Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge - 1428 Highway 27 - Bell City, Louisiana 70630
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover Photo Courtesy of monsoursphotography.com
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
1428 Highway 27
Bell City, Louisiana 70630
Phone: 337/598-2216
Fax: 337/598-2492
Station email: judy_mcclendon@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
March 2006
Cameron Prairie
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Notification Clause
Equal opportunity to participate in, and benefit from programs and activities of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is available to all individuals regardless of physical or mental disability. For
information please contact the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, 1849
C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Notice
Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set
forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the
Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not
constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or
funding for future land acquisition."
Cover photo courtesy of Pintail graphic found throughout this
monsoursphotography.com document courtesy of James Harris
CAMERON PRAIRIE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGION
MARCH 2006
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Table of Contents
SECTION A. CAMERON PRAIRIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN...................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service........................................................................1
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................1
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 .........................................1
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...........2
Purpose and Need for Plan ..........................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................3
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................4
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................4
Overview..................................................................................................................4
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities..........................................................6
Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities ...................................................................6
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................7
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ..........................................................................8
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan................................................................8
North American Waterfowl Management Plan.........................................................8
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Chenier Plain Initiative) ..................................................8
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.........................................................9
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ............................................................9
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) ......................9
Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana ..........................................9
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan............................................10
Fisheries Vision for the Future...............................................................................10
II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 11
Introduction.................................................................................................................11
Purpose ......................................................................................................................13
Refuge Environment and Other Related Information .................................................13
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations .....................................................................13
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Management Concern .15
Waterfowl ..........................................................................................................17
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Table of Contents
Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds) ............................................................ 19
Sandhill Cranes ................................................................................................ 20
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species.................................................... 20
Raptors ............................................................................................................. 21
Other Migratory Birds........................................................................................ 21
Mammals .......................................................................................................... 21
Amphibians and Reptiles .................................................................................. 22
Aquatic Species ................................................................................................ 22
Invasive Plant Species...................................................................................... 22
Invasive Animal Species................................................................................... 23
Habitats ................................................................................................................. 23
Wetlands (Marshes and Moist Soil Areas)........................................................ 25
Forests.............................................................................................................. 27
Prairie ............................................................................................................... 27
Visitor Services...................................................................................................... 27
Hunting ............................................................................................................. 29
Fishing .............................................................................................................. 30
Wildlife Observation and Photography.............................................................. 31
Environmental Education and Interpretation..................................................... 31
Refuge Administration ........................................................................................... 32
Refuge Staff...................................................................................................... 32
Coordination and Cooperative Programs .............................................................. 32
Facilities and Equipment ....................................................................................... 33
Equipment......................................................................................................... 33
Roads ............................................................................................................... 33
Research Natural Areas ........................................................................................ 34
Wilderness Review ................................................................................................ 34
Archaeological and Historical Resources .............................................................. 34
Socio-economic Profile.......................................................................................... 36
Land Protection and Conservation ........................................................................ 38
Detailed Unit History.............................................................................................. 40
Unit 1 ................................................................................................................ 40
Unit 2A .............................................................................................................. 41
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Table of Contents
Unit 2B ..............................................................................................................41
Unit 2C ..............................................................................................................41
Unit 3A & 3B......................................................................................................41
Unit 4.................................................................................................................41
Unit 5.................................................................................................................42
Unit 6.................................................................................................................42
Unit 7.................................................................................................................42
Unit 8.................................................................................................................42
Unit 9.................................................................................................................43
Unit 10...............................................................................................................43
Unit 11A & B......................................................................................................43
Unit 12A & B......................................................................................................43
Unit 13A & B......................................................................................................44
Unit 14A & B......................................................................................................44
Refuge Related Problems ..........................................................................................44
Introduction ............................................................................................................44
Undesirable or Invasive Species ...........................................................................44
Oil and Gas Activities.............................................................................................45
General Information ..........................................................................................45
Mitigation...........................................................................................................46
Contamination...................................................................................................46
Transmission Pipeline Right-of-Ways ...............................................................46
Future Management..........................................................................................47
Cattle .....................................................................................................................48
Adjacent Property Access......................................................................................48
Refuge Conservation Priorities...................................................................................48
Top Biological Recommendations .........................................................................49
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT................................................................................ 51
Overview.....................................................................................................................51
Scoping Issues ...........................................................................................................51
Habitat ...................................................................................................................52
Wildlife ...................................................................................................................52
People....................................................................................................................52
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
Table of Contents
Public Comment......................................................................................................... 53
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...................................................................... 55
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 55
Vision .........................................................................................................................55
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................. 56
GOAL A: HABITAT..................................................................................................... 56
Objective A—1: Moist Soil Units ....................................................................... 56
Objective A—2: Impoundments ........................................................................ 57
Objective A—3: Unimpounded Marsh............................................................... 58
Objective A—4: Native Prairie .......................................................................... 58
Objective A—5: Levees .................................................................................. 58
Objective A—6: Undesirable Plants and Animals......................................... 59
Objective A—7: Fire Management.................................................................... 60
Objective A—8: Habitat Management Plan ...................................................... 60
GOAL B: WILDLIFE ................................................................................................... 61
Objective B—1: Waterfowl ................................................................................ 61
Objective B—2: Mottled Ducks ......................................................................... 61
Objective B—3: Geese ..................................................................................... 62
Objective B—4: Shorebirds............................................................................... 62
Objective B—5: Colonial Waterbirds................................................................... 63
Objective B—6: Non-game Migratory Landbirds .............................................. 63
Objective B—7: Grassland Birds ...................................................................... 64
Objective B—8: Alligators ................................................................................. 65
Objective B—9: Fisheries ................................................................................. 65
Objective B—10: Inventory ............................................................................... 66
GOAL C: PEOPLE ..................................................................................................... 67
Objective C—1: Public Use Management......................................................... 67
Objective C—2: Hunting ................................................................................... 69
Objective C—3: Fishing .................................................................................... 70
Objective C—4: Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................... 71
Objective C—5: Environmental Education........................................................ 72
Objective C—6: Interpretation........................................................................... 73
Objective C—7: Volunteers .............................................................................. 73
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
v
Table of Contents
GOAL D: CULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................74
Objective D—1: Survey.....................................................................................74
Objective D—2: Education................................................................................75
Objective D—3: Cultural Resources Management Plan ...................................75
GOAL E: REFUGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS............................................................75
Objective E-1: Complex Staffing .......................................................................75
Objective E-2: Complex Support.......................................................................76
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 77
Introduction.................................................................................................................77
List of Projects ............................................................................................................77
Habitat ...................................................................................................................77
Project 1 — Expand and Enhance Moist Soil Management .............................77
Project 2 — Restore and Monitor Freshwater Wetland Impoundments............80
Project 3 — Improve Habitat Quality in Natural Freshwater Marsh and Prairie
Habitat...............................................................................................................81
Project 4 — Control Undesirable Plant and Animal Species.............................84
Project 5 — Meet and Fulfill Heavy Equipment Needs .....................................85
Wildlife ...................................................................................................................85
Project 6 — Inventory and Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to
Management Actions ........................................................................................85
People....................................................................................................................87
Project 7 — Improve Visitor Services................................................................87
Project 8 — Improve and Enhance Fishing Opportunities ................................90
Current and Proposed Staffing ...................................................................................91
Step-down Plans ........................................................................................................95
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................95
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................96
Plan Performance.......................................................................................................96
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................ 97
Planning Team ...........................................................................................................97
Contributors: ...............................................................................................................98
SECTION B. APPENDICES.............................................................................. 99
Appendix A – Glossary..................................................................................................101
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vi
Table of Contents
Appendix B – References and Literature Citations ....................................................... 109
Appendix C – Legal Mandates...................................................................................... 113
Appendix D – Biota ....................................................................................................... 121
Appendix E - Scoping ................................................................................................... 133
Appendix F– Compatibility Determinations ................................................................... 147
Appendix G– Refuge Operating Needs and Service Asset Maintenance Management
System Needs .......................................................................................... 189
Appendix H- Section 7 Consultation ............................................................................. 195
Appendix I ��� Public Comment and Response .............................................................. 199
Appendix J - Finding of No Significant Impact .............................................................. 209
Alternative A. No Action Alternative.................................................................... 210
Alternative B. Maximize Quality and Quantity of Habitat for Wintering Waterfowl
(Preferred Alternative) ......................................................................................... 211
Alternative C. Degrade All Levees and Hold Refuge in Custodial Form ............ 211
Selection Rationale.............................................................................................. 212
Wildlife Disturbance............................................................................................. 214
User Group Conflicts ........................................................................................... 215
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ......................................................................... 215
Land Ownership and Site Development .............................................................. 215
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vii
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems......................................5
Figure 2. Aerial view of Cameron Prairie ......................................................................11
Figure 3. Location of refuges within Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. .......................................................................................................12
Figure 4. Marsh types in Cameron Parish.....................................................................14
Figure 5. Mallards along Pintail Drive ...........................................................................17
Figure 6. Cameron Prairie Management Units and acreages.......................................18
Figure 7. Mottled duck nest...........................................................................................19
Figure 8. Ibis nesting colony .........................................................................................19
Figure 9. Water buffalo..................................................................................................20
Figure 10. Eastern hog-nosed snake .............................................................................22
Figure 11. Water hyacinth chokes Unit 1 canal..............................................................23
Figure 12. Cameron Prairie habitat management types.................................................24
Figure 13. Mechanically created hemi-marsh ................................................................25
Figure 14. Unit 14A levee construction ..........................................................................26
Figure 15. Existing visitor facilities at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge...........28
Figure 16. Annual Visitation for Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge....................29
Figure 17. Cameron Prairie hunt area map....................................................................30
Figure 18. Refurbished photo blind ................................................................................31
Figure 19. State Highway 27..........................................................................................33
Figure 20. Cameron Prairie Management Units............................................................38
Figure 21. Native Walter's millet....................................................................................39
Figure 22. Oil and gas test well.....................................................................................45
Figure 23. Proposed visitor facilities on Cameron Prairie ..............................................68
Figure 24. Current and proposed staffing for Cameron Prairie ......................................93
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
viii
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Birds of management concern to the Refuge ................................................... 16
Table 2. Peak waterfowl numbers from annual aerial surveys ....................................... 17
Table 3. Results of the 2001 Aerial Nesting Wading Birds Survey ................................ 20
Table 4. Land cover and habitat types on Cameron Prairie........................................... 23
Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000)........ 36
Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000) ...... 37
Table 7. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Management Units ........................ 39
Table 8. Costs to Expand and Enhance Moist Soil Management Units......................... 78
Table 9. Costs to Restore and Monitor Freshwater Wetland Impoundments ................ 82
Table 10. Costs to Improve Habitat Quality in Natural Freshwater Marsh and Prairie... 84
Table 11. Costs to Control Undesirable Plants and Animals ......................................... 84
Table 12. Costs to Meet and Fulfill Heavy Equipment Needs........................................ 85
Table 13. Costs to Inventory and Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to
Adaptive Management Techniques............................................................... 87
Table 14. Costs to Improve Visitor Services .................................................................. 89
Table 15. Costs to Provide Enhanced Fishing Opportunities ........................................ 90
Table 16. Cost of existing and proposed positions ........................................................ 92
Table 17. Summary of Costs for 2005 – 2019 ............................................................... 94
Table 18. Step-down Plans............................................................................................ 95
SECTION A. CAMERON PRAIRIE NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION PLAN
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Background
I. Background
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is the primary Federal
agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s
fish and wildlife resources and their
habitats. Responsibilities are shared
with other Federal, state, tribal, and
local entities; however, the Service has specific responsibilities for endangered species,
migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for
lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and protection of
these resources. It also operates national fish hatcheries, fishery resource offices and
ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers
the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid
program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars from excise taxes on fishing and
hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service manages the 95-
million acre National Wildlife
Refuge System, which
encompasses 545 national wildlife
refuges, thousands of small
wetlands and other special
management areas. The majority of
these lands, 77 million acres, are in
Alaska, with the remaining acres
spread across the other 49 states
and several territories.
