Earth has warmed, on average, 1.0 °C (1.8 °F) in the last 100 years. The data for the Southwest show an increase in temperature between 1.1°C to 1.7°C during the past century and project a global increase of 1.7°C to 4.4°C by 2099, with a best estimate increase of 2.8°C. The last 10 years have been the warmest decade on record, during which global sea level has risen about 20 centimeters (cm). The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. The IPCC also concludes that substantial increases in global average temperatures will cause major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions, and species’ geographical ranges. These projected changes have enormous implications for management of fish, wildlife, and their habitats around the world. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development” defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in the CCP would conserve or restore land and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the Refuge. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate change. Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts (grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert) are effective both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric CO2. The Department of Energy report concludes that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. One Service activity in particular—prescribed burning—releases CO2 directly into the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et al. 2006). Chapter 1: Introduction 1-16 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment In September 2010, the Service released a strategic approach to climate change, Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change, found in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.3.2, National Plans and Initiatives. Possible effects were considered in the development of the objectives and strategies in this CCP. Implementation of all the strategies for monitoring and surveys will emphasize identification and analysis of the effects of climate change on the various habitats and species. In addition, implementation of all strategies will emphasize energy conservation and/or use of alternative energy sources when feasible. Additional information on possible climate change impacts to the Refuge are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.5. 1.3.3.2 National Plans and Initiatives USFWS Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change (2010) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service climate change strategy establishes a basic framework within which the Service will work as part of the larger conservation community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, plants and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change. The plan is implemented through a dynamic action plan that details specific steps the Service will take during the next five years to implement the Strategic Plan. The plan focuses on three key strategies to addressing climate change: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement. For the Service, adaptations are planned, science-based management actions, including regulatory and policy changes, that we take to help reduce the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Adaptation forms the core of the Service’s response to climate change and is the centerpiece of our Strategic Plan (USFWS 2010). Mitigation involves reducing our “carbon footprint” by using less energy, consuming fewer materials, and appropriately altering our land management practices, such as wildlife food production. Mitigation is also achieved through biological carbon sequestration, the process in which CO2 from the atmosphere is taken up by plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in tree trunks, branches, and roots. Engagement involves reaching out to Service employees; local, national, and international partners in the public and private sectors; key constituencies and stakeholders; and everyday citizens to join forces and seek solutions to the challenges to fish and wildlife conservation posed by climate change. Our goal is to achieve carbon neutrality as an organization by 2020 (USFWS 2010). By building knowledge and sharing information in a comprehensive and integrated way, the Service, its partners, and stakeholders will increase our understanding of global climate change impacts and use our combined expertise and creativity to help wildlife resources adapt in a climate-changed world. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (2004) The Partners in Flight (PIF) North American Landbird Conservation Plan provides a continental synthesis of priorities and objectives that guide landbird conservation actions at the national and international scales. When combined with plans written for shorebirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, and other game birds, it can serve as a blueprint for continental habitat conservation under the North American Bird conservation Initiative (NABCI). The PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan summarizes broad patterns based on comprehensive, biologically-based species assessment. The plan identifies 100 landbird species that warrant inclusion on the PIF Watch List due to a combination of threats to their habitats, declining populations, small population sizes, or limited distributions. Of these, 28 species require immediate action to protect small remaining populations, and 44 are in need of management to reverse long-term declines. On APCNWR, 21 “Watch List” species have been documented. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-17 The Refuge occurs within PIF Physiographic Area #06, the Coastal Prairies, which ranges from the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana, to Baffin Bay, Texas. The inland boundary of this area ranges from 24 to 240 miles from the coast, capturing a complex of marshes, upland grassland, coastal woodlands, and a small amount of forested habitat. Nearly all grassland habitats have been converted to agricultural use, primarily pasture lands and rice farms. Forested areas include bottomland hardwood forests, which are found along the major river systems that drain the Coastal Prairies range. The Refuge has a mix of these habitats, particularly Gulf coastal prairie. These habitat types that occur on the Refuge will be protected and maintained for the benefit of PIF species where compatible with this Refuge’s mission. Birds adapted to grassland habitats are especially expected to benefit from management occurring on APCNWR. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004) The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international plan to conserve waterfowl and migratory birds in North America. It was established in 1986 by Canada and the United States, and it expanded to include Mexico in 1994. The plan was updated in 1998 and 2004 and is scheduled for revision in 2012. The essence of the original plan was that waterfowl populations could only recover through habitat conservation at the continental scale. The plan identified general objectives for habitat conservation in five key priority regions, with the acknowledgement that each region would convert the objectives into local action plans. Regional partnerships, called joint ventures, are the implementing mechanisms of the NAWMP. There are 14 joint ventures in the U.S. today. Cumulatively, they have conserved 13,131,754 acres of habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. Within the Gulf Coast Joint Venture are six initiative areas. Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR occurs in the “Texas Mid-Coast Initiative Area.” This initiative area is comprised of 16 counties from San Patricio County to Harris County and inland. The goal of the Texas Mid-Coast Initiative Area is to provide wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of dabbling ducks (Anas sp.), redheads (Aythya americana), lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens), and greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons), as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) (Wilson and Esslinger 2002). For example, specific midwinter population objectives call for about two million ducks (13 species) in the Mid- Coast Initiative Area and about 770,000 geese (three species). U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is designed to complement the existing landscape-scale conservation efforts of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. It seeks to stabilize populations of all shorebirds that are in decline because of factors affecting habitat in the United States. At a regional level, the plan’s goal is to ensure that shorebird habitat is available in adequate quantity and quality to support shorebird populations in each region. At the national scale, its goal is to stabilize populations of all shorebird species known or suspected of being in decline due to limiting factors occurring within the U.S. while ensuring that common species are also protected from future threats. Ultimately, the goal of the plan is to restore and maintain shorebird populations throughout the western hemisphere through an international partnership. There are 214 kinds of shorebirds worldwide, 53 of which regularly occur in the U.S and 29 of which occur on the Refuge. The Refuge hosts two highly imperiled species, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) and long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and 10 species of high concern. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-18 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1.3.3.3 Regional Plans and Initiatives North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Bird Conservation Region Descriptions (2000) The purpose of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is to ensure the long-term health of North America’s native bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of existing and new bird conservation initiatives, enhancing coordination among the initiatives, and fostering greater cooperation among the continent’s three national governments and their people. In 1999, the U.S. NABCI approved a framework for delineating ecologically-based planning, implementation, and evaluation units for cooperative bird conservation in the U.S. and Canada known as Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). Bird Conservation Regions are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR falls within BCR 37 (Gulf Coast Prairie). In this area, flat grasslands and marshes hug the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from northern Tamaulipas, across the mouth of the Río Grande, up into the rice country of southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana, and across the great Louisiana marshlands at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Some 318 species of birds regularly occur in this BCR, and at least 45 more migrate through the region in the spring and/or fall. This BCR features one of the greatest concentrations of colonial waterbirds in the world, with breeding reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), brown pelican, and large numbers of herons, egrets, ibis, terns, and skimmers. The region provides critical in-transit habitat for migrating shorebirds, including buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) and hudsonian godwit (Limosa haemastica), and for most of the neotropical migrant forest birds of eastern North America. Mottled duck, fulvous whistling-duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), and purple gallinule (Porphrio porphyris) also breed in wetlands, and winter numbers of waterfowl are among the highest on the continent. These include dabbling ducks (especially northern pintail [Anas acuta] and gadwall [Anas strepera]), redhead, lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), and white-fronted geese from both the Central and the Mississippi Flyways. The most important waterfowl habitats of the area are coastal marsh, shallow estuarine bays and lagoons, and wetlands on agricultural lands of the rice prairies. This BCR, as mentioned previously, features one of the greatest concentrations of colonial waterbirds in the world. Loss and degradation of wetland habitats due to subsidence, sea-level rise, shoreline erosion, freshwater and sediment deprivation, saltwater intrusion, oil and gas canals, and navigation channels and associated maintenance dredging are the most important problems facing the area’s wetland wildlife. Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Gulf Coastal Prairie Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 37 (2008) The PIF Bird Conservation Plan for this BCR is a step-down plan from the 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan that focuses on seven species of concern: the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), Le Conte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) and seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus). They regularly occur in the BCR and are listed in the North American Landbird Conservation Plan as in need of conservation action, as PIF feels they have been underrepresented in conservation efforts. APCNWR is home to four of the seven: loggerhead shrike, northern bobwhite quail, Swainson’s warbler, and Le Conte’s sparrow. The BCR plan outlines conservation recommendations for each species with the understanding that conservation measures would also benefit other bird species that live in the same habitat and would addresses the three major habitat types in the BCR of importance to landbirds: forests, grasslands, and emergent wetlands. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-19 Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Conservation Plan (2002) The Nature Conservancy (TNC) developed an ecoregional approach to conservation in 1996 that stated that biodiversity conservation required working at larger scales and along ecological instead of geopolitical lines. The goal of ecoregion-based conservation is the design and conservation of portfolios of conservation areas that will collectively ensure the long-term survival of the ecoregion’s biodiversity. The conservation areas depicted in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes (GCP&M) Ecoregional Conservation Plan are intended as a prioritization management tool for conservation action and resources. The plan contains supporting data for each site, as well as an ecoregional management strategy applicable to each management area. Management areas are prioritized by biodiversity and threats. Results and data from the ecoregional plan can be used to create site-specific conservation plans like the APCNWR CCP. The GCP&M is an area of approximately 24 million acres covering parts of Texas, Louisiana, and into Mexico. The GCP&M Ecoregional Plan identifies approximately 86 conservation areas encompassing 36 percent of the GCP&M ecoregion. 1.3.3.4 State and Local Plans and Initiatives In administering the Refuge System, the Service will ensure that the CCP complements State and local efforts to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats. During the development of the CCP, the Service is required to consult and coordinate with affected State conservation agencies, as well as adjoining Federal, local, and private landowners. The Service is required to ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation in a timely and effective manner with the State during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. Under the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 and 43 CFR 24, the Director of the Service and the Secretary of the Interior’s designee is required to ensure the Refuge System regulations and management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans. Texas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) The Texas ComprehensiveWildlife Conservation Strategy (Texas Wildlife Action Plan) is required to assess the condition of the State’s wildlife and habitats, identify the problems that wildlife and habitats face, and outline the actions that are needed for long-term conservation. The plan identifies a variety of actions aimed at preventing wildlife from declining to the point of becoming endangered. Instead of focusing on single species in isolated areas, the conservation strategy focuses on the steps needed to protect, restore, and enhance habitat types. The plan addresses the species status, conservation issues, and conservation actions needed in the state’s 10 major ecoregions, including Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes. As part of the State Wildlife Grant Program, the Texas Wildlife Conservation Strategy was completed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to assist the agency and its conservation partners with the development of non-game initiatives and goals to address the needs of wildlife and habitats. This plan provides detailed species and habitat information on 10 major ecoregions in Texas. Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR occurs within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion. The Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion is ranked as a high conservation priority and is considered to be among the most threatened of the 10 ecoregions (TPWD 2005). The plan identified that inland prairies, coastal woodlands, and beach habitats are specifically threatened by increased population growth and associated development. The plan identifies 297 priority species within this ecoregion. In addition, several State priority species identified in the Texas Action Plan commonly occur or nest on Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-20 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (2010) Texas Parks and Wildlife Department developed the Land and Water Plan to aid the agency in conserving the natural and cultural resources of Texas for future generations. The criteria outlined in the plan will provide TPWD with a foundation for decision making regarding the State’s conservation and recreation needs. The first goal discussed in the plan is to ‘practice, encourage, and enable science-based stewardship of natural and cultural resources.’ The plan outlines various methods for achieving this goal, which include basing management decisions on best available science, becoming leaders in managing State lands, fostering conservation on private lands, and developing effective conservation partnerships. The Land and Water Plan explains a second goal of increasing access to and participation in the outdoors through actions like encouraging nature and heritage tourism or facilitating access to private and public lands and waters for recreation purposes. Another goal for TPWD is to ‘educate, inform, and engage Texas citizens in support of conservation and recreation.’ The fourth goal described in the Land and Water Plan is to ‘employ efficient, sustainable, and sound business practices,’ which TPWD plans to accomplish using technology, professionalism, excellent customer service, financial resources, effective communication, and an organized culture. The plan culminates with a call to action directed at members of the public, motivating them to join in the conservation effort. 1.3.3.5 Species-specific Plans and Initiatives Attwater’s Prairie-Chicken Recovery Plan (2010) This recovery plan delineates actions necessary to recover and/or protect the Attwater’s prairie-chicken. Such plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies and others. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status and the completion of recovery actions. The APCNWR serves as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lead for APC recovery activities, including implementation of actions outlined in the APC Recovery Plan. The Attwater’s Prairie-Chicken Recovery Plan identifies the loss and fragmentation of the Gulf coastal ecosystem and associated isolation of sub-populations of birds brought about by agricultural conversion, urban and industrial expansion, overgrazing, and invasion of prairies by woody species as the ultimate factors responsible for the APC’s decline (Lehmann 1941, Jurries 1979, Lawrence and Silvy 1980, McKinney 1996, Morrow et al. 1996). It also shows that proximate contributors to range-wide population declines in recent history may include stochastic weather events (Morrow et al. 1996), reduced genetic variability (Osterndorff 1995), parasites (Peterson 1994, Purvis 1995), disease (Peterson et al. 1998) and red imported fire ants (Solenipsis invicta) (Mueller et al. 1999). The recovery goal stated in the Recovery Plan “…is to protect and ensure the survival of the APC and its habitat, allowing the population to reach a measureable level of ecological and genetic stability so that it can be reclassified to threatened status (downlisted) and ultimately removed from the endangered species list (delisted).” Strategies for recovery are focused on three primary areas: habitat management, captive and wild population management, and public outreach. Strategies for wild population management in the short term will depend on the release of captive-reared birds. The Recovery Plan also places importance on applied research to identify factors limiting recovery. Coastal Prairie Conservation Initiative With less than one percent of the Texas coastal prairie ecosystem remaining today and private ownership in the State of Texas at 94 percent, recovery of the Attwater’s prairie-chicken is doomed without the support of private landowners. For this reason, the Coastal Prairie Conservation Initiative (CPCI) was formed. Chapter 1: Introduction Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-21 The goal of the CPCI is to conserve, enhance, or restore coastal prairie on private lands and create potential release sites for Attwater’s prairie-chickens. The initiative provides cost-share and technical assistance needed to implement prairie restoration and management practices on private lands. The CPCI formed in 1995 when the Service issued a Safe Harbor permit to the Sam Houston Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. (RC&D) for Attwater’s prairie-chicken, Houston toad, and Texas prairie dawn. By 2002, the RC&D had undertaken 19 habitat restoration projects on 17 ranches in the coastal prairie. More than 79,000 acres were enrolled in the Safe Harbor agreement with RC&D, and the Service granted funds to the RC&D to share the cost of implementing habitat enhancement and restoration practices on more than 44,000 acres of private land with the assistance of landowners and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. In 2003, the Service entered into a cooperative agreement with the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), The Nature Conservancy, TPWD, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to expand the CPCI’s capacity. In 2007, GLCI entered into a Safe Harbor Agreement with the Service that covers Attwater’s prairie-chicken, northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), and whooping crane (Grus americana). Also, in 2007, Attwater’s prairie-chickens were released for the first time on private lands in Goliad County. The CPCI program has not only helped conserve and enhance coastal prairie habitat, but also has served as a very positive outreach tool in narrowing the gap between private lands rights and endangered species issues. 1.3.4 Coordination with the State of Texas The Service is required to consult and coordinate with State conservation agencies, as well as Federal agencies and private landowners. The Service ensures effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with the State during the course of managing refuges. This CCP recognizes that both the Service and TPWD have authorities and responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife on the Refuge. Under the Refuge Administration Act of 1966 and 43 CFR 24, the Director and the Secretary’s designee are required to ensure Refuge System regulations and management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans. As such, the Service will ensure this plan complements the State of Texas’ efforts to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats. Chapter 1: Introduction 1-22 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment [This page intentionally left blank.] Chapter 2: The Planning Process Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-1 Dragonfly in web. CREDIT: USFWS 2.0 THE PLANNING PROCESS This CCP complies with the requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Refuge planning policy also guided the process and development of the CCP, as outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the Service Manual. Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide specific guidance for the planning process, such as seeking public involvement in the preparation of the EA. The development and analysis of “reasonable” management alternatives within the EA include a “no action” alternative that reflects current conditions and management strategies on the Refuge. Figure 2-1 shows the steps in the CCP planning process in a linear cycle. The following sections (2.1.1–2.1.8) provide additional detail on individual steps in the planning process. Chapter 2: The Planning Process 2-2 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Figure 2-1. The Planning Process 2.1 Preplanning Prior to formally initiating the development of this CCP, the following tasks were completed to support planning activities: • Established an interdisciplinary planning team • Identified the Refuge purpose, history, and establishing authority • Identified all relevant laws, regulations, and policies that would have to be considered during the development of the CCP • Identified purpose and need for the CCP to make sure all issues are adequately addressed • Identified planning area and resource data needs 2.2 Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping The formal planning process begins with the scoping period, which involves a thorough assessment of issues, concerns, opinions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, and visions for the Refuge. Formal scoping began with publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment in the Federal Register on November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215, pp. 65871-65872). In December 2008, a letter was sent to individuals at TPWD formally inviting them to participate in the development of the CCP. We received input from TPWD in January 2009. Information sheets were sent to Chapter 2: The Planning Process Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-3 the public, and news releases were sent to four area newspapers and published in two of the local newspapers (Colorado County Citizen and Eagle Lake Headlight). The news release also aired on KULM Radio in Columbus, Texas. Three public open house meetings were held, one each in Sealy, Texas, and Eagle Lake, Texas, and one at the APCNWR Headquarters in February 2009. The meetings were held on three separate days between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Despite advertising for these open houses, turnout was poor. One individual attended the meeting in Sealy, and there was no attendance at Table 2-1. Concerns Grouped by Category and Listed by Stakeholder Issues/Opportunities General Public State of Texas Federal Agencies USFWS Habitat Management Climate Change X Prairie Restoration X X X Property Acquisition X X Prescribed Burning X Grazing Management X Invasive Species and Brush Control X X Ecoregion Biodiversity X Rare and Protected Species (Flora) X Wildlife Management Ability to keep APC in APCNWR name X Wildlife Management Prairie-Chicken Recovery Efforts X X X Rare and Protected Species Other than APC (fauna) X X Invasive Species (fauna) X Partnerships X X Wildlife Food Plots X Visitor Services Environmental Education X X Interpretation X X Wildlife Observation and Photography X X Facilities Quality and Safety of Refuge Roadways X X Development of Administrative Complex X Oil and Gas Operations X Cultural Resources X Chapter 2: The Planning Process 2-4 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment the other locations. Additional written comments were received prior to these open house meetings. The feedback received from the open house meetings and written comments that identified issues and/or opportunities from a variety of stakeholders were used in development of the CCP. Table 2-1 lists the concerns expressed by a variety of stakeholders. 2.3 Determine Issues To determine the planning issues being addressed in the CCP, the planning team reviewed the concerns identified by the public, along with management concerns identified by Refuge staff and those submitted by the State of Texas. Refuge planning policy defines an issue as any unsettled matter that requires a management decision: an initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to Refuge resources, conflict in uses, public concern, or presence of an undesirable resource condition (602 FW 1.6I.). Public responses obtained through a newsletter and three public open house meetings—in addition to management concerns identified by the Refuge staff and State and Federal natural resource agencies—were used to identify issues addressed in the CCP and EA. Planning issues were identified for consideration during the development of this CCP. Scoping identified a number of issues reflecting problems, opportunities, or points of discussion that the CCP addresses in a variety of ways. The complete set of written comments received is available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed during the first phase of planning have been organized under the following headings: Habitat Management Prairie Restoration – A portion of the Refuge (approximately 35 percent) is former cropland in need of restoration to native coastal prairie. Continued efforts to enhance the quality of habitat for APC are needed. Much of the Refuge was a working livestock ranch and farm prior to its establishment, and there remains a significant amount of infrastructure that interferes with the prairie’s hydrology, including dirt and gravel roads, fences, oil and gas infrastructure, levees, ditches, and water control structures. The Refuge currently manages two man-made impoundments near the west side of the auto tour route. Constructed in the early 1980s by Refuge staff, these impoundments were designed to attract waterfowl to meet Service waterfowl management objectives. While popular with wildlife-viewing enthusiasts, these impoundments (artificial wetlands) were created at a time when APC numbers were significantly higher than they are today, and they are located in areas that once provided prairie habitat for the endangered APC. The presence of these impoundments also introduces the potential for the spread of disease from migrating waterfowl. APCs and northern bobwhite quail sampled during the late 1990s revealed that 14.8 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively, were serologically positive for Pateurella multocida (causative agent for avian cholera) antibodies (Peterson et al. 1998, Purvis et al. 1998). Removal of this infrastructure would compliment other APC recovery efforts to achieve restoration of native prairie and natural hydrology on the Refuge and would also decrease the potential for the spread of disease such as avian cholera resulting from waterfowl concentrations on the Refuge in these artificial impoundments. The Refuge has had problems with obtaining a consistent supply of locally adapted native prairie seed. Production and access to native seed harvested from the Refuge is highly dependent on weather conditions. Because of this, prairie restoration is a slow, long-term commitment for the Refuge. The Refuge needs to explore other options for consistently obtaining native prairie seed in order to meet restoration goals. Chapter 2: The Planning Process Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-5 Prescribed fire and grazing are management tools used to restore and maintain native prairie. Properly managed grazing and prescribed fire serve to maintain and encourage native grasses and forbs and to cycle nutrients through the ecosystem. There are aspects of fire and grazing that need to be further analyzed, such as the effects of fire on prairie insect populations. In addition, fencing needs should be evaluated to determine the optimal amounts of fencing needed to most effectively manage the grazing program. Land Acquisition – Habitat abundance and quality for obligate grassland species have been severely reduced throughout the ecosystem. With native prairies and grassland habitat being amongst the most threatened in the State of Texas and North America, there is a need to increase acreage to provide habitat for APC. The effects of urban encroachment (ranchettes) and fragmentation of the coastal prairie habitat have become much more noticeable adjacent to the Refuge