Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Attwater Prairie Chicken
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
April 2012
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.
u.s.
FISH &WILDI,n.,;
SEIlVICE
~ . • "Jt.~ ~~""'O<'.""".'~(V.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND W1LDLfFE SERVICE
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Dear Reader:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pleased to provide you with a copy of the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for
Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the State of Texas. This plan
identifies the role that the refuge will play in support of the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Wildlife Refuge System. It provides long-tenn guidance to the refuge's
management programs and activities.
The plan was developed by an interdisciplinary planning team which evaluated three
management alternatives and chose Alternative B as the proposed action. The Service believes
this management-action is a positive-step in conserving and managing the refuge ' s-fish and
wi ldlife resources.
The Service would like to thank you for participating in the planning process. Comments you
submitted helped us prepare a better plan for the future of the refuge.
Additional copies of this plan may be obtained by contacting the Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR,
P.O. 519, Eagle Lake, TX 77434. The plan is also available on the Service's Internet website as
follows:
http://www.fws.gov/southwestirefuges/Planiplanindex.htmi
Thank you for your continued support and interest in our fish and wild life conservation efforts.
Dr. Be min N. Tuggle, egion
J6~02- ~o
U.S. F sh and Wildlife, Region 2
[This page intentionally left blank.]
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
[This page intentionally left blank.]
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN APPROVAL
For
Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Austin and Colorado Counties, TX
The attached Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Attwater Prairie Chicken National
Wildlife Refuge has been prepared by Regional Office and Refuge staff. The contents and format
are found to be in compliance with Service Policy on the preparation of Comprehensive
Conservation Plans, and is hereby submitted for approval.
Terry Rossignol, Refuge Manager Date
4/ 2-/10 11...­Monica
Kimbrough, N al Resource Planner Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2
Attw ter Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge
Concurrence by:
cDowell, Refuge Supervisor, T)(fOK
.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2
Date
Aaron Archibeque, Regional Chief, N R System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regio 2
Dr. Ben· min N. Tuggle, gional ector
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i
Vision Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... v
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 .......................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.3 Planning Context ................................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.3.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................... 1-9
1.3.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................... 1-11
1.3.2.1 Legal and Policy Guidance ..................................................................................... 1-11
1.3.3 Setting the Stage for Planning: Identifying the Landscape Context ........................................ 1-14
1.3.3.1 Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 1-14
1.3.3.2 National Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................. 1-15
1.3.3.3 Regional Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................. 1-17
1.3.3.4 State and Local Plans and Initiatives....................................................................... 1-18
1.3.3.5 Species-specific Plans and Initiatives ....................................................................... 1-19
1.3.4 Coordination with the State of Texas ...................................................................................... 1-20
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 ......................................................................................................................... 2-8
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 ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment i
Table of Contents
3.3 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-14
3.3.1 Habitat Types .......................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.3.1.1 Vegetation Classes .................................................................................................. 3-15
3.3.1.2 Natural Disturbance Processes ................................................................................ 3-21
3.3.1.3 Historical Habitat Description ................................................................................. 3-22
3.3.1.4 Estimated Conditions due to Climate Change......................................................... 3-22
3.3.1.5 Concerns Regarding Refuge Habitat ....................................................................... 3-23
3.3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 3-25
3.3.2.1 Priority Species ....................................................................................................... 3-25
3.3.2.2 Focal/Representative Species .................................................................................. 3-27
3.3.2.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 3-27
3.3.2.4 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 3-29
3.3.2.5 Reptiles .................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.3.2.6 Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 3-29
3.3.2.7 Fish .......................................................................................................................... 3-30
3.3.2.8 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................ 3-30
3.3.2.9 Concerns Regarding Wildlife Populations .............................................................. 3-30
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................................................ 3-31
3.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................... 3-31
3.4.2 Economy ................................................................................................................................. 3-33
3.4.2.1 Regional Economic Profile ..................................................................................... 3-33
3.4.2.2 Economic Significance of the Refuge ..................................................................... 3-34
3.4.3 Concerns Regarding Socioeconomics......................................................................................3-35
3.5 Archeological, Cultural, and Historical Resources .............................................................................. 3-35
3.6 Current Management ............................................................................................................................ 3-37
3.6.1 Administration ......................................................................................................................... 3-37
3.6.1.1 Staffing .................................................................................................................... 3-37
3.6.1.2 Administrative Facilities ......................................................................................... 3-38
3.6.1.3 Oil and Gas Operations and Management ............................................................... 3-39
3.6.1.4 Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 3-39
3.6.1.5 Memorandums of Understanding and Other Agreements ....................................... 3-40
3.6.1.6 Law Enforcement and Resource Protection ............................................................ 3-40
3.6.1.7 Safety ...................................................................................................................... 3-40
