Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

July 2008
 
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

 

July 2008 
 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Need for the Plan ...................................................................................................... 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 3

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................... 4

Legal and Policy Context ................................................................................................................ 6

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ........................................................ 7

Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ............................................................................................. 8

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 11

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11

Refuge History and Purpose ......................................................................................................... 11

Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 14

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 14

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 17

Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 18

Wildlife Management in an Urban Environment ........................................................................... 18

Invasive and Nuisance Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 19

Invasive and Nuisance Plants ....................................................................................................... 20

Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................... 22

Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Geology and Topography ............................................................................................................. 23

Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................................... 26

Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 27

Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 31

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 35

Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................................ 35

Refuge Administration and Management .................................................................................... 36

Land Protection and Conservation ............................................................................................... 36

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 36

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance .................................................................................... 38

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 39

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 39

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 39

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 40

Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 42

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 43

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 44

Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................................... 44
ii Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 45

Vision .............................................................................................................................................. 46

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................................................ 46

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 46

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 58

Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 67

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 74

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 79

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 81

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 81

Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................... 81

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 82

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 83

Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 84

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 85

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 85

Funding and Personnel ................................................................................................................. 85

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................... 85

Step-Down Management Plans ..................................................................................................... 88

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 88

Plan Review and Revision ............................................................................................................. 89

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 91

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 107

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 111

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 123

Public Involvement Process ....................................................................................................... 123

Draft Plan Comments and Service Response ........................................................................... 123

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 127

Red River National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations .................................... 127

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 137

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 161

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 165

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 167

APPENDIX J. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 187

Core Planning Team Members .................................................................................................... 187

Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ................................................................................ 187

APPENDIX K. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 189
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX L. LAND PROTECTION PLAN ..................................................................................... 191

APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 197
iv Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. ............................................................ 12

Figure 2. General location, Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................ 13

Figure 4. Watersheds of Red River National Widlife Refuge. ............................................................. 25

Figure 5. Vegetation map of Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................... 28

Figure 6. Reforestation on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................................... 29

Figure 7. Current public use on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................. 37

Figure 8. Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................... 68

Figure 9. Headquarters Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................................................................................... 69

Figure 10. Lower Cane Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................................... 70

Figure 11. Proposed visitor service facilities on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ........................ 75

Figure 12. Red River National Wildlife Refuge proposed organizational chart. .................................. 87

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Demographics of Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Natchitoches, and Red River 

Parishes, Louisiana. .............................................................................................................. 36

Table 2. Invasive aquatic plant species and concerns. ...................................................................... 61

Table 3. Summary of projects with funding and staffing needs. ......................................................... 86

Table 4. Red River National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans. .................................... 89
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Red River National Wildlife Refuge in Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and 

Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for 

the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat 

management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues 

the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge 

staff held one public scoping meeting and solicited public reaction to the proposed alternatives. Also, 

a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment was provided. 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A represents no change from 

current management of the refuge. All refuge management actions would continue to provide habitat 

for thousands of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat for nesting wood ducks. It would also 

maintain the current habitat mix for the benefit of other migratory birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, and 

landbirds. The refuge staff would continue existing surveys to monitor the long-term population 

trends and health of resident wildlife. Currently, little public use and environmental education 

programs exist at the refuge. A new headquarters/visitor center has been budgeted and would be 

constructed under all alternatives. 

Alternative B is driven by minimizing funding and staff with fewer habitats and wildlife 

management and a reduced public use program. The biological information would be enhanced 

and encouraged to develop management programs that can be implemented less frequently, yet 

still accomplish the objectives. An intensive inventory of bottomland hardwood forest to define 

current conditions and monitor natural successional changes would be implemented. 

Management in the bottoms would be limited so that the forest would go through natural 

succession, as defined in a revised Habitat Management Plan. Open fields would be allowed to 

go through natural succession to bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil units would not be 

maintained. Invasives' management would become a priority to establish baseline information on 

location and density. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several biological programs, 

hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. Public use would be limited 

under this alternative, with custodial-level maintenance. 

The primary focus under Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would be to optimize the biological 

and visitor use programs. Under Alternative C, land acquisition, reforestation, and resource 

protection at Red River National Wildlife Refuge would be intensified from the level now maintained in 

the No Action alternative. The refuge would expand the approved acquisition boundary to 

incorporate 1,413 acres in the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit; 87 acres in the Headquarters Unit; and 

1,938 acres in the Lower Cane Unit. Alternative C would provide a full-time law enforcement officer, 

an equipment operator, a maintenance worker, a wildlife biologist, an assistant manager, an 

administrative assistant, and an outdoor recreation specialist. Public use and environmental 

education would increase from the No Action alternative under Alternative C. Within three years of 

plan completion, the refuge would develop a Visitor Services' Plan to be used in expanding public use 

facilities and opportunities. This step-down management plan would provide overall, long-term 

direction and guidance in developing and running a larger public use program at the Red River 

Refuge. Federal funds are now available to construct a refuge headquarters/visitor center at the 
2 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters Unit. The new visitor center would include a small auditorium for use in talks, 

meetings, films, videos, and other audiovisual presentations. Alternative C would also increase 

opportunities for visitors by adding facilities, such as photo blinds, observation sites, and trails. 

We selected Alternative C as the preferred alternative, which is reflected in this comprehensive 

conservation plan. Alternative C is selected for implementation because it directs the development of 

programs to best achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes management and restoration of 

the refuge’s open wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, and hydrology in support of migratory and 

resident waterfowl and other wildlife, especially forest-breeding birds, amphibians and reptiles, marsh 

birds, white-tailed deer, wood duck, and woodcock; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures 

long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these management 

actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, 

Service policies, and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to 

achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

managed, maintained, and enhanced and those lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

be prioritized for acquisition to best achieve national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals 

and objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively 

addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge (Red River 

NWR) in Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, was prepared to 

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

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

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

which it was established. 

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

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this plan was 

made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general 

public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development 

of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to provide a course of action that best achieves the refuge purpose; 

attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent 

with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan 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 the Service’s management actions, including land protection and 

recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; and 

• provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 through the establishment of the 

Commission of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. This once-independent commission was 

renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 with the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was changed to 

the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 
4 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs 

relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and 

inland sport fisheries. 

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

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

lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. Of these lands, 77 million acres are in Alaska. The 

remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In addition to 

refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource 

offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws; administers 

the Endangered Species Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally significant fisheries; 

conserves and restores wildlife habitat; and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It 

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

fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the 

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

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

complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, help 

guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education 

programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve as the guideline for 

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

managed to: 

• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purposes 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; and 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

• provide refuge managers with the authority to determine compatible public uses. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The following illustrate a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands. 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of 

colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges 

were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert 

bighorn sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the 

once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted 

breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused 

on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The 

emphasis on waterfowl continues today, but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response 

to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on 

establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, 

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent 

in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 

120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 

refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); 

Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); 

Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River 

(Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief 

that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and 

transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each 

dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation 

expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income. 

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

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

than $22 million. 

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

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, 

and private landowners. It further stipulates that the Service should develop and implement a 

process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 

15 years) of the plans. 

All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide 

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be 

consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including 

Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents. 
6 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations 

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. Appendix C provides selected legal summaries of the treaties and laws 

relevant to the administration of the Refuge System and the management of Red River NWR. 

These treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in 

making decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and 

cultural resources; and research and recreation on refuge lands. They also provide a framework for 

cooperation between the Red River NWR and its partners, such as the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Resource Conservation Service, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks 

Unlimited, and private landowners. 

Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No 

refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is one that, in 

the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs 

and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those 

mandates are to: 

• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

• 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 as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

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

• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses 

are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over 

other public uses in planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while 

achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and 

protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitats found on the refuges and their 

associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge 

managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional 

judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the role of the refuge within 

an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both 

inside and outside the Service. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

integrated where appropriate into this CCP. 

This CCP supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan; the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and the National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government 

agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird 

populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation for the benefit of all birds in all 

habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan; Partners in Flight; Waterbird Conservation for the Americas; and the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve 

migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to the 

levels that were present during the 1970s by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the 

United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined 

in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial, state, and 

municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all 

working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetlandassociated species, and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional 

levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North 

American landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan 

Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area 

represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term 

maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame 

land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting 

significant declines. The Partners in Flight Plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on 

relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the 

frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

Partners in Flight has developed bird conservation plans by bird conservation regions that set 

conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Habitats found on the Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge and associated bird species that are considered a priority in the West Gulf 
8 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Coastal Plain include (for bottomland hardwood forest) the swallow-tailed kite, Swainson's warbler, 

prothonotary warbler, white-eyed vireo, yellow-billed cuckoo and red-headed woodpecker. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure 

that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan 

was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate 

regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key 

research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of 

shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Red River NWR is included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region 

and Bird Conservation Region. This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall 

shorebird habitat as possible to meet the goal of 520 hectares of fall habitat in Louisiana. The Red 

River Valley’s importance to shorebirds is high and the following species are considered high priority 

for the region: piping plover, American golden-plover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, 

sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and 

management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include 

destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants, 

mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species. 

Particularly important habitats of the Southeast Region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested 

wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, 

including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior 

least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the 

standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal 

governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas 

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

overall health and sustainment 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 managing state natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of 

coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. The LDWF coordinates the state’s 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 planning process is the 

integrating of common mission objectives where appropriate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

In 2005, the LDWF published a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). The 

components or steps of the CWCS are as follows: 

1. Assess the distribution and abundance of wildlife species, including rare and declining species 

that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife. 

2. Describe the location and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to 

conservation of these species. 

3. Identify problems that adversely affect these species and habitats as well as research and 

survey efforts needed to address these problems. 

4. Identify conservation actions needed to conserve these species and habitats, and priorities for 

implementing these actions. 

5. Develop plans for monitoring these species and habitats, monitoring the effectiveness of 

conservation actions, and adapting conservation actions to respond to new information or 

changing conditions. 

6. Develop procedures to review the conservation strategy at intervals not to exceed ten years. 

7. Coordinate plan development and implementation with federal, state, and local governments 

and other organizations that manage significant areas of the state or administer wildlife 

conservation programs. 

8. Encourage public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of the 

conservation strategy. 
10 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Red River NWR is a unit of the North Louisiana National Refuge Complex (Figure 1). This Complex 

includes the D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake, and Red River NWRs and 

the Service’s Louisiana Wetlands Management District. Each refuge has its own unique issues that 

will require separate planning efforts and public involvement. 

The Red River NWR, stretching 120 miles along the Red River Valley from Colfax, Louisiana, near its 

southern boundary to the Arkansas state line, will play an important role regionally in fulfilling the goals of 

the Refuge System. Its proximity to a major metropolitan center will afford the public the ability to 

participate in educational opportunities that promote wildlife stewardship. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

On October 13, 2000, House Resolution 4318, the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act, was 

signed into law (Public Law 106-300). This legislation authorized the establishment of the Red River 

NWR to provide for the restoration and conservation of fish and wildlife habitats in the Red River 

Valley ecosystem in northwest Louisiana. The legislation that established the refuge stated that the 

refuge shall consist of up to 50,000 acres of federal lands, waters, and interests therein within the 

boundaries of Colfax, Louisiana, to the Arkansas State line (Figure 2). Currently, the refuge has 

acquired less than a fifth of the allowed 50,000 acres. The legislation allowed that when the Service 

acquired sufficient property within these boundaries to constitute an area that could be effectively 

managed as a national wildlife refuge, then the establishment of the refuge would take effect. 

Sufficient property was acquired and the refuge was established on August 22, 2002, with the initial 

purchase of 1,377 acres in the Spanish Lake Lowlands Focus Area at a cost of one million dollars. 

To guide land acquisition efforts, the Service identified four focus areas plus an additional area to 

establish a proposed headquarters and visitor center site, within the approved selection areas. 

These four units comprise the refuge, with a Headquarters Unit near the Shreveport and Bossier City 

area. The focus areas include Lower Cane River (Natchitoches Parish); Spanish Lake Lowlands 

(Natchitoches Parish); Bayou Pierre Floodplain (DeSoto and Red River parishes); and Wardview 

(Caddo and Bossier parishes). Figure 2 illustrates these locations. 

The purposes for which the refuge was established are as follows: 

1. To provide for the restoration and conservation of native plants and animal communities on 

suitable sites in the Red River basin, including restoration of extirpated species; 

2. To provide habitat for migratory birds; and 

3. To provide technical assistance to private landowners in the restoration of their lands for the 

benefit of fish and wildlife (114 Stat. 1056, dated October 13, 2000). 

According to legislation, the refuge shall consist of up to 50,000 acres from the Headquarters Unit 

and four focus areas within a selection area covering 220,000 acres. Currently, the Service has 

acquired 9,787.90 acres and has 40,212.08 acres remaining to purchase. The lands within the five 
12 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Figure 2. General location, Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
14 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

units (the Wardview, Headquarters, Spanish Lake Lowlands, Bayou Pierre, and Lower Cane River 

focus areas) will be acquired through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and 

conservation easements, leases, and/or cooperative agreements from willing landowners. Currently, 

fee title lands have been purchased within portions of all the focus areas except Wardview. 

Historically, the Red River Valley was forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub 

swamps. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, early settlers began to clear these areas for farms and 

homesteads. This forest clearing rapidly accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise in soybean 

prices. During the last three decades, the Red River Valley was used extensively for agricultural 

production. The river itself was very turbid due to seasonal fluctuation and agricultural runoff. The 

resulting wildlife and fishery habitats were poor compared to those in other parts of the state. 

In 1964, Congress authorized construction of the Red River Waterway Project. This project, 

completed in 1994, consists of five lock and dam complexes located between the Old River Lock on 

the Mississippi River to a point just south of Shreveport and Bossier City. The river’s water levels are 

now higher and more constant, which has greatly reduced turbidity. Higher seasonal retention of 

water and improved water quality has resulted in a rich diversity of aquatic plants. 

Programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), such as the 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), are restoring 

valuable wildlife habitats through the reforestation of previously converted wetlands and highly 

erodible lands in the Red River Valley. Changes in agricultural practices have also resulted in an 

increase in rice production and migratory bird habitat. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The refuge does not include any special designation sites such as Research Natural Areas. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

Red River NWR is situated in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region, the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem, and in the confluence of the Central and Mississippi flyways (Figure 3). 

The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) includes the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River 

downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River and the delta plain and associated marshes and 

swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (USFWS 2002). 

Louisiana has twelve water quality management basins delineated on the basis of natural drainage 

patterns of the state’s major river basins (Lester et al. 2005). 

Red River NWR is in the heart of protected bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands of north 

Louisiana. Five national wildlife refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy 

Brake and Tensas River), 36 Service easements, and 36 LDWF wildlife management areas are lands 

focused on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwood forests, moist-soil 

management, endangered species management, environmental education, and compatible wildlifedependent recreation in the LMRE. The LMRE guides Service efforts to enhance, restore, and 

conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types of the LMRE, while maintaining 

economic productivity and recreational opportunities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 
16 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

The LMRE serves as primary wintering habitat for midcontinental waterfowl populations, as well 

as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain forests of 

the past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from agriculture 

and flood control projects. 