Approximately 82 million acres in the System were reserved from the public domain. The
remainder has been acquired through purchase, from other Federal agencies, as gifts,
or through easement and lease agreements.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act (Act), which has been called the “Organic Act” of the
Refuge System. The Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of
wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The mission of the Service is
working with others to “conserve,
protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people.”
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.”
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Background
The Act also recognized the outstanding recreational opportunities on refuges. The
Refuge System has long provided some of the nation's best hunting and fishing, and our
refuges continue to support these deeply rooted American traditions. The law
established compatible wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation as priority public
uses of the Refuge System.
Among other things, this far-reaching law required comprehensive conservation planning
for each refuge, and set standards to assure that all uses of refuges were compatible
with their purposes and the System's wildlife conservation mission. It also required the
Service to conserve the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of
refuges, and consider the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States in
planning the growth of the Refuge System.
The Service’s planning process is premised on strong partnerships with State fish and
wildlife agencies. It provides an opportunity to use science in managing refuges,
assuring an ecological perspective as to how refuges fit into the greater surrounding
landscapes. The planning process also provides citizens with a meaningful role in
helping to shape future management of individual refuges and recognizes the important
roles they play in the lives of nearby communities.
The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀂾􋸠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
􀂾􋸠 Fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge.
􀂾􋸠 Consider the needs of wildlife first.
􀂾􋸠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for
each unit of the Refuge System.
􀂾􋸠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System.
􀂾􋸠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography; environmental education and
interpretation are legitimate and priority public uses.
􀂾􋸠 Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
CAMERON PRAIRIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE
CONSERVATION PLAN
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for Cameron Prairie National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), the 447th
refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge
System, is being prepared as mandated
by the Act to guide management actions
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Background
and direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will
receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed
and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission
of the Refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to ensure that each refuge in the System contributes to the
System’s mission to provide a 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.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
􀂾􋸠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction.
􀂾􋸠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an
understanding of Service management actions on and around the refuge.
􀂾􋸠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and
recreation and education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
􀂾􋸠 Ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the
Refuge was established.
􀂾􋸠 Ensure that refuge management is consistent with Federal, state, and local plans
and contributes to the mission of the ecosystem it is located in.
􀂾􋸠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, Congressional legislation, Presidential Executive
Orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further
refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by
policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to
Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless
specifically and legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on
mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
Those mandates are to:
􀂾􋸠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
Background
􀂾􋸠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats.
􀂾􋸠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants.
􀂾􋸠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation)
as those uses benefit the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and
contribute to the enjoyment of the public.
􀂾􋸠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal agencies and state
fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State
wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for
protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife
species in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state-partnering agency
with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds
and endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources and
approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas.
LDWF coordinates the state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities on state wildlife management areas. The state’s participation and
contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process provides for
ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity
of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is
integrating common mission objectives where appropriate.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private
landowners and local communities as well as state and Federal governments within
ecosystems to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological
diversity, establish conservation priorities, clarify goals, and solve common threats and
problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all Federal, state, tribal,
and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only protects the
more important areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
Cameron Prairie is a member and active participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi
River Ecosystem (LMRE) Team (Figure 1). The ecosystem serves as the primary
wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and
migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning from Central and South America, and
numerous resident wildlife species.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Background
CALCASIEU LAKE
G U L F O F M E X I C O
TENNESSEE/CUMBERLAND RIVER
16 SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS
26 OHIO RIVER VALLEY
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
CENTRAL GULF WATERSHEDS
NORTHEAST GULF WATERSHEDS
ALTAMAHA WATERSHEDS
PENNISULAR FLORIDA
SAVANNAH/SANTEE/PEE DEE RIVERS
ROANOKE/TAR/NEUSE/CAPE FEAR RIVERS
SOUTH FLORIDA
16
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
34
53
33
34
53
CAMERON PRAIRIE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
(ECOREGION)
CAM ERON PRAIRIE
NATION AL WILDLIFE REFUGE
GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY
£ 27
£ 82
£ 82
£ 384
F National Wildlife Refuge
State Highway
0 1 2 4
Miles
0 1 2 4
Kilometers
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
Background
Geographically, the Refuge lies on the extreme southwestern boundary of the
ecosystem and has few opportunities to contribute to many of the goals and objectives
of the LMRE. There are some common targets that are applicable to the Refuge and to
which they contribute, but the Refuge would more appropriately contribute to the
objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem (TGCE). The TGCE lies
between the Sabine River and the mouth of the Rio Grande and inland to include the
historical coastal prairie. It is considered by many to be part of a larger ecological Gulf
Coast system that also includes portions of coastal Louisiana and Mexico. The TGCE
team has requested Region 4 refuges in nearby Louisiana to participate in their
ecosystem team meetings.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
Priorities identified by the LMRE to which the Refuge can contribute include:
􀂾􋸠 Continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private
landowners, and other entities to protect and restore coastal wetlands, consistent
with the Coast 2050 Plan and associated project planning, evaluation and
implementation activities.
􀂾􋸠 Consider all grant opportunities available to the LMRE Team and partners and
work to improve internal coordination of these programs to assure that the
contributions to these programs are of maximum benefit to the resource.
􀂾􋸠 Support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance
and expand knowledge, awareness and appreciation of trust resources.
􀂾􋸠 Restore native prairie.
􀂾􋸠 Control invasive and exotic species.
􀂾􋸠 Build regional and national support for the Service’s Fisheries program.
TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
Priorities identified by the TGCE to which the Refuge can contribute include:
􀂾􋸠 Restore, conserve, enhance and maintain approximately 500,000 acres of the
historic Gulf Coast prairies in Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico to ensure the
continued existence of native flora and fauna.
􀂾􋸠 Maintain, restore, enhance and create wetlands and associated habitats to
achieve a net gain in wetland quality, quantity (based on National Wetland
Inventory data), and natural productivity.
􀂾􋸠 Increase ecological monitoring and research efforts and improve information
management capabilities in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem.
􀂾􋸠 Encourage Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to
participate in Ecosystem Team meetings.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
Background
􀂾􋸠 Develop partnerships with other Service Regions, Mexico, natural resource
agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations to plan and
implement outreach programs.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety
net to support biological diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. According
to the LMRE Team, the greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower
Mississippi Valley include:
􀂾􋸠 The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of
bottomland hardwood forests.
􀂾􋸠 The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, e.g., forest
fragmentation.
􀂾􋸠 The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices.
􀂾􋸠 The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and
gene pools.
􀂾􋸠 The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects.
􀂾􋸠 The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development
activities.
Specific threats applicable to Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge include:
􀂾􋸠 Colonization of invasive plant and animal species which displace natural
vegetation and deteriorate those habitats on which native animal species
depend.
􀂾􋸠 Prolonged flooding within Refuge units which interferes with management
strategies developed for ideal habitat conditions.
􀂾􋸠 Problems associated with the adjacent Gulf Intracoastal Waterway including soil
erosion caused by wave action and contamination resulting from barge
accidents.
􀂾􋸠 Most of Cameron Prairie Refuge is in the Mermentau Basin (that portion east of
Highway 27), but the entire refuge is functionally located within the Mermentau
Lakes subbasin. A very real threat to marshes in this Basin is marsh loss due to
subsidence and high water levels caused by the Corps of Engineers Locks and
Gates in the Mermentau Lakes subbasin. Marsh loss in the Mermentau Basin is
projected to be over 1,000 acres per year (0.23% per year) or a total of 62,000
acres by 2050 (Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana 1998).
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
Background
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus
on threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern.
Goals and objectives in this CCP are stepped down from the following plans: Partners in
Flight Bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Gulf Coast
Joint Venture, Chenier Plain Initiative), North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and
Restoration Act, Coast 2050 – Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana
Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan, and the Fisheries Vision for the Future.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990’s to form the Partners in
Flight program to combine resources and knowledge of many people to jointly protect the
natural diversity of our continent. Many partners have made the program successful by
participating in Working Groups to develop Regional Bird Conservation Plans. Cameron
Prairie is located within the Coastal Prairie Physiographic Area 6 and can contribute to the
plan’s actions for marsh restoration projects to benefit migrant landbirds.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was signed by the United
States and Canadian governments in 1986 and undertook an intensive effort to protect
and restore North America’s waterfowl populations and their habitats. With its update in
1994, Mexico became a signatory to the Plan. Restoration of wetlands and associated
ecosystems is the main premise of the plan in order to restore waterfowl populations to
levels observed in the 1970’s.
GULF COAST JOINT VENTURE (CHENIER PLAIN INITIATIVE)
Regional partnerships or joint ventures composed of individuals, sportsmen’s groups,
conservation organizations, and local, state, provincial, and Federal governments were
formed under the NAWMP. One such partnership—the Gulf Coast Joint Venture
(GCJV)—formed to conserve priority waterfowl habitat range along the Western United
States Gulf Coast, one of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf
Coast is the terminus of the Central and Mississippi Flyways which provides both
wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of the continental goose and duck
populations. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture’s greatest contribution to the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide wintering grounds for waterfowl. A great
diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles and amphibians also rely on the
wetlands of the Gulf Coast for part of their life cycles.