during the last eight years, making it critical to initiate funding once again for the land acquisition program. Efforts to connect the two separate Refuge blocks through continued acquisition need to be made. Invasive Species (Flora) – Several invasive species are common on the Refuge and are reducing the quality and potential of native prairie. It is recognized that invasive plant species out-compete native plant species. The public identified the need for more brush control through fire and other methods. Historically, encroachment of woody species onto grasslands was minimized by periodic fires characteristic of tallgrass prairie ecosystems. However, fire suppression, overgrazing, and introduction of exotic woody species have resulted in dramatic increases in the woody species distribution within the Gulf Prairies. The presence of two man-made impoundments on the Refuge is problematic because the structures harbor invasive species, such as deep-rooted sedge and Macartney rose, that flourish in wet environments. Climate Change – As habitats change, the wildlife species that utilize those habitats will also change. Although the Refuge can do little to resolve this issue, it can realize that such change is occurring, document these changes through data collection, and adapt management to reflect and/or address changes in hydrology and plant communities. Water, or lack of water, is expected to become a major environmental crisis throughout the State in the near future if conservation measures are not taken seriously. Combined with climate change, this issue has the potential to affect many Refuge management activities such as grazing, food plot management, and fire management. Although climate change and other factors have the potential to alter the distribution of habitat types in this area, the effects of this change on Refuge resources, including wildlife species, are still unknown. Wildlife Management Prairie-chicken Recovery – As stated in the APC Recovery Plan, threats affecting the recovery of APC throughout its historic range include extremely small populations of birds, habitat and population fragmentation resulting in genetic isolation, and diseases and parasites in both the wild and captive settings. The inability of captive breeding facilities to produce large numbers of captive-reared birds to supplement existing populations and re-establish extirpated populations and poor brood survival in wild populations are also problematic. Historically throughout the region, challenges facing wild APC populations include predation, red imported fire ants (RIFA), accidents (e.g., flying into fences and wires), flooding, incompatible grazing, and altered fire regimes (USFWS 2010). Research is needed to gain a greater understanding of the threats and solutions to address causes of APC decline (USFWS 2010). The best management practices need to be continued and enhanced to assist in the recovery of APC, and management of predatory wildlife to minimize impacts to APC is also desired. Refuge personnel are concerned with the potential of disease spread (e.g., avian cholera) Chapter 2: The Planning Process 2-6 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment from high concentrations of waterfowl on the Refuge to APC populations (USFWS 2010). Rare and Protected Species – In order to recover APC, some management activities may have a negative impact on other rare and protected species. Both the public and State have concerns with this issue. The public has expressed concern about sustainable populations of APC and, if recovery efforts are not successful, the Refuge should shift emphasis to other grassland species. The State expressed concerns about predator control methods and management activities that may affect other migratory birds. Invasive Species Control (Fauna) – Invasive species such as feral hog, nutria, and red imported fire ants have negative effects on habitat and species. Feral hogs currently move primarily along brush corridors not used by APC but could pose a threat to nesting APC if hogs expand into prairie habitat as they have in other portions of the APC’s range. In addition, areas disturbed by feral hogs become prone to the establishment of invasive plant species. Nutria are mostly found in the Refuge’s artificial water impoundments; they burrow through dikes, creating serious safety issues. Red imported fire ants throughout the southeastern U.S. have affected numerous bird species such as APC, northern bobwhite quail, and loggerhead shrike (USFWS 2010, Allen et. al 2004). Coordination with Partners – Coordination with more than two dozen partners is critical in carrying out objectives for APC recovery. Often partners are vying or competing for the same grants and funding opportunities without realizing it. Effective coordination and communication is essential to achieving recovery goals. Visitor Services Public Use Opportunities – The Refuge provides public use opportunities that are appropriate and consistent with other national wildlife refuges of the same size and staffing levels. Because of the highly endangered status of the APC, most of the focus on the Refuge is directed toward habitat improvement and recovery actions. Participants in the public scoping process had an interest in increasing public use opportunities to include weekend hours at the visitor contact station, increased educational programs for local schools, and expanding the auto tour route to include the Horseshoe Lake area. Relocating the Refuge’s auto tour route is necessary to address the removal of two man-made impoundments and to provide visitors with more opportunities for appreciating and understanding the coastal prairie ecosystem that makes up the majority of Refuge habitat. Facilities Quality and Safety of Refuge Roadways – The condition of roads used by Refuge staff and visitors vary, but generally they are in fair to poor condition. The first mile of the Refuge entrance road is a poorly maintained asphalt county road that leads to the Refuge auto tour route. There is an existing power line along the first half mile of the entrance road that has recently fallen into the roadway, blocking visitor and staff access to the Refuge. All roads are in need of improvement. During inclement weather, the condition of the gravel auto tour route is poor, and vehicles sometimes lose traction around curves and create ruts in the road. For this reason, the auto tour route is often closed during inclement weather. One portion of the auto tour route can create a potential safety concern if vehicles are trying to pass outside designated pullouts, due to the narrow nature of the levee. Development of Administrative Complex – The current administrative complex consists of three separate portable buildings connected by a temporary walkway. A permanent and professional headquarters, visitor contact station, and biology lab are needed. The area being utilized for lab facilities is a small facility that does not have adequate working space to accomplish Refuge activities. The parking lot is inadequate and not level. Chapter 2: The Planning Process Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-7 Oil and Gas Operations –- Although these issues are rare, occasional spills and worn or abandoned equipment must be cleaned up and removed. Some wildlife disturbance does occur during maintenance operations and regular site visits, but it is infrequent and limited in scope. 2.4 Develop and Analyze Alternatives The practice of developing management alternatives as a part of the planning process is derived from NEPA. This act requires Federal agencies to consider the impacts of proposed actions and to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to those actions. Alternatives are “different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving Refuge purposes and goals, helping to fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues” (602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). The planning team developed a range of alternatives that responded to the planning issues and eliminated alternatives that did not meet Refuge purposes or that were outside the Service’s ability to implement. The environmental effects of the alternatives were analyzed, and the results are presented in Section 4.0 of the environmental assessment found in Appendix B. 2.5 Prepare Draft Plan and EA The draft CCP and EA were concurrently prepared. The CCP and EA were then submitted for internal review, then submitted to TPWD for review, and followed by public review and comment. This Draft CCP and EA are released to the public for a 30-day review period. The public was notified of the release with a notice in the Federal Register, as well as through local media outlets. 