The LMRE developed eight goals that this CCP will consider and promote when establishing the 

refuge’s goals and objectives, to ensure the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem 

conservation and integrity: 

1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the 

LMRE. 

2. Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE. 

3. Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE. 

4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated 

with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE. 

5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. 

6. Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management. 

7. Enforce natural resource laws. 

8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE. 

The Red River originates in the plains of New Mexico, heads east to divide Texas and Oklahoma, 

turns south through southwestern Arkansas, and then travels southeast through the Louisiana farm 

belt toward the Mississippi River. In Louisiana, the Red River Valley contains some 800,000 acres of 

land from Alexandria, Louisiana, to the Arkansas border. Historically, the Red River Valley was 

forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub swamps comprised of numerous 

species that were adaptable to the varying and complex soil types and moisture conditions. 

Early explorers to the Red River Valley in Louisiana found a beautiful river with gentle currents and 

steep banks. A large prairie was reported north of Shreveport. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, 

early settlers began to clear these areas for farms and homesteads. The valley was almost totally 

cleared of its forest cover beginning in the 1820s, primarily for cotton production. This forest clearing 

rapidly accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise in soybean prices and conversion of forest to 

soybean fields. As a result, the Red River Valley became the most highly altered and degraded 

watershed in Louisiana. The river itself was subject to extreme seasonal fluctuations and maintained 

a constant turbid state. Consequently, the wildlife and fishery habitats were relatively poor compared 

to those in other parts of the state. 

In the meantime, the expanding human population within this ecosystem is increasing demands on 

land and water resources to accommodate agriculture; timber production; grazing; transportation; 

urban expansion; and outdoor recreation pursuits, such as birdwatching, fishing, hiking, boating and 

hunting. Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of 

private landowners and local communities as well as state and federal governments. This synergy of 

federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only 

protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources 

to be directed where they are most needed. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region 

The LMRE is covered primarily by two bird conservation regions: the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and 

the West Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain includes all of Red River 

NWR. These forests are of high conservation priority for conserving the natural communities and the 

bird populations within these habitats. The primary threats to these forests include reservoir 

construction; stream modifications; destructive timber harvesting practices; and conversion to pine 

plantations, pastures, and other land uses (Neal, http://www.lmvjv.org/wgcp). The CCP outlines 

conservation strategies to foster support for the priorities of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

American Woodcock Management Plan 

Woodcock trends in the United States have been declining annually for the last 15 years despite actions 

that have been taken to ensure that hunting does not substantially promote declines, such as reduced 

bag limits and limited season lengths. An American Woodcock Management Plan, initiated in the 1990s, 

points out the need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance population growth 

and survival. Much of the decline is thought to be a result of land use changes and the maturing of forest 

habitats, resulting in less early successional scrub/shrub habitats preferred by woodcock. 

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 

The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative’s goal is to restore northern bobwhite populations, 

rangewide, to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in 1980 

(58,857,000 acres). The bobwhite population objective for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird 

Conservation Region is to add 131,033 new coveys, 21,833 of these in Louisiana. Habitat 

management is the primary vehicle for accomplishing this goal with three special objectives, which 

the refuge considered during the development of this CCP: 

• Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing, 

and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season 

grasses. 

• Conserve and enhance the quality of rangelands by utilizing vegetation management 

practices and grazing regimes that favor the retention and improvement of native plant 

communities beneficial to bobwhites and other wildlife. 

• Convert tame grasses to warm-season grasses on CRPs, establish filter strips on croplands, 

and convert pastures to warm-season grasses. 

Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

The Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy is a program that seeks to direct the overall 

effort by the LDWF over the next ten years in assessing the status of, and managing, where appropriate, 

the varied habitats and wildlife species in Louisiana. Conservation actions have been developed for each 

ecoregion in the state in order to address threats to the habitats of these areas. The state will work with a 

variety of partners in carrying out these recommended conservation actions. The state considers the 

Service an important partner in this process and the Red River NWR an important part of actions to be 

taken in Red River Valley. 
18 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

In order to prepare a CCP that will establish goals and objectives on how to manage the Red River 

NWR over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were followed. One of those steps was an 

internal review of known ecological threats and problems that may hinder the ability of refuge 

personnel to fulfill the objectives of the refuge. This review developed the following list of concerns: 

• Wildlife management in an urban environment 

• Invasive and nuisance wildlife 

• Invasive and nuisance plants 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT 

The 600-acre-plus Headquarters Unit and visitor center area provides an opportunity for public/wildlife 

interaction and public education that is enhanced by its location within a suburban environment. This 

suburban setting also poses wildlife management problems. 

As “natural” areas become reduced in size and more fragmented and isolated, urban/suburban “open 

space” landscapes, such as the Red River NWR Headquarters Unit, become more important for 

wildlife. As urbanization increases, habitats available to wildlife become more degraded, fragmented 

and isolated, and species diversity decreases. Managers of urban wildlife must understand human 

attitudes and social issues as well as they do ecological principles. The three species of concern 

here are deer, raccoons, and feral hogs (the hogs are discussed in a separate section below). 

Dense deer populations occur in many urban/suburban areas and the Headquarters Unit is no 

exception. The deer herd at this unit is becoming more isolated as more of the land around the unit is 

being converted to housing subdivisions. Deer may excessively damage gardens and ornamental 

vegetation. They may also carry diseases or vectors of diseases. White-tailed deer are important 

hosts of the nymphal and adult stages of the vector of Lyme disease in the eastern United States. In 

addition, deer cross or feed alongside roadways and may cause auto accidents. 

Because of the isolation of the Headquarters Unit deer herd, its size will have to be controlled. 

Control of deer can be accomplished by several methods, but none are inexpensive or necessarily 

always acceptable. The easiest way to keep deer out of a local area is to install a deer fence. 

However, there is a limit to the acreage that can be fenced as well as to the staff resources that are 

spent on fencing. Given the size and juxtaposition of the refuge, this would be nearly infeasible. 

After fencing an area, there is still a small, closed, reproducing deer population inside the fence that 

will have to be “controlled” by some means. Deer can also be shot or translocated. Controlled hunts 

are an alternative, but shooting in a suburban setting will require close control. Trapping and 

translocation is difficult, expensive, and not always successful. 

Raccoons (and skunks and opossums) are probably the most efficient predators of birds, bird nests, 

and turtle nests to the extent that many species are experiencing population declines as a result. 

Raccoons are bold and probably the best adapted of North American carnivores for life in the “city.” 

Individual raccoons that may pose a threat include those that learn to raid trash cans, live in or under 

buildings, and raid vegetable gardens or pet food containers. Raccoons are one of the species that 

serve as a reservoir of rabies. As such, the potential contact of raccoons with pets or their owners 

poses a serious risk in some areas. Raccoons are also susceptible to other diseases carried by 

domestic dogs, including distemper, but this poses little threat to people or pets. Informing the public 

on how to manage raccoon problems will be an ongoing process at the Headquarters Unit. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

INVASIVE AND NUISANCE WILDLIFE 

Two invasive and nuisance wildlife species are of concern in varying degrees throughout the refuge 

because of their potential negative impacts to resource management: feral hogs (Sus scrofa spp.) 

and beaver (Castor canadensis). 

Feral Hogs 

The feral hog population in Louisiana constitutes an introduced exotic species. These hogs occur 

throughout all five units of the Red River NWR, and if not properly managed, have the potential of 

causing extensive damage to native wildlife, habitat, and agricultural resources. The hog's 

Russian boar phenotype is considered by some to be a trophy game animal with an edible 

carcass. Many landowners manage their feral hog populations as they do their white-tailed deer 

herds. The presence of feral hogs on a hunting lease is sometimes considered more of an added 

selling feature than a problem. 