The GCJV is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the Chenier
Plain Initiative area of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. The goal of the
Chenier Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for significant
numbers of dabbling ducks, diving ducks and geese (especially lesser snow (Chen
caerulescens) and greater white-fronted (Anser albifrons)), as well as year-round habitat
for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula).
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Background
The Refuge contributes to the objectives of this Initiative by increasing moist soil
management capabilities on 1,391 acres through cooperative efforts with Ducks
Unlimited, providing resting and breeding habitat for mottled ducks, banding
approximately 200 mottled ducks per year in cooperation with the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries, and managing fields and creating grit sites to promote use by
geese. In addition, Refuge personnel have been instrumental in improving wintering
waterfowl habitat through cooperative efforts with the multi-agency Cameron Creole
Watershed Project. Through partnerships, 55,000 feet of terraces were constructed on
the East Cove Unit of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed and
administered by Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed under a partnership,
the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, which is a group of individuals and
organizations having interest and responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their
habitats in the Americas. Cameron Prairie is located in the Southeast U.S. Regional
Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. The Refuge can contribute to a key objective of
this region, which is to standardize data collection efforts and analysis procedures to
allow better tracking of regional movements and the association of these movements
with environmental or land use changes.
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations
throughout the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Cameron
Prairie National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf
Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional scale, the Refuge can help ensure that
adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to support the
different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through the area.
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT (CWPPRA)
In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act that generates $50 to $60 M annually for Louisiana coastal wetland projects via a
85/15 Federal-State cost share, and which provided for the development of the 1993
comprehensive Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. Funding of proposed
restoration projects is determined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands and Conservation
and Restoration Task Force, which is composed of five Federal agencies and the State
of Louisiana. As mandated by CWPPRA, the task force developed a detailed Coastal
Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993 that describes what restoration actions and projects
should be implemented to address Louisiana’s coastal land loss crisis. A Priority Project
List is developed and approved by the task force each year, outlining which projects will
receive CWPPRA funding.
COAST 2050: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA
Coast 2050 is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed to address coastal
wetland loss throughout southern Louisiana by private citizens, local, state and Federal
agencies, and the scientific community. This plan, which is recognized by the state of
Louisiana, five Federal agencies, and local coastal parish governments, serves as the
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Background
joint coastal restoration plan for CWPPRA. The goals of the plan are to assure vertical
accumulation (soil, vegetation and other organic material) to achieve sustainability,
maintain estuarine gradient to achieve diversity, and to maintain exchange and interface
to achieve system linkages. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge is included in
Region 4 of this plan.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan (LCA) evolved from the Coast
2050 Plan with the overarching goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of the
coastal ecosystem. This plan formed the basis for the Louisiana Coastal Area
Ecosystem Restoration Study, designed to identify critical ecological needs, identify
restoration efforts, establish restoration priorities, and identify scientific uncertainties to
present a strategy for addressing long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge is located within Sub-province 4 for LCA. The
restoration plans identified in LCA relate directly and indirectly to the Refuge through
long-term efforts to explore large scale restoration projects that will influence the entire
coastal zone of Louisiana.
FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE
In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries
Program and develop a vision. This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program, “is
working with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining
levels and to support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the
American public”. To achieve the vision, the Fisheries program works with its partners to:
􀂾􋸠 Protect the health of aquatic habitats.
􀂾􋸠 Restore fish and other aquatic resources.
􀂾􋸠 Provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and implementation actions
to focus on key needs. Cameron Prairie can contribute to the program’s recreational
fishing goal to provide quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related
recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources on Service lands.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Refuge Description
II. Refuge Description
INTRODUCTION
Created in 1988, Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge was the 447th refuge
established within the National Wildlife Refuge System and the first created under the
goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, a continental conservation
effort among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Land was purchased on
December 28, 1988, with funding provided by the Migratory Bird Stamp Act (USFWS
2003; 1998). The Refuge administers two units, the 9,621-acre Gibbstown Unit (Figure
2) and the 14,927-acre East Cove Unit, originally established under nearby Sabine
National Wildlife Refuge but managed by Cameron Prairie.
This CCP will not address the East Cove Unit; although East Cove was administratively
transferred to Cameron Prairie in 1992, the Service has not finalized the transfer. An
administrative decision to exclude the East Cove Unit from the scope of this CCP and
include it under the Sabine CCP was made in 2002.
The Refuge was administratively combined with nearby Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
in 2000, and is now part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(USFWS 2001). Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge joined the Complex in April of 2004.
Cameron Prairie serves as the Headquarters for the Complex.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
is located about 25 miles southeast of
Lake Charles, Louisiana, in north
central Cameron Parish (county) (Figure
3). The 9,621-acre Refuge and the
64,000-acre multi-agency Cameron
Creole Watershed Project, managed by
Cameron Prairie, contains freshwater
marsh, coastal prairie, and moist soil
units and is managed to preserve and
protect wintering waterfowl and their
habitat. It is located four miles west of
the western boundary of Lacassine
National Wildlife Refuge, and is
bordered on the north and west by
private land. The Gulf-Intracoastal Waterway forms the southern boundary of the unit,
while North Canal forms the eastern boundary (USFWS 2003).
Resource management programs on Cameron Prairie are directed at preserving,
protecting, and improving wildlife habitat. Historically, approximately 4,969 acres
within the Refuge were farmed for rice. This land is now managed for annual plants
that provide food for wildlife. Prairie lands within the Refuge are being restored by
periodic burning, discing, and mowing, while earthen levees and water control
structures have been repaired or installed to maximize water management in the
marshes. Certain marshes are drained or burned periodically to promote the growth
of natural waterfowl and shorebird foods
Figure 2. Aerial view of Cameron Prairie
L. Kolankiewicz
12
Figure 3. Location of refuges within Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
Refuge Description
PURPOSE
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge was established “... for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act)).
During acquisition planning, justification for the Refuge included the following: 1) provide
additional sanctuary to wintering waterfowl that would offer additional management
opportunities, particularly for geese; 2) assure long-term preservation of important
wintering habitat for waterfowl as the Louisiana coastline continues to move further
inland; 3) provide additional sanctuary for wintering waterfowl in the leading harvest
parish in North America; 4) provide additional relief or another alternative resting location
to the high concentrations of waterfowl found at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge; and
5) provide a variety of quality recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, and other compatible wildlife-dependent activities.
Since establishment, management goals for Cameron Prairie are to:
Provide the highest quality wintering waterfowl habitat possible.
􀂾􋸠 Allow compatible public uses, such as hunting, fishing, environmental education,
wildlife observation, and photography.
􀂾􋸠 Promote research on marsh and aquatic wildlife (USFWS 2002c).
􀂾􋸠 Provide for the needs of any endangered plants and animals.
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION
FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS
Cameron Prairie is located in the transition zone between higher agricultural land
(historic tallgrass prairie) and the coastal marshes, and contains species from both
habitat types. The Refuge is predominantly freshwater marsh (Figure 4) and has a high
plant and animal species diversity due to its many different elevations and water depths.
Cameron Prairie’s marshes provide valuable habitat for resident and migratory
populations of ducks, geese, shorebirds and wading birds. Alligators (Alligator
mississippiensis) are often seen sunning along the wildlife drive and in the canals
adjacent to Louisiana State Highway 27. Its moist prairies are home to songbirds,
Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Every winter, the Refuge welcomes
thousands of waterfowl escaping frozen northern breeding grounds.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Refuge Description
Figure 4. Marsh types in Cameron Parish
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Refuge Description
Snow geese are the most abundant goose species while green-winged teal (Anas
crecca) and ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris) are the most numerous ducks. In the
spring, just as neotropical migratory songbirds are arriving, these waterfowl depart for
their northern nesting grounds. Other ducks remain at Cameron Prairie and breed here,
of which the mottled and fulvous whistling (Dendrocygna bicolor) ducks are the most
abundant. The Refuge’s wading birds, such as white (Eudocimus albus) and white-faced
(Plegadis chihi) ibis, egrets:snowy (Egretta thulon), great (Ardea alba) and cattle
(Bubulcus ibis), purple gallinules (Porphyrio martinica), common moorhens (Gallinula
chloropus), roseate spoonbills (Platalea ajaia), and several species of herons, are a
showy and sometimes spectacular attraction.
There have been more than 200 bird species recorded on Cameron Prairie (USFWS
2002c). The Refuge’s bird checklist is presented in Appendix D.
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Management Concern
Cameron Prairie currently has no threatened and endangered species (USFWS 2002a),
but some species of management concern are expected to occur on the Refuge. Those
species are the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii), black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis), buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis), and loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus) (USFWS 2004).
A 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1980 mandated the Service to “ identify species, subspecies, and populations of
all migratory non-game birds, that without additional conservation actions, are likely to
become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).” Birds
of Conservation Concern 2002 (BCC 2002) is the most recent effort to carry out this
mandate. The report strives to accurately identify migratory and non-migratory bird
species (beyond those already designated as Federally-threatened or endangered) that
represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities to draw attention to species in
need of conservation action. BCC 2002 lists birds of conservation concern at three
geographic scales – North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation
Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions, and National – to maximize the utility
of the lists for partners, agencies, and organizations.
In addition, three National Plans were used to place birds on the lists: Partners In Flight,
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Current conservation assessment scores for each species were
taken from the three plans which were based on several factors, including population
trends, threats, distribution, abundance, and area importance.
While all the bird species included in BCC 2002 are priorities for conservation action, the
lists make no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.
The Service’s goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by
implementing proactive management and conservation actions.