3.6.2 Habitat Management ............................................................................................................... 3-41
3.6.3 Wildlife Management .............................................................................................................. 3-43
3.6.4 Visitor Services and Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 3-44
3.6.4.1 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Opportunities ........................................................ 3-44
3.6.4.2 Public Use Areas ..................................................................................................... 3-45
3.6.4.3 Public Use Access ................................................................................................... 3-45
3.6.4.4 Public Use Facilities ................................................................................................ 3-45
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 ........................................................................... 3-50
3.6.5.4 Concerns Regarding Special Management Areas ................................................... 3-50
ii Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
3.6.6 Land Protection and Acquisition ............................................................................................. 3-50
3.6.7 Cultural Resource Management .............................................................................................. 3-51
4.0 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...................................................................................... 4-1
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.................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Personnel and Budget Needs .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Personnel .................................................................................................................................. 5-1
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
Terminology
Glossary
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Appendices
Appendix A Key Legislation and Service Policies
Appendix B Environmental Assessment and FONSI
Appendix C Species List
Appendix D Compatibility Determinations
Appendix E Wilderness Review
Appendix F Intra-Service Section 7, Consultation
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment iii
Table of Contents
Appendix G Evaluation Plan
Appendix H Ecoregion Table
Appendix I List of Preparers
Appendix J Service Response to Public Comments
Appendix K. References
Figures
Figure 2-1. The Planning Process ........................................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 3-1. Population Growth from 2000-2008 listed by percentages. ............................................................... 3-32
Figure 3-2. Gulf Coast Region Industrial Employment from 2004-2014. ............................................................ 3-34
Tables
Table 2-1. Concerns Grouped by Category and Listed by Stakeholder .................................................................. 2-3
Table 3-1. Austin County Population 2000-2030 ................................................................................................. 3-33
Table 3-2. Colorado County Population 2000-2030 ............................................................................................. 3-33
Table 3-3. Household Income by County ............................................................................................................. 3-33
Table 3-4. Refuge Facilities. ................................................................................................................................ 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 B-1. Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... B-24
Table B-2. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring ................................................................................................ B-26
Table B-3. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative........................................................................... B-58
Maps
Map 1-1. Refuge Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1-5
Map 1-2. Acquisition Project Area ......................................................................................................................... 1-7
Map 3-1. Landscape Scale Conservation ................................................................................................................ 3-3
Map 3-2. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion ........................................................................................... 3-9
Map 3-3. Vegetation, West Section ...................................................................................................................... 3-17
Map 3-4. Vegetation, East Section ....................................................................................................................... 3-19
Map 3-5. Refuge Facilities Map ........................................................................................................................... 3-47
Map 4-1. Refuge Units........................................................................................................................................... 4-2
Map 4-2. Proposed Public Use Changes ............................................................................................................... 4-13
Map 4-3. Roads to be Removed ............................................................................................................................ 4-16
Map 4-4. Fence Removal Schedule (Phase I: 8 Year Plan) .................................................................................. 4-18
Map 4-5. Fence Removal Schedule (Phase II: 15 Year Plan) ............................................................................... 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-20
Map E–1. Wilderness Review Map ........................................................................................................................ E-3
iv Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Booming !ttwater’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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment v
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Chapter 1: Introduction
Sunset at APCNWR. CREDIT: USFWS
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 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 final decision for the EA is a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and documented in
Appendix B.
The CCP is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1,
Introduction, provides information about why the
Service is developing this plan; a brief overview
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction
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 the
Refuge 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. The CCP is also needed to ensure that
the Refuge continues to conserve and restore the
coastal prairie ecosystem in the face of climate
change and related stressors. 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 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
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-2 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction
Refuge boundary sign, 1973 (Historic photo).
CREDIT: USFWS
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 o f
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 th e
late 1800s. The state offered protection as early a s
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.
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-3
San Bernard River, 1967 (Historic Photo). CREDIT: USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
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. In
2010, a three-acre inholding was purchased in
Austin County bringing the total refuge
management area to approximately 10,541
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-4 Plan and Environmental Assessment
[This page intentionally left blank.]