Numerous reports have documented severe problems with feral hogs in parks, recreational areas, 

national seashores, refuges, wildlife management areas, and forest districts across the United States 

(Mayer and Brisbin 1991). Land and wildlife management agencies are finding that the feral hog is 

an aggressive and difficult invader species that threatens their natural resources and habitat. Hogs 

can cause resource management problems in the following ways: 

• Feral hog populations cause damage to field crops. The variety of field crop resources 

damaged by hogs include corn, milo, rice, watermelon, peanuts, hay, turf, wheat, and other 

grains. Hog-caused damage to field crops results both from feeding and from feeding-related 

activities (such as trampling and rooting). 

• Feral hogs prey on fawns and ground-nesting birds. Feral hogs have an acute sense of smell, 

are omnivorous and opportunistic, and can be efficient predators. 

• Feral hog populations compete with resident deer and turkey populations for limited resources. 

Feral hogs are omnivorous and feed on a wide variety of items, many of which are staples for 

native fauna. One of the more important seasonal food item types for feral hogs is a fruit/nut crop, 

especially oak mast (Wood and Roark 1980). Oak mast is also an important food source for deer, 

wood duck, squirrels, and turkey. When feral hogs actively compete for mast food, resident deer 

and turkey may enter the winter with deficient fat reserves (Yarrow 1988). 

• A feral hog population is a potential reservoir for numerous diseases and parasites that 

threaten livestock and deer. Because feral hogs tend to occupy the same areas as deer and 

livestock, disease and parasite spread is possible. One of the most probable points of contact 

is communal watering holes. Due to its inability to thermoregulate (control its own body 

temperature when it is hot), the hog is attracted to watering areas to wallow. In areas where 

water is plentiful, a wallowed-out watering hole may be avoided by other animals. But, during 

times of drought and in areas where water is limited, all animals are often obliged to water 

from wallowed-out watering holes. Infected pigs can spread parasites and diseases through 

both direct contact and by contaminating drinking water. 
20 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• The feral hog's rooting and wallowing activities damage pastures, spoil watering holes, and 

generally deteriorate riparian habitat. Feral hogs are persistent in their rooting behavior. They 

methodically work an area until they have depleted the food item of interest. Given optimum 

conditions (i.e., pliable soils), hogs can do considerable damage. 

Hogs are too large, too prolific, too destructive, and too widely spread throughout the refuge to be 

ignored. This introduced animal must be recognized as an exotic species that should be eradicated 

for the well-being of the refuge’s native plants and wildlife. 

Beaver 

As long as beaver activity occurs where there is no negative impact on a significant cultural or natural 

resource or refuge development, typically few problems occur. Refuge management will act to protect 

beaver just as it would any other natural resource, according to the Service’s policies and regulations. 

Beavers typically become a problem when their tree-cutting or pond construction activities adversely 

affect significant resources or developments inside or outside of the refuge. Some examples of the 

kinds of adverse impacts, which either have occurred or could occur, are: 

• Flooding that erodes, weakens, or makes impassible roads, trails, and railroads; 

• Flooding that damages or prevents access to structures, facilities, or agricultural lands; 

• Flooding that can kill thousands of acres of forest; 

• Damming of drainage structures such as culverts, bridges, spillways and ditches, which 

protect facilities and developments; 

• Redirection of normal water flow into new areas where erosion can occur; and 

• Tree cutting near roads, parking lots, or other facilities that damages or threatens property, or 

creates a safety hazard. 

The presence of private lands and public roads within and contiguous to refuge boundaries 

aggravates many of these problems. The location and geography of the refuge provide an 

environment with a large potential for beaver-related problems. A concentrated and complex 

network, including roads, trails, and highways, is imposed on a natural drainage system of the river 

and its numerous tributaries. Hundreds of drainage structures must be maintained to preserve 

cultural features, protect facilities, and provide safe transportation for the public. Balancing these 

complicated and sometimes competing concerns will be a difficult but necessary task for refuge 

management. 

INVASIVE AND NUISANCE PLANTS 

Many species of exotic plants occur on the refuge and are rapidly spreading. Terrestrial exotic plants 

are the most serious threat to the biological integrity of the refuge. Many species have been 

recorded, such as tree-of-heaven, royal palownia, privet, Johnsongrass, and Sesbania. At least four 

species of invasive and nuisance plants are of concern in varying degrees throughout the refuge 

because of their potential negative impacts to resource management: 

• Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) 

• Royal paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) 

• Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) 

• American lotus (Nelumbo lutea) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Chinese Tallow 

Chinese tallow grows in abandoned fields, pastures, waste areas, and forests. It grows in a wide 

range of environmental conditions, from wet to dry and from shade to full sun. It reproduces by seeds 

only, but one plant can produce hundreds of seeds, which have a tremendous ability to germinate 

under adverse conditions. It is a fast-growing tree, hence its popularity as a shade tree ornamental. 

To a horticulturalist this sounds like a dream tree, but to ecologists and land managers, it can be a 

nightmare, especially when it invades an area and displaces native vegetation. 

Over the last 30 years, Chinese tallow has become a common tree in old fields and bottomland 

forests in Louisiana. Several studies at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research 

Center in Lafayette are aimed at understanding the factors that contribute to Chinese tallow growth, 

spread, and management. When tallow invades, it eventually monopolizes an area, creating a forest 

without native animal or plant species. This tree exhibits the classic traits of most nonnative invaders: 

it is attractive so people want to distribute it, it grows quickly and in a variety of soils, it has incredible 

resiliency, and it resists pests. Tallow reproduces and grows quickly and can cause large-scale 

ecosystem modification. For example, where it completely replaces native vegetation, it has a 

negative effect on birds by degrading the habitat. 

Royal Paulownia 

Royal paulownia is an introduced ornamental that has become well-established in North America. It 

is also known as princess-tree, empress-tree, or paulownia. It has a tropical look with very large 

catalpa-like leaves. The tree is a prodigious seeder and grows extremely fast. Unfortunately, 

because of this ability to grow nearly anywhere and at a rapid rate, it is now considered an invasive 

exotic tree species. 

This native of China gives a most dramatic, coarse-textured appearance, with its huge heartshaped leaves and large clusters of lavender flowers in the spring. Flowers are borne before leaf 

emergence so they stand out nicely, especially against an evergreen background. With a rapid 

growth rate, the princess-tree can reach 50 feet in height with an equal spread in an open 

landscape. Most trees are seen 30 to 40 feet tall and wide. It thrives best in deep, moist but 

well-drained soil, sheltered from the wind, and has become naturalized in many parts of the 

South. This Asian tree was initially promoted as a host tree for moth silk production. It rapidly 

spread because of its ability to grow quickly under adverse conditions. 

Water Hyacinth 

Water hyacinth is native to South America, but has been naturalized in most of the southern United 

States. Water hyacinth plants have a tremendous growth and reproductive rate and the free-floating 

mats cause substantial problems. Water hyacinth can form impenetrable mats of floating vegetation. 