Table 1 lists birds known or expected to occur on Cameron Prairie National Wildlife
Refuge that are of management concern. Refer to Appendix D for scientific names.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
Refuge Description
Table 1. Birds of management concern to the Refuge
Common Name
Bird
Conservation
Region 37 List
USFWS
Region 4 List
National
List
American Bittern X
Little Blue Heron X X
Reddish Egret X X X
White ibis X
Northern Harrier X X
Peregrine Falcon X X X
Yellow Rail X X X
Black Rail X X X
American Golden-Plover X X
Wilson’s Plover X X
Upland Sandpiper X
Whimbrel X X X
Long-billed Curlew X X X
Marbled Godwit X X X
Red Knot X X X
Stilt Sandpiper X X
Short-billed Dowitcher X X
Buff-breasted Sandpiper X X X
Gull-billed Tern X X X
Common Tern X
Least Tern X X X
Black Tern X
Black Skimmer X X X
Black-billed Cuckoo X
Burrowing Owl X X
Short-eared Owl X X X
Chuck-will’s Widow X X
Whip-poor-will X
Red-headed Woodpecker X X X
Olive-sided Flycatcher X X
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher X
Sedge Wren X X
Wood Thrush X
Golden-winged Warbler X X
Prairie Warbler X X
Cerulean Warbler X X
Prothonotary Warbler X X
Worm-eating Warbler X X
Louisiana Waterthrush X
Kentucky Warbler X X
Canada Warbler X
LeConte’s Sparrow X X X
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow X X
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Refuge Description
Waterfowl
The Refuge provides habitat for wintering
waterfowl (Figure 5) and other water birds and
provides a winter home to about 24,000 ducks
and 8,000 geese, and a spring and summer
home to numerous migrating songbirds
(USFWS 1998; USFWS 2002c). During
migration the Refuge is a critical stopover point
for songbirds. Refuge management units are
shown in Figure 6.
Aerial waterfowl surveys are periodically
conducted to estimate the number of birds using the Refuge. Fluctuations in waterfowl
numbers are often attributed to environmental conditions beyond the Refuge’s control,
i.e. temperature, rainfall, etc. Approximately 3,230 acres (34 percent) of the Refuge are
surveyed, and an expansion multiplier of 2.94 is used to estimate the total number of
waterfowl across the entire Refuge (USFWS 2001). Data and trends for peak
populations of ducks and geese on the Refuge are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Peak waterfowl numbers from annual aerial surveys
Figure 5. Mallards along Pintail Drive
Year Approximate Number
Of Ducks Observed
Approximate Number
Of Geese Observed
1990 25,500 22,000
1991 23,500 3,000
1992 23,000 5,000
1993 31,000 3,000
1994 20,000 2,500
1995 34,500 4,000
1996 21,500 11,000
1997 45,500 3,500
1998 18,000 12,000
1999 6,500 2,500
2000 24,000 8,250
2001 16,500 20,000
2002 17,500 10,000
2003 20,924 17,858
Sources: USFWS 2001; 2002a; 2003
Mike Hoff
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Refuge Description
Figure 6. Cameron Prairie Management Units and acreages
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
Refuge Description
The most abundant duck on the Refuge during the spring and summer is the mottled
duck. This species is a year-round resident and frequently nests (Figure 7) on the
Refuge each spring. By May and June, young mottled duck broods can be observed
using a variety of the Refuge’s habitat types (USFWS 2001). In 2000, 26 mottled duck
pairs with fairly well established territories were frequently observed using the Refuge.
The total estimated number of nesting mottled ducks was 37 pairs (USFWS 2002a).
In 1993, a grit site was placed on the Refuge; two more
sites were added in 1995. Two of these sites (one in
Unit 6 and one in Unit 14b) have experienced excellent
daily use by geese during winter. The third grit site,
located behind the Visitor Center in Unit 14a, had
increased goose use toward the end of the 2000
wintering period (USFWS 2001).
Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds)
Cameron Prairie boasts high wading bird diversity and
abundance with a peak of 15,000 or more wading birds
roosting on the Refuge. Common nesting and visiting
water birds on the Refuge include: white, white-faced, and glossy (Plegadis falcinellus)
ibis; green, great blue, tri-colored, and little blue herons (Egretta caerulea); yellow-crowned
(Nycticorax violacea) and black-crowned (Nycticorax nycticorax) night herons;
American and least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis); snowy, great, and cattle egrets; and
roseate spoonbills (USFWS 2002a; 2001; 1998).
Unit 1 on the Refuge typically has the highest
populations of roosting and nesting birds (Figure 8)
on the Refuge, as shown in Table 3 (USFWS
2002a). Nesting and roosting habitat for wading
birds on Cameron Prairie is provided by levees
and old oil locations grown over by shrubs and
trees, such as willow, Chinese tallow (Sapium
sebiferum), and Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata).
Stands of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus
californicus) provide good nesting habitat for the
white, white-faced, and glossy ibis, as well as
black-crowned night herons. The largest rookery
for roseate spoonbills and snowy, great, and cattle
egrets is located at an old oil operation in Unit 2. The preferred nesting area for green
herons consists of shrubs in Unit 1(USFWS 2002a; 2001).
Figure 7. Mottled duck nest
Figure 8. Ibis nesting colony
Mike Hoff
Mike Hoff
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Refuge Description
USFWS
Table 3. Results of the 2001 Aerial Nesting Wading Birds Survey
Sandhill Cranes
Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) have been observed using the Holmwood area,
approximately eight miles north of Cameron Prairie. Yearly surveys to determine the
wintering population in the area have been conducted since 1989, when only 12
individuals were recorded. This number increased to approximately 670 sandhill cranes
by 1999. During the winters of 2001 and 2002, approximately 550 and 650 sandhill
cranes were estimated in the Holmwood area respectively (USFWS 2003).
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species
The three most widespread birds of this group found on the
Refuge are the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), black-necked
stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and Forster’s
tern (Sterna forsteri). Common snipe (Gallinago
gallinago) are also prevalent on the Refuge during the
winter. Yellowlegs and dowitchers are found on the
Refuge’s shallow water areas during the fall and winter.
In addition, four woodcock were repeatedly observed
on the Refuge in early 2000 (USFWS 2001).
Shorebird management is likely to increase in the
future, as more areas are restored to allow better water
management, including early flooding, timely
dewatering, and water buffaloing (use of mechanized farm equipment in combination
with land rolling equipment to improve seed-soil contact) (Figure 9) of moist soil units to
create muddy areas (USFWS 2001).
Species Number of Birds Observed
Unit 1
North
Unit 1
Central
Unit 1
South
Unit 1
Location
Bank
Fishing
Road
Cattle egret 485 50
Snowy egret 195
Great egret 275 20
Cormorant 120 20
Anhinga 5 2
Roseate spoonbill 80 5
White faced ibis 300 450 500
White ibis 500 5
Little blue heron 35 2 20
Tri-colored heron 15
Great blue heron 50
Black-crowned
night heron
20
Green heron 30
Source: USFWS 2002a
Figure 9. Water buffalo
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
Refuge Description
Raptors
Cameron Prairie’s raptors include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp-shinned
hawks (Accipter striatus), merlins (Falco columbarius), kestrels, Cooper’s
hawks (Accipter cooperi), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), and occasionally
peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) (USFWS
2001). Few hawks winter on the Refuge.
The American kestrel (Falco sparverius), northern harrier, and red-tailed hawk are
the most common raptors on the Refuge. Peregrine falcons have also been
observed. During the winter of 1999-2000, one peregrine falcon was repeatedly
seen in Unit 6 near the observation blind. In the fall of 2000, two peregrine falcons
were observed on the Refuge: one in Unit 6 and one near the Visitor Center
(USFWS 2001). Again, in 2001, wintering peregrine falcons were commonly
reported on the Refuge. On two occasions, a peregrine was seen taking a drake
northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) in mid-flight (USFWS 2002a).
The Refuge recorded a new raptor species, the Northern caracara (Caracara cheriway),
in March 2000. During rehabilitation of moist soil units in Unit 14b, a single caracara was
observed on the newly created bare earth areas (USFWS 2001).
Other Migratory Birds
One major attraction of Cameron Prairie Refuge is the considerable number of
neotropical migratory birds that rest here each spring after their trans-Gulf flight. While
the Refuge does not have many trees or shrubs for these species to use, those that are
available are extremely important to the migrants. Mourning doves are commonly seen
along fencerows, levees, roads, and disced fields at the Refuge. Blackbirds, including
red-winged (Agelias phoeniceus) and grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), are also common
(USFWS 2001).
Mammals
An abundant mammal on the Refuge is the non-native but naturalized nutria (Myocastor
coipus), introduced to the United States from South America in 1899 (Willner et.al 1979).
Nutria were released, either intentionally, or accidentally, in the Louisiana marshes in
the 1930’s. Although the nutria can be destructive to levees and vegetation, the species
is beneficial in that it is available as a food source for the Refuges alligator population.
The Refuge also has an abundant coyote (Canis latrans) population, which feed on
rabbits and other rodents that are plentiful. Other mammals commonly seen around
Cameron Prairie include raccoons (Procyron lotor), otters (Lutra canadensis), opossum
(Didelphis marsupialis), and mink (Mustela vison) (USFWS 2001).
Three species of game mammals are found on the Refuge, all with productive
populations: the white-tailed deer, swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), and cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
Refuge Description
Amphibians and Reptiles
Except for the American alligator, little
information is currently available about reptile
and amphibian populations on the Refuge. A
reptile and amphibian survey was conducted by
Kansas State University on the Refuge in 2001,
which resulted in the identification of 11
species (USFWS 2002a). Species identified
were: American alligator, eastern narrow-mouthed
toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis), Gulf
Coast toad (Bufo valliceps valliceps), Northern
cricket frogs (Acris crepitans crepitans), eastern
hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platirhinos) (Figure
10), western ribbon snake (Thamnophis poximus
proximus), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis
getulus), slider (Trachemys scripta), green anole
(Anolis carolinensis), ground skink (Scinella lateralus), and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus). Personal observations by staff include: pig frog (Rana grylio), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), mud snake (Farancia abacura), cottonmouth (Agkinstodon piscivorous),
and stinkpot turtle (Sternotherus odoratus).
A 2002 survey discovered 18 alligator nests in Unit 8 of the Refuge. Alligators are
harvested annually on the Refuge by two permittees chosen by random selection.
Harvest quotas for Cameron Prairie are determined annually, approximating limits set by
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. These quotas are based on annual
aerial alligator nesting surveys (USFWS 2002a).
Aquatic Species
Fish species present include gar, catfish, bowfin (Amia calva), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and crappie (USFWS 2002b; 2001).
Invasive Plant Species
Several invasive plant species pose problems at Cameron Prairie, as they do at many
national wildlife refuges. In general, invasive plant species are problematic because they
outcompete native vegetation on which native animal species have come to depend over
many millennia of adaptation and co-evolution. At Cameron Prairie, invasive plant
species include the Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum), water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.),
frogbit (Limnobium spongia), cattail (Typa spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon),
cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea), California bulrush (Scirpus californicus) and common
salvinia (Salvinia minima) (USFWS 2003).