2.6 Prepare and Adopt Final Plan Comments received on this Draft CCP and EA will be incorporated where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the proposed action or selection of one of the other alternatives. The alternative that is ultimately selected will be the basis for the Final CCP. The Final CCP will provide an appendix with the response to comments received during public review and will replace current management direction after the decision document is signed (see section 1.6, Decision to be Made, of Appendix B, Environmental Assessment). 2.7 Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate The Final CCP will guide management of the Refuge over the next 15-year period. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and will be the basis for the annual budgeting process for refuge operations and maintenance (Chapter 5). Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at the Refuge that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions. A critical component of adaptive management is monitoring and measuring resources and social conditions to make sure that progress is being made toward meeting goals. Monitoring also detects new problems, issues, or opportunities that should be addressed. The Refuge is using an adaptive management approach, which means that information gained from monitoring is used to evaluate and, as needed, to modify Refuge objectives. 2.8 Review and Revise Plan Agency policy directs that the CCP be reviewed annually to assess the need for changes. The CCP will be revised when significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, or the need to do so is identified during the annual review. If major changes are proposed, public meetings may be held, or new environmental assessments or environmental impact statements may be necessary. Consultation with appropriate State agencies would occur at least every 15 years, but in practice, occurs more frequently. Chapter 2: The Planning Process 2-8 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment [This page intentionally left blank.] Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-1 APC chicks. CREDIT: Fossil Rim Wildlife Center 3.0 REFUGE RESOURCES AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT This chapter provides a detailed description of the Refuge, its habitats, the species that occur, how habitat and species are managed, and the recreational opportunities it offers. It is divided into five major sections: Landscape Setting, Physical Environment, Biological Environment, Socioeconomic Environment, and Current Management. 3.1 Landscape Setting To effectively achieve the Refuge System mission of conserving fish, wildlife, and their habitats, the Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR took a landscape-scale approach to identifying Refuge resources, issues, and management direction. The Refuge is one small portion of land within a larger landscape, and as such, the planning team looked beyond its boundaries to determine its role in the larger conservation effort. This section describes the landscape setting in which Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is located (Map 3-1. Landscape Scale Conservation). 3.1.1 Central Flyway Bird migration is the seasonal movement of birds between summer nesting habitat in Canada and the northern United States and wintering habitat in the southern United States and Central and South America. These movements generally follow regular routes called flyways. There are four administrative flyways in North America: the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific. The Service established refuges along these flyways to provide resting and nesting habitat for migrating birds. The administrative Central Flyway spans the Canadian Northwest Territories, two Canadian provinces (Alberta and Sakatchewan), and 10 Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management 3-2 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment U.S. states: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is one of 13 refuges located within the State of Texas. 3.1.2 Strategic Habitat Conservation and Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) is a way of thinking and doing business that requires the Service to set biological goals for priority species. It allows for making strategic decisions and encourages constant reassessment and improvement of actions. These are critical steps in dealing with a range of landscape-scale resource threats such as urban development, invasive species, and water scarcity—all magnified by accelerating climate change. SHC incorporates five key principles in an ongoing process that changes and evolves: • Biological planning (setting targets) • Conservation design (developing a plan to meet the goals) • Conservation delivery (implementing the plan) • Monitoring and adaptive management (measuring success and improving results) • Research (increasing our understanding) To ensure that science entities are strategically placed, the Service and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have developed a national geographic framework for implementing strategic habitat conservation at landscape scales. The framework provides a platform upon which the Service can work with partners to connect project- and site-specific efforts to larger biological goals and outcomes across the continent. The framework serves as a base geography for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which are management-science partnerships between the Service, Federal agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities. These partnerships inform and assist integrated resource management actions by addressing climate change and other stressors within and across landscapes. LCCs are fundamental units of planning and science capable of carrying out the functional elements of SHC. The Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is located in the Gulf Coast Prairies geographic area and LCC, which consists of four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs): the Oaks and Prairies, Edwards Plateau, Tamaulipan Brushlands, and Gulf Coastal Prairie. APCNWR is located in the Gulf Coastal Prairie BCR (described in Section 1.3.3.3). 3.1.3 Ecoregion Setting Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across Federal agencies, State agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is located within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes (GCP&M) ecoregion as identified by The Nature Conservancy. The nearly 22-million-acre GCP&M ecoregion encompasses two countries and two states. Within this area, there are 22 primary bays, 19 major rivers, and approximately 600 miles of shorelines. This ecoregion is characterized by its great biodiversity—notably, the number and types of birds and the butterfly and reptile diversity. The region’s productive bays and estuaries are economically significant by providing fish and shellfish upon which people depend. At the same time, the ecological diversity of the GCP&M faces drastic declines, Map 3-1. Landscape Scale Conservation Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-5 with habitat loss and fragmentation posing some of the most serious threats to the ecoregion’s biological health (Ricketts et al. 1999). Pre-Settlement Landscape Before European settlement, the GCP&M was composed of a mosaic of tallgrass coastal prairie, riparian bottomland hardwood forests, ephemeral freshwater wetlands, canebrake swamps, extensive coastal forests, chenier woodlands, freshwater tidal wetlands, brush mottes and corridors, barrier islands, estuaries, saltwater marshes, hypersaline lagoons, and lomas and associated Tamaulipan thornscrub habitats. This integrated matrix of habitat types combined to form one of the most productive