It reproduces by seeds and by daughter plants which form on rhizomes and produce dense plant 

beds. Individual plants break off the mat and can be dispersed by wind and water currents. As many 

as 5,000 seeds can be produced by a single plant and these seeds are eaten and transported by 

waterfowl. Seedlings are common on mud banks exposed by low water levels. Large colonies of 

water hyacinth can interfere with small boat navigation and fishing, as well as provide habitat for 

mosquitoes. Water hyacinth is controlled through a number of methods including harvesting, aquatic 

herbicides, and biological control agents. 
22 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

American Lotus 

American lotus is a native, weedy aquatic species. Its leaves are circular and can be as large as 

three feet in diameter. Leaves may float on the water surface or extend as much as three feet above 

the water. Leaves and flowers are borne on an erect tuberous rootstock or stalk. This attractive plant 

is abundant in Southern ponds, lakes, swamps, and slow-moving streams. It can spread in dense 

mats of near-monoculture across vast areas, diminishing the potential value of these areas as wildlife 

and waterfowl habitat. Large colonies of American lotus can interfere with small boat navigation and 

fishing, as well as provide habitat for mosquitoes. 

The value of vegetation in maintaining diverse aquatic and semiaquatic ecosystems, and the fact that 

aquatic plants are an important component of functioning fish and wildlife habitat, have been well 

documented. Aquatic and littoral vegetation provides fish, waterfowl, and some mammals with (1) 

oxygen, (2) habitat, (3) food sources, (4) breeding areas, (5) refuge for predators and prey, and (6) 

stabilized bottom sediments and nutrients (Kilgore et al. 1993). These resources are needed for 

healthy aquatic and littoral ecosystems, for good sport fisheries as well as other water-associated 

recreational activities, and for the aesthetic enjoyment of aquatic areas. 

The spread of invasive or nuisance vegetation will alter the structure of aquatic ecosystems and 

result in ecosystem degradation, changes in water quality, and changes in habitat for fish and 

wildlife populations. Invasive aquatic vegetation spreads rapidly and colonizes water bodies with 

the ecological characteristics of early successional species, and will invade both degraded and 

healthy aquatic ecosystems. Invasive submersed aquatic vegetation typically creates 

monocultural stands with dense canopies above or below the surface that result in decreased 

water mixing and oxygen exchange, increased nutrient loading, and widely fluctuating 

temperatures (Charlebois 2002). This morphology reduces activity in other plants, so that the 

invasion of a lake by species such as water hyacinth or American lotus is often accompanied by 

the decline of indigenous aquatic vegetation. In addition to affecting water quality and reducing 

the density of indigenous aquatic vegetation, invasive aquatic vegetation alters animal 

communities in littoral zones and wetlands. 

Controlling these terrestrial and aquatic plant species will be an ongoing management problem at 

the Red River NWR. A variety of management techniques will need to be employed on a 

continuing basis in order to control and mitigate impacts to resource management. Public 

education, particularly for residents adjacent to the refuge’s Headquarters Unit, will be an 

important element in this control program. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

The climate, topography, geology, air quality, soils, and waterways form the foundation of the 

physical environment of the refuge. 

CLIMATE 

The climate at Red River NWR is humid-subtropical and is primarily influenced by the refuge’s 

subtropical latitude and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The climate is controlled by two principal air 

masses. Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico generally dominates in the spring and summer, and 

cooler, drier air from the Central Plains prevails during the winter months. Extended, hot, sultry 

summers and moderately cool winters are the norm. The average annual air temperature is 65 

degrees Fahrenheit. During the winter, the average temperature is 50 degrees, with an average daily 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

minimum of 39 degrees. Average seasonal snowfall is less than one inch. The average temperature 

is 81 degrees during the summer, but temperatures above 90 degrees occur almost daily. 

The mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Half of this rainfall (30 inches) usually falls during April 

through September. The growing season is about 235 days long and begins in mid-March and ends 

during early November. Thunderstorms occur on average about 70 days each year, with most 

occurring during the summer months. The average relative humidity in the mid-afternoon is about 60 

percent. Humidities are higher at night. 

The sun shines 60 percent of the time during the summer, and 50 percent during winter. The 

prevailing wind is from the south. Average wind speed is highest, nine miles per hour, during the 

spring months. These climatic values play an important role in influencing the area’s hydrologic 

regime, which subsequently shapes ecosystem process and functions. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

As the climate has changed on the Earth, marine and deltaic sediments have been deposited in 

alternating cycles in Louisiana. Geologists have determined from studying these deposits that a 

major river system, corresponding to the modern Red River, has persisted here at least since the Gulf 

of Mexico began to form (Louisiana Geologic Survey 1990). 

The topography of the refuge has been greatly influenced by the actions of the Red River and much 

of the geology is from Quaternary alluvial deposits. Although the continental ice sheets did not reach 

this far south, the lower Red River valley carried glacial meltwaters and outwash in a braided-stream 

pattern that concurrently widened and aggraded the valley during periods of waning glaciation. As 

each glacial cycle progressed and the sediment loads and stream discharges declined, the river 

abandoned its braided stream configuration in favor of a single-channel meandering pattern. This 

alluvium has been sorted, reworked, and deposited many times by riverine processes. 

The Red River has a narrow floodplain, averaging 6 to 8 miles in width. The lands in the valley can, 

in general, be classified as alluvial floodplain or terrace uplands. The formations of alluvium 

described above comprise the bulk of the refuge. Relict channels and natural levees, often referred 

to as ridge and swale topography, are easily seen by visitors to the refuge. Human disturbances, 

including artificial levees and channelization projects, have drastically altered these natural alluvial 

processes within the Red River floodplain. 

The elevation at the refuge averages 150 feet above sea level at its lower end below Natchitoches to 

250 feet near the Arkansas border. The topography is complex, with numerous stream channels, 

small tributaries and depressions, old river meanders and oxbow lakes, multiple river terraces in 

various stages of erosion and deposition, and adjacent poorly drained lowlands. Added to this 

complexity are farming activities that have modified the hydrology of the area, resulting in a subtle but 

complex topography that has given rise to the flora and fauna found on the refuge. 

SOILS 

The soils of the floodplains range from loamy to clayey and from well-drained to very poorly drained. 

The loamy soils are on higher, natural levees of rivers and bayous. These soils are fertile and have 

few limitations for crops. Some of the clayey soils are flooded by runoff and stream overflow. The 

clayey soils, which are in the lower areas, are limited by wetness. The soils historically supported a 

diverse bottomland hardwood forest. 
24 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

HYDROLOGY 

Drainage in Louisiana is into the Gulf of Mexico. The Red River basin comprises the largest drainage 

area in the state. The Red River joins with the Atchafalaya and Old rivers, the latter forming an outlet 

to the Mississippi River. Most of the water from the Red River flows to the Gulf through the 

Atchafalaya system. At times, the Mississippi River is at higher levels causing much of its flow to be 

through Old River and then into the Atchafalaya. In times of high water, the lower Black basin, near 

the confluence of the Black and Red rivers, becomes a backwater storage basin. Because of an 

extensive artificial levee system, there is not much drainage directly into the Mississippi within the 

state. Lowlands bordering the Red and upper Atchafalaya are also protected by levees. 

The five units of Red River NWR are located within three distinct watersheds of the Red River: the 

Bayou Pierre, Middle Red–Coushatta, and Lower Red–Lake Iatt watersheds (Figure 4). The 

Headquarters, Bayou Pierre, and Spanish Lakes units are located in the Bayou Pierre watershed 

which consists of approximately 395,715 acres of cropland, pasture/hayland, forestland and urban 

land. The major resource concerns are diminished water quality in Bayou Pierre and its tributary 

associated with intensive row crop agriculture and/or confined animal operations. The Wardview Unit 

is located in the Middle Red–Coushatta Watershed which runs parallel to the Red River. Lower Cane 

Unit is located in the Lower Red–Lake latt Watershed to the south of the Little River. 