The Chinese tallow tree, a non-native small to medium-sized tree, has been reduced in
occurrence on the Refuge through moist soil management, but remains a problem on
several levees around moist soil units (USFWS 2002a). The tallow tree typically grows
on elevated and undisturbed ground along fencerows and levees (USFWS 2001). The
best control methods for this species on the Refuge have been herbicides on the levees
Figure 10. Eastern hog-nosed snake
Raymond Matlack
Kansas State University
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Refuge Description
and manipulation of the fields (USFWS
2002a). However, the tallow tree is a
very resilient species, and tends to re-sprout
shortly after the herbicide is no longer
available (USFWS 2001).
Water hyacinth (Figure 11) and common salvinia
have clogged the majority of Refuge canals,
delaying water movement to the point that
pumping operations have become more
expensive to operate (USFWS 2003). The
Refuge currently uses herbicides to try to control
water hyacinth (USFWS 2001). Hydrilla and
Eurasian milfoil exclude native and more
beneficial species from establishing where they occur (USFWS 2003).
Invasive Animal Species
One exotic species, the nutria, is the most abundant mammal on the Refuge. Although
the nutria can be destructive to levees and vegetation, the species is beneficial as a food
source for the Refuges alligator population (USFWS 2001). Control of other invasive
species will be managed if need arises.
HABITATS
The Refuge consists of 9,621 acres of freshwater marsh, coastal prairie, and former
agriculture (rice) fields converted to moist soil habitat (Figure 12). Table 4 shows a
breakdown of land cover and habitat types on the Refuge.
Figure 11. Water hyacinth
chokes Unit 1 canal
Table 4. Land cover and habitat types on Cameron Prairie
Habitat/Cover Acres
Agricultural Land (Fallow Pasture; Reverted to Marsh) 1,093
Natural Freshwater Marsh 1,402
Impounded Freshwater Marsh 4,796
Moist Soil Areas 1,493
Prairie 315
Canals, Roads, Levees, Spoil Banks, Etc. 522
Total 9,621
Sources: USFWS, 2003; 2002a, 2001
Mike Hoff
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Refuge Description
Figure 12. Cameron Prairie habitat management types
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Refuge Description
Wetlands (Marshes and Moist Soil Areas)
Cameron Prairie is located at the point of transition between prairie habitat and that of
coastal marsh habitat. The 9,621-acre Refuge contains these habitat types along with
habitats created through purposeful human manipulations of the land. Prior to the
establishment of the Refuge, these manipulations were for commercial production of
rice. Current manipulations are for the creation of early successional wetlands. These
wetlands are now managed for the
production of annual plants that produce
both vegetation and seeds for use by
geese, ducks and other wetland bird
species. Early successional wetlands
are commonly known as moist soil
habitats. The name, moist soil, refers to
the way water is used to create the
desired plant community. As was done
with rice farming, moist soil habitats are
manually disturbed using mechanical
equipment, tractors and disks.
Following this artificial disturbance,
native plant seeds already existing
within the soil are allowed to germinate and then the soil is flooded to a shallow depth.
Once plants reach maturity, fields are once again disturbed using tractors and water
buffalos to create interspersed open water areas; it is the target to produce a 50:50 ratio
of open water to standing vegetation in a design that produces maximum amounts of
edge habitat between the two. Once accomplished, these broken vegetation styles are
referred to as a “hemi-marsh” (Figure 13). The hemi-marsh areas of mixed open water
and emergent vegetation at a ratio of one part open water to one part vegetation are
preferred by many species of wildlife and provide nesting areas and cover.
Marsh and moist soil habitat account for 8,784 acres on the Refuge. Water level
management in the marshes is conducted with the use of earthen levees and other
water control structures. Some of the marshes are occasionally drained or treated with
prescribed fire to promote native vegetation and reduce undesired species. These areas
are flooded in early winter to benefit waterfowl (USFWS 1998).
Marsh management has been difficult on the Refuge due to insufficient pumping
capabilities, changes to natural hydrology, and increases in populations of invasive
species. In particular, management by pumping water off of Units 1 and 2, which are
large impounded freshwater systems, has been largely ineffective (USFWS 2002a).
In 2002, water level management was made somewhat easier with the addition of new
stoplog structures. These structures allow the Refuge to hold the desired water level in the
marsh, while allowing excess rainwater to leave the impoundments by gravity drainage. The
structures were effective for much of the year, with the exception of September through
December, during which time rainfall was well above average and water levels outside of the
impoundment backed water into the impoundment (USFWS 2003).
In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the Refuge’s flooded freshwater marshes suffered
from below normal precipitation. As a result, the substrate in several units was exposed,
Figure 13. Mechanically created hemi-marsh
Mike Hoff
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Refuge Description
allowing invasive species to become established. The most common of these species
crowding the open water region are frogbit, cattail, maidencane, cutgrass, and California
bulrush (USFWS 2001).
Moist soil management occurs on the upland areas of Units 5, 6, 7, 9, 14A and 14B of
the Refuge. Historic levees constructed during the rice farming days have complicated
the Refuge’s ability to move water as efficiently as new moist soil management
techniques require. The Refuge has redesigned its moist soil units to maximize acreages
and improve water movement ability (USFWS 2002a).
The public use area behind the Visitor Center is managed for moist soil plants. This field is water
buffaloed each fall to increase bird usage and provide quality viewing for the public (USFWS
2002a).
In the past, many of the Refuge’s moist soil areas did not allow for water level management
across the units. Due to drier than normal conditions in early 2000, Cameron Prairie staff were
able to remedy this by constructing or rehabilitating approximately 16,000 feet of levee in Unit
14b and installing 18 new water control structures. This project provided nearly 158 acres of
moist soil units that are capable of optimal water level management. In fall 2000, after a wet
summer, dry conditions returned to the Refuge allowing a second moist soil project. The area
had been dominated by an undesirable species, Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei). Construction
of a new levee in the unit will allow the Refuge to better manage water levels in the field and
provide better habitat for moist soil species as well as minimize Vasey grass. Due to heavy rains
in November 2000, this project was not able to be completed as scheduled (USFWS 2001).
Heavy precipitation also prevented total completion of the project in 2002 (USFWS 2003).
In 2003, Refuge staff renovated some fields in
Unit 14A (Figure 14). New levees were
constructed to create subunits for improved
water management capability. The new fields
were disced and leveled. Vegetation in these
fields responded well as did wintering
waterfowl in the area. On several occasions
2,000 geese and 1,000 ducks used the area.
Preparing moist soil fields for wintering
waterfowl usually requires either mowing or
rolling to provide an open area for birds to
land in. In 2003, instead of opening up entire
fields, Refuge staff used the hemi-marsh
concept and tried to create a more natural
marsh appearance. Waterfowl responded very
well to the created marsh conditions,
especially ducks and feeding geese. Since
snow geese seem to prefer fields that are
more open, a combination of opening an
entire field surrounded by the hemi-marsh
pattern may provide the best situation for all
wintering waterfowl.
Figure 14. Unit 14A levee construction
and moist soil rehabilitation project
Mike Hoff
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
Refuge Description
Forests
Trees on the Refuge are limited to those along levees and spoil banks. The most
common trees include black willow (Salix nigra), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), Chinese
tallow, and toothache tree (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis ). Woody shrubs include wax-myrtle
(Morella cerifera) and baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia). There are also a few pine
and cypress trees, which are important to perching birds (USFWS 2001).
Prairie
There are approximately 315 acres of high marsh habitat classified as “prairie” on the
Refuge. This prairie habitat is interspersed with “pimple mounds,” geologic formations
about 20 to 40 feet in diameter that are 1 to 1.5 feet above the elevation of the
surrounding terrain. One species of interest occurring in prairie habitat on the Refuge is
gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), which has been identified as a native plant to
coastal prairies (USFWS 2001). The Cameron Prairie staff are restoring and maintaining
prairie habitat on the Refuge by periodic prescribed burning, mowing, and discing
(USFWS 2001; 1998). In October 2001, Unit 14A, Field A, 121 acres, was prescribed
burned and subsequently disced. This was the first prescribed burn that occurred on the
Refuge since 1998 (USFWS 2002a).
VISITOR SERVICES
The six priority general public uses on National Wildlife Refuges are hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation.
These wildlife-dependent uses are the Service’s primary focus for the development of
visitor use programs to increase awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife
resources on the National Wildlife Refuge System. All of these uses are available on
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge as described below.
There are no designated hiking trails on Cameron Prairie, but visitors are permitted to
walk along levees and dikes. The Refuge Visitor Center (Figure 15) is located on State
Highway 27, and is open year-round, Monday through Saturday. A 10-minute, site-specific
audio-visual program designed for welcoming and orienting is shown to visitors.
There are currently no fees charged to visitors to the Refuge. Other programs and
materials offered at the Center are discussed below (USFWS 2002c).
Figure 16 shows annual visitation to the Refuge for the past decade. These numbers
include all hunters, fishermen, wildlife drive users, and Visitor Center visitors. The
Refuge typically receives visitors from nearly all states and about 20 countries annually
(USFWS 2003; 2002a, 2001).
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Refuge Description
Figure 15. Existing visitor facilities at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
Refuge Description
CAMERON PRAIRIE NWR
PUBLIC USE
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Number of Visitors
Hunting
Hunting is allowed in designated areas (see Figure 17) of the Refuge during certain
times of the year. Seasons and bag limits are within the guidelines established by the
Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission but are generally more conservative to
assure compatibility with other refuge objectives. The Refuge’s hunting program is
reviewed annually, and consists of the following:
􀂾􋸠 Big Game: Archery hunt for white-tailed deer, open October only in all other
areas other than those listed as closed to all hunting.
􀂾􋸠 Waterfowl (ducks, geese, gallinules): Youth hunts including five blinds with
decoys (two dozen duck and one dozen white-fronted geese). Participants are
chosen by lottery for all Saturdays and select holidays during the State waterfowl
season.
􀂾􋸠 Other migratory birds (initiated in 2002): Hunting for snipe is permitted during the
remaining portion of the State-designated season following the closure of the
State waterfowl season. Hunting for dove is permitted during the first split of the
State-designated season. All state regulations are applicable for these two hunts.
Figure 16. Annual Visitation for Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
Refuge Description
Fishing
Fishing on the Refuge is permitted from March 15th through October 15th, and is limited
to the canals adjacent to Bank Fishing Road, the State Highway 27 ditch (the most
frequently used fishing area on the Refuge), and the Outfall Canal (accessible only via
boat) (USFWS 1998; 2002b). However, fishing has been minimal at best in recent years
due to increases in undesirable aquatic vegetation (USFWS 2002b). There are no boat
ramps available on the Refuge, but boats can be launched from a public boat launch off
State Highway 27. Motorized boat use is permitted only in Outfall Canal; the bank fishing
area is restricted to non-motorized boat use (USFWS 1998; 2002b).