and biologically rich ecosystems in the world (Briggs 1974, Smeins et al. 1991). Humans in the GCP&M Human inhabitants have always been drawn to the Gulf of Mexico. Nomadic native peoples took advantage of the bounty of food resources, such as oysters, shrimp, fish, alligators, and birds available in the nearshore waters and coastal prairies (Ricklis 1997). Today, the attraction is fueled by industrial development and distribution, business infrastructure, agricultural production, tourism, and the appeal of a coastal lifestyle with associated recreational and aesthetic attributes. Although certain areas of the ecoregion are sparsely populated, other areas, such as Houston, the fourth largest city in the U.S., and Harris County, the second most populous county in the U.S., locally impact biodiversity (TNC, 2002). The ecoregion supports the world’s second largest petrochemical complex and some of the United States’ busiest port facilities (USFWS 2000). In Texas, more than one-third of the State’s population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Alteration of the Landscape The ecoregion has been transformed dramatically since the early 1900s. Freshwater wetlands have been reduced by 30 percent (Moulton 1997), coastal forests have been cleared and fragmented (USFWS 1997), the chenier woodlands of the upper Texas coast are essentially gone (Gosselink et al. 1979), and less than one percent of the tallgrass coastal prairie remains (Smeins et al. 1991). 3.1.3.1 Terrestrial Description Coastal Prairies The prominent feature of this ecosystem includes the coastal prairies, which in many places contain small depressional wetlands. This ecosystem is now largely fragmented by agricultural, urban development, and woody species encroachment resulting from fire suppression. Natural forces that shape the system include prevailing southeast winds, tropical weather systems, and rainfall of more than 60 inches per year on the upper Texas coast to about 40 inches per year at APCNWR. Less than one percent of original coastal prairie grasslands remain in relatively pristine condition (Smeins et al. 1991). Remaining representative pieces of most habitat types are generally small, fragmented, and degraded in some way (i.e., exotic plants, disrupted hydrology, overgrazing, channelization). Large landholdings are also becoming less common due to inheritance tax and developmental pressures. Theses prairies are threatened by brush encroachment and invading exotic species such as Macartney rose (Rosea bracteata), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), deep-rooted sedge (Cyperus entrerianus), and red imported fire ants. Tallgrass coastal prairie is found along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. Similar in many ways to the tallgrass prairie of the midwestern United States, coastal prairie is maintained by natural processes of fire and drought, thus impeding the successional continuum that would otherwise result in woody species dominating the grasslands. In healthy coastal prairies, a diverse variety of wildflowers (nearly 1,000 plant species have been identified thus far) are found but are under constant threat from habitat Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management 3-6 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment fragmentation, exotic species, overgrazing and lack of fire (The Nature Conservancy 2002). Functional prairies and insects naturally go together. The result is a unique insect diversity, including butterflies, dragonflies, and numerous species of bees, wasps, leafhoppers, ants, grasshoppers, beetles, and praying mantis. Many bird species rely upon remnant prairie habitat where more red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) reside than in any other ecoregion of North America (The Nature Conservancy 2002). There are also abundant numbers of waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds. The TNC Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregional Plan identifies the APC as a bird of particular concern due to low population size. Attwater’s prairie-chickens historically were the number one breeding bird in Texas coastal prairies (Bailey 1905). 3.1.3.2 Aquatic Description The Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is located in the East Texas Gulf freshwater ecoregion of North America. The East Texas Gulf is an ecoregion of the Mississippi Complex located in the Arctic-Atlantic Bioregion. This ecoregion stretches from eastern New Mexico to southeastern Texas. It is defined by the watersheds of the Brazos and Texas’ Colorado rivers and their tributaries. Other freshwater habitats in this karst area include caverns and springs (Abell et al. 2000). There are around 100 fish species, of which at least two are endemic (Conner and Suttkus 1986). There are also 12 endemic hydrobiid snails, two endemic unionid mussels, and one endemic salamander (Bowles and Arsuffi 1993). The ecoregion is considered vulnerable, meaning that remaining habitat occurs in blocks or segments, and established exotic species may invade other areas (Abell et al 2000). 3.1.4 Protected Areas in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). Protected areas serve a variety of purposes for society. They are an expression of our community’s goals to maintain the value of biodiversity and to ensure these values are passed on to future generations. They represent the diversity of the Earth’s history and the current natural processes, and provide many environmental services such as clean air, water, and nutrients. They are treasured landscapes, reflecting the inherited cultures of many generations, and they hold spiritual values for many societies (IUCN 2005). Protected areas cover over 13 percent of the Earth’s land surface (IUCN 2005). In the United States, over 10,480 protected areas, including State level protected areas, account for 27 percent of the land area (1,006,619 square miles) (UNEP 2008). Within the GCP&M there are approximately 156 protected areas, with 40 Federal (52.8 percent of the total acres), State (45.1 percent), or privately owned and/or managed conservation and recreation units (2.1 percent). Appendix H identifies all conservation and recreation areas within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion. Presently, there is one UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and one Wetland of International Importance as designated by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in Mexico; however, their level of ecological protection is unknown. These protected areas total over 1.88 million acres (9.8 percent) of the entire Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion (Map 3-2. Managed Lands within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion). (Note: Some private, nongovernmental lands are not shown on map due to shapefiles being unavailable.) These existing Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-7 protected areas are critical to meeting overall conservation goals set for the GCP&M ecoregion. 3.1.5 Conservation Corridors Conservation corridors are physical connections between disconnected fragments of plant and animal habitat. Without such connections, some species would be unable to reach necessary resources like food, water, mates, and shelter. Working with partners to identify key conservation corridors and crucial habitats is needed to conserve the habitat and wildlife species that depend on it. The Attwater’s Prairie-Chicken Recovery Plan (2010) outlines the need to establish grassland corridors (1–3 miles wide) interconnecting core areas of suitable APC habitat capable of supporting an APC population of 500 (250 displaying males), assuming a carrying capacity of 1 bird per 50 acres. These corridors within the APC’s historic range would allow for dispersal and genetic exchange and hedge against environmental stochasticity (e.g., hurricanes). Areas such as national wildlife refuges, TNC preserves (e.g., Mad Island, Texas City Prairie Preserve), State wildlife management units and parks, and private lands will be pivotal in making these grassland corridors a reality. 