The hydrology of the refuge is dominated by the Red River, the three distinct watersheds, and the 

impacts of the Red River Waterway Project. For 500 years or more before it was finally cleared in 

1870, the Great Red River Raft dominated hydrologic character along the stretch of the Red River 

that is now occupied by the five units of the refuge. The Red River raft was a result of the highly 

erodible soils of the Red River alluvial valley being carved by each high water event on the river. As 

the river moved back and forth across its alluvial plain, trees were undermined along the riverbanks 

and fell into the river. These trees formed a discontinuous series of logjams that extended 

approximately 150 miles along the river from the vicinity of present day Natchitoches to the LouisianaArkansas state line. The raft artificially raised the banks of the river and forced the creation of 

numerous distributaries of the Red, evidence of which can still be seen today. 

Numerous raft lakes also formed in river low spots along the tributaries to the Red. These raft lakes 

were transitory in nature. The raft was not stationary; rather, it was inexorably moving upstream at 

about a fifth of a mile per year. As pieces of the raft broke up and floated downstream on the lower 

end, new logs and debris were added to the upper end. As the channel naturally cleared on the 

lower end, the Red River channel would deepen and drain the raft lakes and close off the 

distributaries, leaving a single river channel. 

Piecemeal attempts were made to clear the raft starting in the 1830s. Portions of the raft were 

cleared for a brief period but it would eventually reform. Captain Henry Miller Shreve dramatically 

increased the pace of the natural clearing of the logjam with the invention of the snag-boat. By the 

mid 1870s, the raft had been cleared. Steamboats plying the Mississippi River could now go up the 

Red River to Shreveport and points north, as well as west into Texas along Cypress Bayou to 

Jefferson, Texas. However, as the railroad commerce expanded in the late 1800s, steamboat 

commerce declined. Removal of the Red River raft caused the river to scour its channel deeper, 

making the river have unusually high banks. Because of these unnaturally high banks, bank erosion 

became a tremendous problem on the river. Thousands and thousands of acres of productive land 

were eroded by the river and deposited downstream as less productive sandbars. This continual 

erosion also led to shoaling in the river, making navigation treacherous. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Figure 4. Watersheds of Red River National Widlife Refuge 
26 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

High turbidity levels, wide fluctuations in river depth, and edge-to-edge farm practices had a dramatic 

impact on the carrying capacity of the land for wildlife. This began to change with the initiation of the 

Red River Waterway project, which Congress authorized in 1964. This project, completed in 1994, 

consists of five lock and dam complexes located between the Old River Lock on the Mississippi River 

to a point just south of Shreveport and Bossier City. The river’s water levels are now higher and more 

constant, and its turbidity levels have been greatly reduced. Water quality has also improved, and 

the seasonal retention of water levels has resulted in a rich diversity of aquatic plants. 

Increased water levels on the river have improved some adjacent habitats. Flooded timber and 

marginal agricultural fields characterized by wet, depressional areas are now common. The USDA’s 

Wetlands Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Program are restoring valuable wildlife 

habitats through the reforestation of previously cleared and highly erodible lands in the Red River 

Valley. Changes in agricultural practices have also resulted in an increase in rice production which 

created additional migratory bird habitat. 

AIR QUALITY 

Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air 

quality standards to protect public health. The EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public 

welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from 

harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air 

pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter 

(PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). 

The ambient air quality within the boundaries of the five units of the refuge can vary considerably 

from impacts due to varying sources such as electric power generation, paper mills, and proximity to 

a major metropolitan area. The Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Statistical Area in northwest 

Louisiana has recorded ambient ozone concentrations that approach the maximum concentration 

permitted by the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone concentrations (Chambers et al. 2005). 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Water quality within the Red River has been affected by mercury contamination from an unknown 

source (LDEQ 1998). Recently, 26 refuges in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley were surveyed for 

chemical contamination. Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected and passive sampling 

devices deployed. Residues of current use pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury were measured and limited toxicity testing 

was conducted (Shea et al. 2001). All of these chemical contaminants were detected at Lake 

Ophelia NWR (located at the base of the Red River watershed), but none were detected at levels of 

concern to human health or fish/wildlife. Furthermore, the EPA’s Index of Watershed Indicators

shows that most water bodies within the lower Red River watershed are meeting designated uses, 

and that the streams in this area are characterized as having good overall water quality and a low 

vulnerability to problems related to runoff. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Currently, the five units of the refuge include 3,742 acres of reforested bottomland hardwood forest; 317 

acres of bottomland forest; 261 acres of riparian habitat; 194 acres of cypress swamp; 600 acres of 

moist soils; 1,125 acres of agricultural fields; 124 acres in a pecan orchard, acres dominated by 

groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia); a 217-acre area of honey locust; and a 153-acre old field that 

was grazed and currently invaded by wild plum and invasives (Figure 5). In addition, about 443 acres 

of the refuge are permanent water, consisting of oxbow lakes, tributaries of the Red River, borrow pits, 

and irrigation ditches. 

Prior to European settlement, the predominant habitat type throughout the area was bottomland 

hardwood forest. One goal of the refuge is to restore this once-dominant habitat type. The primary 

woody species in the lowest areas of bottomland hardwood forest are baldcypress, buttonbush, and 

swamp privet. Slightly higher on the floodplain are overcup oak, water hickory, Nuttall oak, persimmon, 

cedar elm, willow oak, and water locust. The understory largely consists of swamp privet, greenbrier, 

poison ivy, and buttonbush. Riparian habitats consist of black willow, cottonwood, and sycamore. 

The cleared bottomlands have been replanted in species that would have originally inhabited the 

area, which include willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, Nuttall oak, shumard oak, cherrybark oak, 

sweet pecan, sycamore, sweetgum, green ash and baldcypress (Figure 6). 

Bottomland hardwood forests can be classified in this area into four primary habitat types: 

1. Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) – Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) 

2. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) – Water Hickory (Carya aquatica) 

3. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) – Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 

4. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) – Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 

Baldcypress – Water Tupelo 

Baldcypress and water tupelo together make up the majority of stocking in this forest type, which 

occurs in swamps, deep sloughs, and very low poorly drained flats. The sites are always very wet, 

and surface water stands well into or throughout the growing season. Soils are generally mucks, 

clays, or fine sand. Common trees associated with this type are black willow (Salix nigra), water 

locust (Gladitsia aquatica), overcup oak, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and persimmon 

(Diospyros virginia). Among the shrub species are swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and planartree (Planera aquatica). Woody vines include redvine 

(Brunnichia ovata). A variety of herbaceous plants will be commonly seen and take the form of 

flotants, emergents, and submergents. Frequently, a variety of mosses and lichens adorn the 

exposed tree trunks, and the crowns may be draped with Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides). 

Overcup Oak – Water Hickory 

This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight clay or silty clay soils. These 

sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring inundations. Overcup oak and 

water hickory together constitute the majority. Associates include willow oak, Nuttall oak (Quercus 

nutallii), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), green ash, and water locust. Minor associates include black 

willow, persimmon and sweetgum. Common shrub species often associated include redvine, peppervine 

(Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), trumpet-creeper (Campsis radicans), dewberry (Rubus caesius), and 
28 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Vegetation map of Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Figure 6. Reforestation on Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
30 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

 possibly greenbier (Smilax spp.). Panicums, asters, annual grasses, and cocklebur (Xanthium 

strumarium) may occur in openings within the stand. 

Sweetgum – Willow Oak 

The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically occupied by this forest 

type. Willow oak and sweetgum comprise the largest proportion of the stocking in stands of this type. 

A major associate on higher clay ridges and flats is Nuttall oak. Other trees associated with this 

forest type are sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash, overcup oak, water oak (Quercus nigra), 

water hickory, cedar elm, persimmon, and sometimes baldcypress. Common shrubs include swamp 

privet, American snowbell (Styrax americana), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), hawthorn (Crataegus 

douglasii), and dull-leaf indigo (Amorpha fruticosa). Woody vines occasionally present include 

greenbrier, peppervine, and redvine. 