Figure 17. Cameron Prairie hunt area map
Outfall Canal
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Refuge Description
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Pintail Wildlife Drive, a three-mile graveled auto tour
route, is located two miles south of the Visitor Center.
The drive provides excellent wildlife observation
and photography opportunities. There are five
interpretive signs along the route describing
wildlife species and marsh and plant ecology.
Visitors can see wading birds, waterfowl, and
alligators. The Service also maintains a photo-blind
(Figure 18) along Pintail Wildlife Drive which
is available by reservation only and is typically
used two to three times per year.
In addition, State Highway 27, which bisects the
Refuge, is part of the Creole Nature Trail, a
National Scenic Byway and an All American Road
(USFWS 2002c; 1998). Visitors pass through
several marsh habitats along the Creole Nature
Trail and can pull into nine access areas for wildlife viewing and photography.
The Visitor Center has an orientation video, species check lists, interpretive signs,
wildlife displays, exhibits, dioramas, and a calendar of natural events to promote wildlife
observation and appreciation. In addition, brochures listing optimum wildlife viewing
times, access point information, and regulations are available at the Center (USFWS
2002c). Visitors are encouraged to use the Refuge viewing platform located a short walk
from the rear of the Visitor Center. From the platform, visitors can observe an example of
moist soil management and birds that seek the annual plant seeds produced by this
management technique.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
The primary themes interpreted at Cameron Prairie include the area’s ecology, native fauna
and flora, the Service’s mission, and why the Service manages for fish, wildlife, plants, and
habitats. The majority of interpretation at the Refuge occurs in the Visitor Center.
Environmental education and interpretive programs at the Refuge are coordinated and
managed by the Southwest Louisiana Refuges Complex Outreach Coordinator. The
Coordinator is stationed at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and provides guidance and
oversight to the Refuge. Currently, Cameron Prairie staff conducts two to three on-site
programs and four to five off-site programs annually. In addition, each year seven to
eight school groups visit the Refuge (USFWS 2002c).
Refuge staff occasionally participates in radio and television interviews and distributes
news releases off-Refuge to inform the public of special events, openings, Refuge
conditions, and wildlife viewing opportunities. Staff also host interpretive programs and
talks at schools, clubs, the Southwest Louisiana Convention and Visitor Bureau, etc.
(USFWS 2002c). Topics range from basic plant and wildlife identification for elementary
school students to refuge management seminars at the local university (USFWS 2001).
Figure 18. Refurbished photo blind
James D. Ashfield, Jr.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Refuge Description
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of Refuge programs and
facilities and includes new construction.
Refuge Staff
The Refuge was administratively combined with nearby Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
in 2000. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge joined the Complex in April of 2004. The
three Refuges now comprise the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex
with Cameron Prairie serving as Complex Headquarters and management of the
Cameron Creole Watershed Project. Various positions throughout the Complex have or
will be targeted as positions with Complex-wide responsibilities. The Complex staff will
support, direct, and manage the needs, resources, and staff of Cameron Prairie, Sabine,
and Lacassine National Wildlife Refuges. Future plans to house the majority of the
Complex staff at Cameron Prairie will only be accomplished with a building addition and
additional support resources (equipment, vehicles, etc.).
At establishment, Cameron Prairie had eight full-time positions. The Refuge staff now
consists of 5.5 permanent, full-time employees, with an occasional volunteer worker.
Full-time positions include one Refuge Manager, one Assistant Refuge Manager, two
Equipment Operators, one Electrical Equipment Repairer and one part-time Office
Automation Clerk. In the fall of 2003, the vacant Refuge Biologist was converted to a
Complex Biologist with responsibilities for all three refuges. There is also one additional
employee who began working in 2002 under the Student Temporary Employment
Program (STEP) (USFWS 2003).
Three of the 5.5 staff members presently are responsible for management and
biological activities on the East Cove Unit, formerly a part of Sabine National
Wildlife Refuge. The 14,927-acre East Cove Unit is part of the larger multi-agency
Cameron Creole Watershed Project (64,000 acres), a marsh restoration effort for
which the Service has management responsibility, as described in an Operations
and Maintenance Agreement, dated December 18, 1981. The Refuge Manager
spends 50 percent of his time on biological and management duties for the East
Cove Cameron Creole Watershed Project while the Maintenance Worker spends
100 percent of his time on the Project. The Refuge Manager also serves as the
Deputy for the Complex. The Complex Biologist is heavily involved in overseeing
many of the responsibilities of managing the 64,000-acre watershed.
COORDINATION AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS
Refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with state agencies, tribes,
landowners, the public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local
agencies and organizations.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
Refuge Description
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Cameron Prairie has earth-moving, vegetation control, and water management
machinery and equipment that are vital to pursuing its purpose. The following equipment
is kept at the maintenance compound south of the Visitor Center:
Roads
The most prominent road on Cameron Prairie is
Louisiana State Highway 27 (Figure 19), which
bisects the Refuge and accesses the Visitor
Center. About 20 percent of the Refuge is to the
west of State Highway 27, and 80 percent to the
east. This road is the only paved road on the
Refuge, and is maintained by the Louisiana
Department of Transportation. While the
Service has no regulatory authority on State
Highway 27, which is designated as a Hurricane
Evacuation Route, the Refuge cooperates with
local law enforcement authorities during
emergency situations (USFWS 2002c). During
mandatory hurricane evacuation, law
enforcement officials maintain an Emergency
Command Post on the Visitor Center parking
lot, stopping all traffic going south.
Three gravel roads provide the remaining public access on the Refuge. Bank Fishing
Road is an old oil access road on the southern portion of the Refuge that provides
Airboat, 1997, 14” Kline
Airboat, 2001, 14’ Kline
ATV, Honda Fourtrax 450,
4x4 - 2)
Boat, Mud, Aluminum 16’
Dozer, International TD-20
Dozer, John Deere 650
Excavator, Caterpillar 325L
Forklift, Clark
Grader, Caterpillar 3304G-
45
Implement, Bush Hog, Land
Pride 14’
Implement, Bush Hog, 20’
Implement, Disc, John
Deere 24’
Implement, Disc, Rome 17’
Implement, Disc, 12’
Implement, Ditching Machine,
Land Pride
Implement, Land Leveler, Rayne
Plane
Implement, Water Buffalo, 20’
Mower, John Deere 855 with 8’
bush hog
Mower, Lawn Grasshopper Zero
Turn
Mower, Lawn Kubota 72” Zero
Turn
Power Unit, Cummings 205 HP
Power Unit, Cummings 174 HP
Power Unit, Deutz Drive
Power Unit, Deutz Drive, Mobile
Pump, Gator 12” (2)
Pump, Gator, 16”
Pump, 10” natural gas, Lo-Lift
Moline
Pump, Lo-Lift, 20”
Pump, Lo-Lift, 24” (3)
Pump, Lo-Lift, 30”
Tractor, Case
Tractor, Ford
Tractor, John Deere 4960
Tractor, John Deere 7600
Tractor, John Deere
6410/Boom Mower
Tractor, Kubota 90 HP 4x4
Trailer, Texas Brag, 18-foot
Truck, Tractor Trailer, Low
Boy
Figure 19. State Highway 27
bisects the Refuge
Leon Kolankiewicz
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
Refuge Description
access to the fishing area. West Cameron Prairie Road, which starts at the Visitor Center
parking area, is used by hunters during Refuge hunts and by private land owners to access
their properties to the west of the Refuge. East Cameron Prairie Road, also known as Pintail
Wildlife Drive, provides wildlife observation and photography opportunities.
O’Blanc Road is open to Refuge personnel only to access the northeastern portion of
moist soil Unit 14B.
Visitor parking is available at four lots on the Refuge, two adjacent to State Highway 27,
one at the walk-in hunting area, and one at the Visitor Center (USFWS 2002c).
RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS
Research Natural Areas are designated by Federal land management agencies to
preserve plant and animal communities in a natural state for research purposes. They
protect vanishing native habitats that exhibit outstanding ecological value by preventing
unnatural encroachments and activities that might modify ecological processes. At this
time Cameron Prairie has no designated Research Natural Areas.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
As part of the CCP process, lands within the legislative boundaries of Cameron Prairie
National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suitability. No lands were found
suitable for designation as wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Cameron Prairie does not contain a roadless area of 5,000 or more acres, nor does the
Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as
wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been substantially affected by humans,
particularly through agriculture, water manipulation, and through seismic exploration. As
a result of both extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing manipulation of
natural processes, adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at the Refuge per se
will not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition which is the goal
of wilderness designation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
In addition to the natural habitat and wildlife that Cameron Prairie National Wildlife
Refuge encompasses, it also holds resources of archaeological and cultural value. The
Refuge is located in a region with a rich human history and pre-history. While cultural
resources or properties have yet to be discovered at Cameron Prairie, it should be
emphasized that they may well be present.
Prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans (pre-contact), it was inhabited by the Atakapa
Indians. The Atakapa occupied the coastal and bayou areas of southwestern Louisiana
and southeastern Texas until the early 1800s (Couser 2002). Archaeological evidence
suggests that settlements have been present in this area since before American Indians
learned to make pottery, approximately two thousand years ago. While “Atakapa” means
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
Refuge Description
"eaters of men" in the language of the neighboring Choctaw, it is unknown whether the
Atakapas' supposed cannibalism was for subsistence or ritual. Pre-contact Atakapans
were hunters, gatherers, and fishers. Their society consisted of loose bands that moved
on a regular basis from place to place within a given territory, gathering, hunting, and
fishing. The alligator was very important to them, because it provided meat, oil, hides,
and even insect repellent (oil). The Atakapan language has fascinated linguists and is
among the better-recorded Native American languages. At one time it was believed to
be associated with other languages of the Lower Mississippi River, but later this theory
was abandoned and it is now classified as an isolated language.
Most of what is known about the appearance and culture of the Atakapa comes from
eighteenth and nineteenth century European descriptions and drawings. The Atakapan
people were said to have been short, dark, and stout. Their clothing included breechclouts
and buffalo hides. They did not practice polygamy or incest. Their customs included the use
of wet bark for baby carriers and Spanish moss for diapers. According to another custom, a
father would rename himself at the birth of his first son or if the son became famous. In the
creation myth of the Atakapa, humans were said to have been cast up from the sea in an
oyster shell. The Atakapas also believed that men who died from snakebite and those who
had been eaten by other men were denied life after death, a belief that may have lent
support to the notion that they practiced ritual cannibalism.