3.1.6 Refuge Location Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is located in Colorado and Austin counties in Texas. The Refuge is approximately 60 miles west of Houston, Texas, the nation’s fourth most populated city. It is situated about 75 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. 3.1.7 Surrounding Land Uses The conservation land status of Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is just one of a variety of land uses found across the larger landscape. Agricultural and livestock land uses exist around the Refuge that could offer an array of threats to fish, wildlife, and their habitats, including invasive plants, feral animals, crop monocultures, habitat fragmentation, pathogens (i.e., avian cholera), and pollutants. Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is surrounded by mainly rice fields and cattle ranches. Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management 3-8 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment [This page intentionally left blank.] !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Austin Houston McAllen Beaumont Lafayette New Orleans Baton Rouge San Antonio Brownsville Corpus Christi PRODUCED IN THE DIVISION OF REFUGE PLANNING ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 5/31/09 MAP DATE: June, 2011 BASEMAP: N/A MERIDIAN: N/A FILE: atw_gulf_coast_eco_6.8.11_shl UTM ZONE 14 NAD 83 0 50 100 200 Miles 0 50 100 200 Kilometers MEXICO Nuevo León Tamaulipas Texas Louisiana Mississippi Florida Gulf of Mexico Area of Detail ^ Legend State Boundary International Boundary Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes TNC Ecoregion Managing Body Armand Bayou Nature Center/Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Audubon Society Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Department of Defense Edward Wisner Donation Advisory Committee US Fish and Wildlife Service Louisiana Division of Administration- State Land Office Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries National Park Service Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Lower Colorado River Authority ^ Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR City Park Improvement Agency Mississippi Department of Marine Resources National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Map 3-2. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion Austin/Colorado County, Texas Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-11 3.2 Physical Environment This section describes the physical environment in which the Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR is found. It includes a description of the climate, air quality, water resources, geology and soils, and mineral resources. It concludes with a short discussion about the Service’s concerns pertaining to those physical resources. 3.2.1 Climate According to Larkin and Bomar (1983), this narrow region along the Gulf coast is characterized as a subtropical humid climate caused by the predominant onshore flow of tropical maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico. This onshore flow is modified by a lateral decrease in moisture content from east to west across the State and by intermittent seasonal intrusions of continental air. The Gulf of Mexico is a dominant geographical feature, moderating temperatures along the Gulf Coast and, more importantly, providing the major source of moisture for the State. Temperatures within this region are fairly uniform, with hot, humid summers and mild winters. Annual average temperatures range from 70 °F to 74 °F. The subtropical climate on the Gulf Coast ranges from average temperatures during the winter months of 55 ºF to summer average temperatures of 91 º F. Humidity drops to low relative humidity values of 16 percent or lower during the winter months, yet humidity values are often sustained near 100 percent during the summer. These high humidities are generally associated with incoming pressure systems. Prevailing winds are from the southeast unless northern fronts pass through, which usually dominate the wind direction for several days. Annual precipitation can vary dramatically. During years of drought (most recently in 2011), annual precipitation was below 30 inches. During years of heavy rainfall, precipitation approaches 60 inches. Rain may occur throughout the year and is typically associated with frontal passages during the winter and tropical disturbances during the summer months. In nearby Sealy, the wettest months are typically May (4.7" average) and October (4.4" average) (National Climatic Data Center et al. 2001). Hurricanes may occur any time from early June through late November but are most common in August and September. Rainfall amounts vary at different sites due to coastal influences and variability at individual sites. 3.2.2 Air Quality Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, the Service has an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values on national wildlife refuges. Congress gave the Service, a Federal land manager of wilderness area, the responsibility to protect the air quality and natural resources, including visibility, of the area from man-made pollution. Polluted air injures wildlife and vegetation, causes acidification of water, degrades habitats, accelerates weathering of buildings and other facilities, and impairs visibility. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air quality standards to protect public health. The EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings. The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). There are no major air pollutant sources affecting the Refuge, despite its proximity to the major metropolitan area of Houston, because predominate winds are from the south-southeast. However, the ambient air quality within the boundaries of the Refuge can still vary considerably, but ambient criteria pollutant concentrations have not been recorded near the Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management 3-12 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR DRAFT Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment maximum concentration permitted by the NAAQS. According to the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Colorado and Austin County have no reported long-term adverse air quality conditions. Occasionally, the smell of sewage from the application of sludge on adjacent private lands does affect air quality. The Refuge monitors atmospheric pollutants in rain as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) “acid rain” program. There have been no conclusive findings from this program. 3.2.3 Water Resources Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR lies within the San Bernard River watershed, a 120-mile river whose headwaters originate one mile south of New Ulm in Austin County and empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The east side of the main Refuge tract in Colorado County borders the San Bernard River for about seven miles. Coushatta Creek, a tributary of the San Bernard River, bisects the Refuge towards the southern third of the Refuge for about four miles until it empties into the San Bernard River. The Crooked Branch Creek bisects the Refuge’s Bollinger Tract and nips the north end of the Zaruba Tract in Austin County, and the Middle Bernard Creek nips the Refuge’s most southern end in Colorado County. The Floating Water-primrose Aquatic Marsh association also potentially occurs on the Refuge. Its global rank is G4G5 (which means, demonstrably secure globally- uncommon to common, but not rare; usually widespread, but may be rare in some parts of its range). Vegetation from this association occurs in shallow water of flats in slow-moving streams, shallow lakes, and natural and artificial impoundments. The 80-acre Teal Marsh and 115-acre Pintail Marsh are located on the southwest portion of the auto tour route. Although proposed as early as the 1960s by Service managers and regional biologists, these two artificial impoundments were eventually constructed in the mid-1980s by Refuge staff to supplement prairie wetlands. The 12-acre Horseshoe Lake is another man-made reservoir located one-half mile north of the Refuge headquarters. Horseshoe Lake impounds a drainage that leads to Coushatta Creek; it was constructed prior to the establishment of the Refuge for |
| Tag | Library-Source-CCPs |
| Date created | 2012-08-31 |
|
|