Swamp Chestnut Oak – Cherrybark Oak 

This forest type occurs on the best, most mature, fine sandy loam soils on the highest of the first 

bottom ridges and hammocks, and on the second bottoms or terraces down from the ridges. These 

well-drained sites are seldom covered with standing water and only rarely overflow. Species 

composition of this habitat type varies widely, though cherrybark oak will most likely be much more 

common than swamp chestnut oak. Many other species contribute to a well-stocked stand: white oak 

(Quercus alba); post oak (Quercus stellata); sweetgum; blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica); hickory (Carya 

spp.); willow oak; water oak; southern red oak (Quercus falcate); winged elm (Ulmus alata); sassafras 

(Sassafras albidum); slippery elm (Ulmus rubra); Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii); black oak 

(Quercus velutina); black cherry (Prunus serotina); white ash (Fraxinus americana); green ash; red 

maple (Acer rubrum); and loblolly (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pines (Pinus echinata). Common 

midstory plants include eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis); flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); 

American holly (Ilex opaca); red mulberry (Morus rubra); American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana); 

eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana); and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Shrub species 

usually include red buckeye (Aesculus pavia), devil’s walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), sweetleaf 

(Symplocus tinctoria), and Viburnum spp. Often included in this habitat type are grape vines (Vitus 

rotundifolia), Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium 

sempervirens), trumpet creeper, and greenbrier. 

The four bottomland hardwood types described above are found only in remnants over most of the 

units of the refuge. It is the desire of refuge management to replicate these types where appropriate 

on the refuge. The cleared bottomlands have been reforested with species that originally inhabited 

the area, including willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, Nuttall oak, shumard oak, cherrybark oak, 

sweet pecan (Carya illinoensis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, green ash and 

baldcypress. The outcome will be structurally diverse bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems that 

support a variety of forest-dependent wildlife species. 

Moist-soil plant species vary depending on the timing of drawdowns and soil disturbance, but usually 

consist of panic grass (Panicum spp.), sprangletop (Leptochloa spp.), millet (Pennisetum 

americanum), toothcup (Rotala ramosior), coffeeweed (Senna obtusifolia), Paspalum, Polygonum,

and a variety of sedges (Andropogon spp.). Due to a lack of resources, active moist-soil 

management has not been possible to date on Red River NWR. Proper moist-soil management is 

very labor-intensive, requiring soil disturbance through discing and leaving fallow, or planting a food 

crop using cooperative farming or forced-account work to help set back succession every 2 to 4 

years. Often, much of this habitat type can be obtained in conjunction with rice farming, which is 

currently being done on the Lower Cane River Unit, but other sites will need to be identified as 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

primary moist-soil areas. The keys to success of such areas are moisture and water control (levees, 

pumps, water control structures, ditches and monitoring). Without excellent water control, moist-soil 

management in the southeast is a hit or miss activity. Timing of inundation, adequate disturbance, 

and sustained record-keeping are needed to assure good production on a yearly basis. 

At Red River NWR, grain production is used to address the shortages to effectively manage moistsoil habitat. Under current funding and staffing limitations, cooperative farming is the only option 

available to the refuge to produce crops. Rice, milo, and corn are the top choices as grain crops for 

ducks. Rice is particularly resistant to decomposition even under flooded conditions. Milo and corn 

also provide high energy resources for waterfowl and can generally be kept above the water surface, 

but problems arise from depredation prior to flooding, as well as seed degradation after flooding. It is 

important to manage the farm program to provide the best mix of waterfowl foods. 

WILDLIFE 

Waterfowl 

The West Gulf Coastal Plain and the Red River Valley are important ecoregions for migrating and 

wintering ducks and geese in North America. Red River NWR provides important foraging and 

resting (refuge) habitats within the Red River Valley for these waterfowl and serves an integral role in 

a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort known as the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

The refuge provides habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat for nesting 

wood ducks (Aix sponsa). The Red River is a historic migration corridor for migratory birds that use 

the Central and Mississippi flyways on their journey to the Gulf Coast. At least 14 species of 

migratory waterfowl use the refuge during some part of the year: mallard (Anas platyrhynchos); 

gadwall (Anas strepera); American widgeon (Anas americana); green-winged teal (Anas crecca 

carolinensis); blue-winged teal (Anus discors); northern shoveler (Anas clypeata); northern pintail 

(Anas acuta); hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus); ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris); 

canvasback (Aythya valisineria); and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis). Other species that use the refuge 

less frequently include bufflehead (Aythya marila); redhead (Aythya americana); common merganser 

(Mergus merganser); red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator); greater scaup (Aythya marila); 

ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis); common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula); and American black 

duck (Anas rubripes). Wood ducks are year-round residents in Louisiana. Preferred habitats include 

forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, streams, sloughs, and beaver 

ponds. Wood ducks seek food in the form of acorns, other soft and hard mast, weed seeds, and 

invertebrates found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps and along stream banks. They loaf and 

roost in more secluded areas and dense shrub swamps. 

American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) 

Long-term declines in American woodcock populations are apparent, and trend data from individual 

monitoring efforts correlate well. Hunting success indices for American woodcock also show that the 

annual harvest has been declining. The most serious threat is habitat loss and alteration through 

urbanization, reforestation, drainage of wetlands, and agricultural development (Keppie and Whiting 

1994). Throughout the woodcock’s southern breeding range, primary threats are water development, 

including land drainage and impoundments, and conversion of bottomland forests to cropland or 

forest monocultures (USFWS 1990). In addition, loss of marginal brush and increasing farm size 

increase vulnerability to hunting (Brauning 1992). 
32 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Shorebirds 

An appropriate disturbance rotation at the old rice fields and old fish ponds on the Bayou Pierre Unit will 

allow the refuge to hold water on a portion of the impoundments through the summer. High-quality 

habitat can be provided following a late summer drawdown, thus providing foraging habitat for wading 

birds in the summer and shorebird habitat during the peak of fall migration. This is all in addition to the 

benefits shorebird species will receive following the normal spring drawdown on the other units. An 

inclusive list of shorebird species is yet to be developed for this new refuge. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

More than 200 species of neotropical migratory birds use Red River NWR at various times of the 

year. Refuge habitats utilized include forested wetlands, scrub/shrub, open fields, sandbars, shallow 

flooded fields, and mudflats. 

Water and Marsh Birds 

The great blue heron (Ardea herodias); great egret (Ardea alba); snowy egret (Egretta thula); cattle 

egret (Bubulcus ibis); little blue heron (Egretta caerulea); white ibis (Eudocimus albus); green heron 

(Butorides virescens); yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violaceus); black-crowned nightheron (Nycticorax nycticorax); American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus); white-faced ibis (Plegadis 

chihi); pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps); common moorhen (Gallinula hloropus); purple 

gallinule (Porphyrula martinica); and sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) use the refuge’s sloughs, 

bayous, flooded timber, scrub/shrub, and open fields at different times of the year, depending upon 

the water levels. Roseate spoonbills (Ajaia ajaja), wood storks (Mycteria americana), and tricolored 

herons (Egretta tricolor) are seen irregularly, usually during post-breeding dispersal in late summer. 

Least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis) most likely migrate through the refuge. Concentrations of doublecrested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) use the refuge during winter. Anhingas (Anhinga 

anhinga) are found along the river and associated oxbow lakes and sloughs during the summer. 