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
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,
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-9
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-10 Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
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
1.3.2 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.
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-11
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
 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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-12 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction
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
additional directive for refuge managers to
follow while achieving the refuge purpose(s) and
Refuge System mission. It provides for the
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-13
Chapter 1: Introduction
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
September 14, 2009 by Secretarial Order 3289,
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 .
Data for the Southwest show an increase in
temperature between 1.1°C (2 F) to 1.7°C (3.1
F) during the past century and project an
increase in temperature of 4.5°C (8.1 F) to
6.1°C (11 F) in the future (Sprigg and Hinkey
2000). 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).
In September 2010, the Service released a
strategic approach to climate change, Rising to
the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-14 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
The Refuge occurs within PIF Physiographic Area
#06, the Coastal Prairies, which ranges from the
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana, to Baffin Bay, Texas.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-15
Chapter 1: Introduction
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. Priority bird species for this
physiographic area that occur on the Refuge include:
Grasslands-Attwater’s prairie-chicken, Henslow’s
sparrow, Sprague’s pipit, short-eared owl, sedge
wren; Bottomland hardwood forest- swallow-tailed
kite, Swainson’s warbler, American woodcock;
Scrub-shrub- painted bunting.
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-16 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-17
Chapter 1: Introduction
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 Comprehensive Wildlife 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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-18 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1-19
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 1-20 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Dragonfly in web. CREDIT: USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-1
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 2-2 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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
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
the other locations.
Table 2-1. Concerns Grouped by Category and Listed by Stakeholder
Issues/Opportunities General Public State of Texas Federal USFWS
Agencies
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-3
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Issues/Opportunities General Public State of Texas Federal USFWS
Agencies
Quality and Safety of Refuge
Roadways
X X
Development of
Administrative Complex
X
Oil and Gas Operations X
Cultural Resources X
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 2-4 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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.
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 – Climate change is expected to
impact ecosystems in a variety of ways. These
impacts may include: species range shifts,
species extinctions, phenological changes, and
increases in primary productivity. 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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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)
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 2-6 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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.
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 Draft CCP and EA was reviewed
and revised by Refuge and Regional Office
Staff, then submitted to TPWD for review. The
Notice of Availability for the Draft CCP and
EA was published on was published in the
Federal Register on December 12, 2011
(Volume 76, Number 238, pp. 77245-77247)
and the comment period closed on January 23,
2012.
2.6 Prepare and Adopt Final Plan
During the full public review period, only four
comments were received by the Service. A
summary of comments and the Service’s
response can be found in Appendix J.
The Final CCP 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
This 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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 2-7
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 2-8 Plan and Environmental Assessment
APC chicks. CREDIT: Fossil Rim Wildlife Center
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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; Archeological,
Cultural, and Historical Resources; 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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-1
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
provinces (Alberta and Sakatchewan), and 10
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. The area encompasses portions of five
states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Kansas), three Service regions (two, four,
and six), and four terrestrial ecoregions (Oaks
and Prairies, Gulf Coast Prairie, Tamaulipan
Brushlands, and Edwards Plateau). Eventually, it
is envisioned to include portions of three
Mexican states that share similar habitats
(Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila).
Key organizations involved in the Gulf Coast
Prairies (GCP LCC) partnership include the
Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, National
Park Service, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Department of Commerce (NOAA),
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation, The
Conservation Fund, Ducks Unlimited, and The
Nature Conservancy. The existing conservation
network includes three Joint Venture
partnerships (Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Rio
Grande Joint Venture, Oaks and Prairies Joint
Venture), the Southeast Aquatic Resources
Partnership, and the Reservoir Fisheries
Partnership. The GCP LCC has also expanded its
capacity through close working relationships and
cooperative agreements with Texas A&M
University and The Wildlife Management
Institute. Over time, other forums within the
cooperative will be developed to encourage
further participation by the broader conservation
community.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 3-2 Plan and Environmental Assessment
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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,
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-5
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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
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,
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 3-6 Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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
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.
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-7
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation 3-8 Plan and Environmental Assessment
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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
Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-11
Chapter 3: Refuge Resources and Current Management
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 watering livestock and recreational
fishing. During years with adequate rainfall,
water levels in Teal and Pintail Marsh may be
managed to provide habitat for migrating
waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Other
species such as turtles and alligators also use
these impoundments, offering additional wildlife
viewing opportunities for Refuge visitors. In
addit