The various bands of the Atakapas were reported to have traded not only with other
Indians but with early French and Spanish explorers and traders as well. After the
appearance of these Europeans, the Atakapa dwindled rapidly. An estimated 3,500 still
survived in 1698; by 1805, only 175 remained in Louisiana. Just nine known
descendants were recorded in 1909. Their downfall was brought about primarily by the
invasion of and devastation of European diseases rather than through any direct
confrontation with European settlers.
The next major phase of the area’s human habitation occurred after the Treaty of Paris
in 1763 concluded the French and Indian Wars (Feldman 1998). The British had already
expelled French-speaking settlers—the Acadians—from Nova Scotia (in what is now one
of the Maritime Provinces of Canada), in 1755. Their exile occurred as a result of the
widespread turmoil and upheaval sweeping through French and British colonies in North
America as England gained the upper hand in its struggle with France for the control of
North America. The Acadians first arrived in “New Acadia,” now Louisiana, then a colony
of Spain, in 1764, and this migration continued for the next two decades (Hebert 2003).
Even after all their wanderings following their expulsion from Acadia, the adjustment
from Maritime Canada, with its sub-arctic climate and rocky, hilly terrain, to the
Mississippi Delta, with its nearly subtropical climate and bayous, must have been difficult
for the Acadians. Yet over time, the Acadians, later referred to as Cajuns, flourished and
developed their own subsistence culture based on hunting, fishing, trapping, and some
agriculture, that produced a unique cuisine and music, among other things. One of the
most vivid exhibits at Cameron Prairie’s Visitor Center consists of a talking mannequin of
a woman, Taunt Marie, in a boat with her fishing rod describing the intimate relationship
of the Cajuns to the land, the bayou, and its wildlife and fish.
Southern Louisiana is also known for its Creole culture and cuisine, although these are
more noted in urban areas like New Orleans. While the Cajuns were specifically French
in origin, the Creoles trace their heritage to Spanish, African, Italian, as well as French
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Refuge Description
influences, indeed, to any other peoples who chose to live in New Orleans (Royal Café
no date). The roots of Creole culture date to the early 1700s, with the French settlement
of La Nouvelle Orleans under its founder Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville,
governor of the Louisiana Territory. In 1763 the Louisiana Territory was traded to Spain,
and Spanish influence increased. German and Italian immigrants and African slaves also
contributed heavily to Creole culture, cuisine and music.
As stated above, no archaeological or historical sites have been documented at
Cameron Prairie, but this does not mean they do not exist. The generally wet or even
inundated condition of soils in the area, within marshes, bayous, and former rice fields, is
not conducive to conducting archaeological surveys.
The Refuge at present does not have a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP).
The CRMP, when completed eventually, will specify what measures need to be taken at
Cameron Prairie to identify, protect, and interpret the area’s rich cultural history.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
Cameron Prairie Refuge is located in 1,313 square-mile Cameron Parish, Louisiana, one of
the largest parishes (i.e., county equivalents) in the state. Cameron Parish is situated in the
extreme southwestern corner of Louisiana, abutting the Gulf of Mexico to the south and
Texas to the west. In 2003, the population of the parish was estimated at 9,708, a slight
decline (3%) from the 2000 Census (USCB 2004). The median household income of the
parish in 1999 was $34,232, compared to $32,566 for Louisiana as a whole. The same
relative prosperity is reflected in a poverty rate below the state average. Approximately 12%
of Cameron Parish residents lived below the poverty line in 1999, compared to almost 20%
for all of Louisiana. Educational attainment is below the state average however, with only
8% of the population aged 25 or higher having a Bachelor’s degree or higher, as opposed to
the statewide average of 19%.
In 2003 transportation and warehousing was the largest of 20 major economic and
employment sectors in the parish (STATS Indiana 2004). The Census Bureau classified
occupations in Cameron Parish as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000)
Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000)
Occupation Number Percent
Management, professional, and related occupations 772 18.5
Service occupations 718 17.2
Sales and office occupations 954 22.8
Farming, fishing and forestry occupations 199 4.8
Construction, extraction and maintenance occupations 594 14.2
Production, transportation, and material moving 947 22.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
Refuge Description
In terms of employment by industrial sector, the primary industries lumped as
“agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining” predominate in Cameron Parish,
as shown in Table 6.
In terms of its racial and ethnic breakdown, as reported in the 2000 Census,
Cameron Parish is 92.5% white, non-Hispanic, 3.9% black or African American, 0.4%
American Indian, 0.4% Asian, and 2.2% Hispanic or Latino origin (USCB 2004). (The
percentages do not add up precisely to 100% because of the difference between
designated races — white, black, Native American, and Asian — and ethnicities,
which are Latino and non-Latino.) In addition, 1.6% in the Census reported some
other race or two or more races. Overall, the population of Cameron Parish has a
greater percentage of non-Hispanic whites (92.5%) than the state as a whole
(62.5%). That is, it is less diverse and has fewer minorities.
Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000)
Cameron Parish – Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000
Industry
Number
Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining
696
16.6
Construction 470 11.2
Manufacturing 295 7.1
Wholesale trade 143 3.4
Retail trade 426 10.2
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities
396
9.5
Information 52 1.2
Finance, insurance, real estate, and
rental and leasing
155
3.7
Professional, scientific,
management, administrative, and
waste management services
206
4.9
Educational, health and social
services
677 16.2
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation and food services
269
6.4
Other services (except public
administration)
213
5.1
Public administration 186 4.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic
Characteristics
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
Refuge Description
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Cameron Prairie are
oriented toward the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of
waterfowl, wading and shorebirds, threatened and endangered species (in general, for
there are none at the present time on the Refuge), and all other native wildlife. To this
end, Refuge staff undertakes a vigorous program of active habitat restoration,
management, and manipulation that includes levee and drainage canal construction and
upkeep, discing, prescribed fire, planting, and exotic plant control. Figure 20 is a map of
Cameron Prairie showing the location of each management unit. Table 7 shows the
Refuge’s management units and proposed management goals for each.
Left to the whims of the weather, most Refuge habitats would be either too wet or too dry
to be optimal for wildlife. Thus, staff members are always attempting to improve water
level management on the Refuge through a variety of means. For example, in 2002 new
aluminum stoplog structures were added in several locations. These new structures
allow Refuge staff to set the desired water level while allowing excess rainwater to leave
the impoundments by gravity drainage. As part of the Louisiana State Highway 27
construction project that started in 2000, an underground irrigation system was installed.
This system greatly increases the Refuge’s ability to move water north and south.
Figure 20. Cameron Prairie Management Units
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
Refuge Description
Mike Hoff
Table 7. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Management Units
Unit Acres Description Current Management
1; 2A; 2B; 2C; 3A; 3B; 4 3196 Impounded Freshwater Marsh Passive/permanent water
5; 7 619 Moist Soil Passive/limited pumping
6 263 Moist Soil Moist soil/limited pumping
8 1600 Impounded Freshwater Marsh Passive/permanent water
9; 10 474 Moist Soil Passive/permanent water
11A; 11B
13A; 13B
1402
Unimpounded Natural Marsh
Passive
12A; 12B 315 Natural Prairie Passive
14A; 14B 1230 Moist Soil Moist soil/prairie
Source: USFWS, 2003
Nevertheless, the Refuge’s water level
management continues to be ineffective due to
inadequate pumping capacity in certain
locations, such as Units 1 and 2, which are two
of the Refuge’s largest impounded freshwater
systems. Since these units are impounded,
water level management is crucial to providing a
productive marsh and maximizing wintering bird
capacity. Yet in recent times the Refuge was
unable to pump water off these units and had to
rely on gravity drainage. Pumps need to be
maintained in good working order.
Inadequate levees have been one of Cameron Prairie’s biggest impediments to moist
soil management. Refuge personnel annually mow all accessible levees, approximately
97 linear miles, to control unwanted exotic and native woody species.
Dry weather promotes soil conditions that allow staff to work in units that would normally
be saturated and unworkable. For example, dry conditions in early 2000 allowed for work
in fields that are normally too wet. Staff took advantage of these conditions and started a
major project in cooperation with the Ducks Unlimited Marsh program. Many of the
Refuge’s moist soil areas did not allow for optimal and uniform water levels across the
units. To remedy this, Cameron Prairie staff rehabilitated approximately 16,000 linear
feet of levee in Unit 14b and installed 18 new plastic or aluminum water control
structures. This project provided 158 acres of moist soil units capable of optimal
waterfowl and shorebird management.
The dry fall of 2000 allowed maintenance staff to start another moist soil project in Unit 14a,
Field C. This area had become dominated by an undesirable species, Vasey grass. A 2001
levee project improved the ability to control water levels across the field to minimize Vasey
grass, which prefers drier sites, and to manage for beneficial moist soil species.
Figure 21. Native Walter's millet
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
40
Refuge Description
Following heavy rains in November, this area received high goose use rates once it was
flattened with a “water buffalo.”
In recent years, the Refuge’s flooded freshwater marshes have suffered from below
normal precipitation. In 2000, water levels in Units 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, and 4 were the
lowest recorded since Cameron Prairie was established in 1989. In the largest portions
of these units the substrate was exposed, thus allowing many species to become
established that normally are not found within the units. The most common species
crowding the open water region are water hyacinth, frogbit, maidencane, cutgrass,
California bulrush, and cattail.
Units 5, 6, and 9 were rolled flat with the “water buffalo” to provide access for wintering
waterfowl. The border of Unit 6 is the Pintail Wildlife Drive. Pintail Drive also benefited
from the dry spring. Following discing and land leveling in early spring, the area
produced high yields of excellent waterfowl foods such as Walter’s millet, Figure 21,
(Echinochola walter) and smartweed (Polygonum spp). The Pintail Drive also has a
moist soil area around the grit site that was again very popular with geese.
Typically the only management option in Unit 11 is prescribed fire. However, on
occasion, staff can move a tractor and bush hog into the area to manage the rank
vegetation. As soon as the water returns, white-tailed deer, waterfowl, and wading birds
are observed using such mowed areas.
DETAILED UNIT HISTORY
Each of the 21 units and sub-units at Cameron Prairie has its own management
capabilities and constraints that figure into management prescriptions for that unit or
sub-unit. The history for each unit is described briefly in the following pages.
Unit 1
During the 1950's, approximately 852 acres of freshwater marsh was leveed and
pumped to create agriculture fields. From the 1950's to 1985 the areas were dewatered
and rice cultivated on a 2-3 year rotation. Two large low-lift pumps were used to dewater
the area to allow soil manipulation with farm equipment. Personal conversations with
individuals with knowledge of these farming operations disclosed that the pumps were
run practically year-round to keep areas dry. Fuel costs during this time were of no
concern, since the pumps were fueled by natural gas supplied by pipelines crossing the
property at no cost to property owners. For roughly 25-30 years the area was drained
and disced. Farming operations ceased in 1985.
Upon termination of farming operations the properties were leased for a commercial
duck hunting facility. Dewatering of the area on a yearly basis ceased. Years of drying
and discing caused the rich organic soils in the area to oxidize, eventually lowering the
soil levels. When the commercial hunting facility was established, the areas were
allowed to fill with water. Field depths were approximately 18 - 36 inches deep, with
deeper areas in old canals. Water shield (Brasenia schreberi) and white water lily
(Nymphaea odorata) quickly became established in the area. With water shield being the
predominant aquatic species, numerous wintering waterfowl were attracted to the area.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
41
Refuge Description
To facilitate access and travel between several impounded areas, the farming
infrastructure (drainage and flood canals) was breached to allow boat traffic between
units. This created approximately two large units of 1,500 acres or more. When the
Refuge was purchased, several of the breaches in the levees were closed to try and
facilitate better water control and management in these units. However, with
deterioration of canal systems through vegetation encroachment and lack of funds to
operate pumps year round, the units began to close in through vegetation succession.
Since purchase of the Refuge in 1988, the quality of wintering waterfowl habitat in these
areas has declined due to the expansion of emergent vegetation, primarily California
bullwhip (also called California bulrush) and maidencane.
Prior to Service acquisition, the water-to-emergent vegetation ratio in these units was
approximately 75 percent water to 25 percent emergent vegetation. Currently (2000) the
water-to-emergent ratio is roughly 35 percent water to 65 percent emergent vegetation.
The Refuge currently has partial control capabilities through pumping to dewater the
area; however, water can no longer be pumped into the units.
Unit 2A
From the 1950’s until 2001-2002, the history of this sub-unit is very similar to that of Unit
1 above. During 2001 – 2002, the Refuge constructed a levee across Unit 2 to create
two units of approximately the same size. The plans were to dewater a small area, thus
decreasing time required prior to manipulation. The southern unit created by the cross
levee was dewatered and an initial discing took place in the late summer. Unfortunately,
a tropical storm producing heavy rains flooded the area. With the fall and winter quickly
approaching, the water was left on the unit.
Unit 2B
From the 1950’s until 1985, the history of this sub-unit is very similar to that of Unit 1
above. When farming operations stopped, the properties were leased for a commercial
duck hunting facility. Annual dewatering of the area ceased. By the time the Refuge was
purchased, Unit 2B was dominated by maidencane, with very little open water. Over the
years these open water areas have all but disappeared. The area now has very little or
no value as waterfowl habitat.
Unit 2C
The history of this sub-unit is identical to that of Unit 2B above. Unit 2C has very little or
no value as waterfowl habitat, as in the case of Unit 2B.
Unit 3A & 3B
The history of this unit, with its two sub-units, is similar to the history of the previous
units. The Refuge currently has minimal capabilities to manage water within this unit.
Unit 4
Much of this unit’s history was similar to that of Unit 1. However, only a small portion of
the unit was ever pumped for rice production; most was generally used for cattle grazing.
Because Unit 4 was not farmed, the soils did not oxidize to the same extent as the
farmed units. Under private ownership, the area was dominated by maidencane with
small open water areas. With the cattle grazing aspect removed from the area,
maidencane stands began to become very dense and encroached into the watered
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
42
Refuge Description
areas. The unit is now virtually 100% dominated by maidencane. Over the past four
years two wildfires have occurred within this unit.
Unit 5
Unit 5 has a similar history to most of the others. During the 1950's approximately
435 acres of freshwater marsh was leveed and pumped to create agriculture fields on
which rice was cultivated until 1985 on a 2-3 year rotation. One large low-lift double
discharge pump was used to dewater and flood the area and for 25 - 30 years the
area was drained and disced.
Upon termination of farming operations the properties were leased for a commercial
duck hunting facility. Dewatering of the area on a yearly basis ceased. When the
Refuge was purchased, the dominant vegetation within the unit was four corner grass
(Eleocharis quadrangulata), maidencane, and other vegetation with low wildlife
value. The old pump and engine were replaced; however, the deteriorated canals
and levees made water management difficult. Pumps had not been operated
adequately to maintain the area in an early vegetation stage, thus the unit began to
close in through vegetation succession.
Unit 6
Unit 6’s history is much like Unit 5’s: from the 1950’s to the mid-1980’s, it was drained
and disced regularly to cultivate rice on 2-3 year rotations. Later it was leased for
commercial duck hunting. When the Refuge was purchased, the dominant vegetation
within the lower areas within the unit was four corner grass, maidencane, and other
vegetation with low wildlife value; the higher elevations were dominated by Vasey grass,
sumpweed (Iva annua), and other grasses and forbs. With no agricultural practices the
levees and higher portions of the fields were being colonized by wax-myrtle, marsh elder
(Iva frutescens), Chinese tallow and other woody plants. The old pump and engine were
replaced. The Refuge tries to maintain this area in early succession, since it is contained
within the Pintail Wildlife Drive.
Unit 7
During the 1950's approximately 184 acres of coastal prairie and freshwater marsh were
leveed and pumped to create agriculture fields. With the same low-lift pump used
practically year-round on Units 6, 9, and 10, Unit 7 was dewatered, a total of 921 acres
were disced and cultivated for rice. Farming operations stopped in 1985, at which time
Unit 7, along with others, was leased for commercial duck hunting. When the Refuge
was purchased, the dominant vegetation within the unit was four corner grass,
maidencane, cattail, and other plants with little wildlife value. The old pump, engine and
pump house have been replaced. The pump is inefficient at managing water within all
four units. The Refuge has attempted to improve water management capabilities through
levee and canal maintenance; however, it has proven to be difficult and costly.
Unit 8
During the 1950's approximately 1,600 acres of freshwater marsh were impounded to
create a reservoir for farming operations. From the 1950's - 1985 the area was
maintained as a reservoir in case of low rainfall for irrigation purposes. After farming
ceased, the area was utilized for waterfowl hunting. With little maintenance, levees
deteriorated, eventually breaching near the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Water level
management within the unit is difficult, if not impossible.
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
43
Refuge Description
Dominant vegetation within the unit is four corner grass, maidencane, cattail, white water
lily (Nymphaea odorata), water shield and other submerged and emergent vegetation.
The unit has proven to be very attractive to wintering pintail and mallards utilizing the
Refuge. The Refuge has attempted to improve water management capabilities through
levee and canal maintenance but this is difficult and expensive.
Unit 8 was proposed as a public fishing area in February, 1992. Fishery biologists
recommended the area be opened for fishing in March of 1992. It was announced
shortly after in a news release by the Refuge that “Work continues on renovation and
development of the 1,600-acre impoundment that will be stocked with sport fish for
future fishing opportunities.” It was determined that a levee on the south end of the unit
would have to be constructed and other surrounding levees improved sufficiently to
maintain water levels two feet deeper than existing water levels.
In 1992, the Refuge submitted requests for funding this project through its fiscal
database. The most current guidance projects funding to be available in the year 2011.
Unit 9
The history of Unit 9 from the 1950’s to the 1980’s parallels that of units 6, 7, and 10.
Like those units, Unit 9’s 317 acres were dominated by plants with low wildlife value
when the Refuge was purchased. In addition to four corner grass, maidencane, and
cattail, Unit 9 had large quantities of Chinese tallow, black willow, and wax-myrtle. The
Refuge has attempted to improve water management capabilities through levee and
canal maintenance, but this is difficult and costly.
Unit 10
This unit’s 157 acres share a common history of rice cultivation, dewatering, discing, and
subsequent duck hunting with units 6, 7, and 9. As in the case of those units, water
management in Unit 10 has proved difficult and costly.
Unit 11A & B
While most of the lands that now comprise the Refuge were converted to agricultural
fields, Units 11 A & B remained unimpounded and in a somewhat natural state. The
areas were used for cattle grazing and for recreational hunting. Prior to the purchase of
the Refuge these activities kept several ponds and canals free of vegetation and
accessible. However with removal of these activities, many of the ponds and canals
became vegetated, reducing water flow, access and value as wildlife habitat. On several
occasions the Refuge has been approached by local officials as to the possibility of
improving water movement from the area, as it affects a small community north of the
Refuge.
Dominant vegetation within the unit is maidencane, giant cut-grass (Zizaniopsis
miliacea), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), phragmites (Phragmites communis), and
cattail. On higher elevations and along canal banks, black willow and Chinese tallow
have become established.
Unit 12A & B
Like Unit 11, Units 12 A & B remained unimpounded, in a somewhat natural state, and
were used for cattle grazing and recreational hunting. The previous landowners utilized
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
44
Refuge Description
these activities as well as using fire in attempts to control unwanted vegetation while
providing access and recreation activities. However, with removal of these activities
much of the area has become dominated by undesirable vegetation, reduced water flow,
decreased access and reduced value as wildlife habitat. In the 14-year history of the
Refuge this area has been prescribed burned only once. Unique features of the area are
pimple mounds, small mounds 30 – 40’ round and one to two feet higher in elevation
than the surrounding area. Shrubs growing on these pimple mounds are important to
many grassland dependant birds, both migratory and non-migratory. Dominant
vegetation within the unit is identical to Unit 11’s with the addition of wax-myrtle on
higher elevations and canal banks.
Unit 13A & B
The history of this unit is virtually identical to the history of Unit 12 just above.
Unit 14A & B
Units 14A & B are located in the margin or ecotone where historical coastal marshes met
the more upland coastal prairies. During the 1950’s approximately 1,400 acres of coastal
prairie were leveed, pumped, and leveled for commercial rice production. These areas
were farmed on a 2-3 year rotation until the Refuge was established in 1988, after which
farming acreage declined each year until it ceased altogether in 1995. After farming
stopped, the plant community changed and came to be dominated by Vasey grass by
1999. The Refuge has been trying to improve water management capability in 14A & B
to create quality moist soil units for reliable food production each fall. This has been
achieved by creating more manageable units or fields. Portions of Units 14 A & B will be
managed for restoration of native prairie.
REFUGE RELATED PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
Management and control of water flows, levels, and moi