American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) are sometimes seen in the open flooded fields 

in late summer and during migration. No major rookeries are known to occur on the refuge. Virginia 

rails (Rallus limicola) and sora rails (Porzana carolina) probably winter in appropriate habitat on the 

refuge. King rails (Rallus elegans) may breed irregularly in the open fields if water levels are suitable. 

American coots (Fulica americana) are present year-round and are especially abundant in winter. 

Mammals 

Forty-four species of mammals are known or are likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix I), although an 

inventory has not been conducted. White-tailed deer are the only big game on the refuge. 

Furbearers found on the refuge include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana); raccoon (Procyon 

lotor); striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis); river otter (Lutra canadensis); beaver (Castor canadensis); 

mink (Mustela vison); nutria (Myocastor coypus); and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Gray fox 

(Urocyon cincreoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcats (Felis rufus) 

are also present. Both eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and swamp rabbits (Sylvilagus 

aquaticus) inhabit the refuge. Fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) and gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) 

are found on the refuge, with fox squirrels in the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the 

small amount of dense forest. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Serveral species of bats are known or are likely to occur on the refuge. These include the Rafinesque’s 

big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii); southeastern myotis (Myotis aystroriparius); big brown bat 

(Eptesicus fuscus); eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis); Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus); evening bat 

(Nycticeius humeralis); and during migration, the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). 

No inventories have been conducted on small mammals, such as mice, voles, or moles. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

More than 70 species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge. These species are 

listed in Appendix I. 

Fish 

Red River NWR provides habitat for many species of freshwater fish (Appendix I). Important game 

species found in refuge waters include: bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus); redear sunfish (Lepomis 

microlophus); longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis); white crappie (Pomoxis annularis); black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus); largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); yellow bass (Morone 

mississippiensis); and white bass (Morone chrysops). Other species include: blue catfish (Ictalurus 

furcatus); flathead catfish (Pylodictus olivaris); channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus); smallmouth 

buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus); bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus); black buffalo (Ictiobus niger); 

freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens); longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus); shortnose gar 

(Lepisosteus platostomus); alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula); spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus); 

bowfin (Amia calva); and carp (Cyprinus carpio). 

Species of Concern 

Priority bird species for conservation that may occur on or near the refuge include the cerulean 

warbler (Dendroica cerulea); Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii); the recently delisted bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); and endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), which nests 

on riverine sandbars. Other species of concern identified by the LDWF (Lester et al. 2005) and 

others for the the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain that may occur on or near the refuge are the 

alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii), rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, and southeastern myotis. 

Cerulean Warbler. This warbler has a large breeding range in eastern North America, but is declining 

even with population expansion in some areas. This decline is apparently due to habitat loss and 

fragmentation, with the greatest effect perhaps occurring on the South American wintering range. 

North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a significant population decline in eastern North 

America. The decline has been most pronounced in the core of the breeding range (Robbins et al. 

1992). Population size has declined across range in the eastern U.S., but the species has 

experienced some range expansion, particularly in the northeastern U.S. and Ontario, perhaps in 

response to forest maturation (Oliarnyk and Robertson 1996). 

Swainson’s Warbler. One of the most secretive and least observed of all North American birds, the 

Swainson’s warbler is a skulking bird found in canebrakes and wooded wetland edges. The 

Swainson’s warbler holds a large territory for such a small bird, defending between 7 to 45 acres. It is 

difficult to assess population numbers, but habitat specificity puts the species at risk from habitat loss, 

both on the breeding and wintering grounds. 
34 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Bald Eagle. Bald eagles breed throughout the U.S. and winter throughout the southern portion of its 

breeding range. Bald eagles have been seen near some of the refuge units. They feed on fish, 

waterfowl, coots, muskrats, and nutria. The bald eagle has officially been removed from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species as of August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from 

October through mid-May. Eagles typically nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore, and 

willow) near fresh to intermediate marshes or open water in the southeastern parishes. Eagles also 

winter and infrequently nest in mature pine trees near large lakes in central and northern Louisiana. 

Major threats to this species include habitat alteration, human disturbance, and environmental 

contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides and lead). Although the bald eagle has been removed 

from the threatened and endangered species list, it continues to be protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Service developed the 

National Bald Eagle Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and 

others with information and recommendations regarding how to minimize potential project impacts to 

bald eagles, particularly where such impacts may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited by the 

BGEPA. A copy of the NBEM Guidelines is available on the Service's Internet site: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. 

Interior Least Tern. Interior populations of the least tern, formerly well-distributed in the Mississippi 

Basin, now survive only in scattered remnants. Least tern habitat has been decimated by extensive 

water management projects and increased use of beaches and sandbars. The species is listed by 

the Service as endangered, with the following caveats: Louisiana, Mississippi River, and tributaries 

north of Baton Rouge; Mississippi, Mississippi River only; and Texas, everywhere except the Texas 

coast and a 50-mile zone inland from the coast. 

Recorded interior least tern nesting locations occur on the Red River from Arkansas south to 

Natchitoches. Throughout the reach, the tern nests in shallow, inconspicuous depressions in open 

areas on sandbars and sand islands. These nests are subject to detrimental effects from a variety of 

predatory and nonpredatory impacts. Nonpredatory impacts include human recreational activity, 

most notably all-terrain vehicles or other off-road vehicles, livestock foraging, and naturally occurring 

hydrologic conditions. 

Alligator Snapping Turtle. Alligator snapping turtles are the largest freshwater turtles in the United 

States. They are protected from commercial harvest in every state. Louisiana protected them from 

commercial harvest starting in 2004. Commercial harvest of these turtles threatens their population 

because alligator snapping turtles do not breed until they are approximately 15 years old, and the 

harvest targets adults. Nest depredation by raccoons, skunks, opossums, and fire ants also harm the 

population significantly. The refuge has participated in alligator snapping turtle research studies on 

the Headquarters Unit; however, the number of turtles on the refuge remains unknown. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat. The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is the least studied bat in the eastern 

United States (Harvey et al. 1999) and is federally designated as a species of special management 

concern (USFWS 1999). This bat is associated with bottomland hardwoods, and since this habitat 

has decreased, many biologists are concerned about its status. Many states consider the species to 

be either threatened or endangered. However, Louisiana has no official designation for the 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Recent studies have shown that this species often roosts in water tupelo 

(Nyssa aquatica) trees (Gooding and Langford 2004; Trousdale and Beckett 2005) 

Southeastern Myotis Bat. Southeastern myotis bats are associated with riparian areas and/or 

bottomland hardwood forests and are listed as federal species of special management concern. 

They are often captured in mist nets more frequently than big-eared bats, but their populations are 

thought to be declining. Southeastern myotis bats roost in caves (Harvey 1992) in the northern part 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

of their range, but little is known about their roosting habits in areas where there are no caves, such 

as Louisiana. Recent research has revealed that this species also favors water tupelo trees as roosts 

(unpublished data, Bayou Cocodrie NWR and Upper Ouachita NWR). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the framework for federal review and 

consideration of cultural resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing 

regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and sets forth significance criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural 

resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a federal 

undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an 

undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect 

jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those 

carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and 

those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal 

agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the 

Interior, and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion. 

Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and 

is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service 

undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Service’s 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, 

compliance, and implementation of the several cultural resources laws. The refuge manager assists 

the RHPO by informing the RHPO (early in the process) about Service undertakings, by protecting 

archaeological sites and historic properties on Service-managed and administered lands, by 

monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations. 

Red River NWR follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving any cultural 

legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that 

involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and 

bulldozers, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct 

an archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to the 

RHPO as well as to the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO reviews 

the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any 

properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources are actually 

encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately. To date, no 

properties on the refuge have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The refuge is divided into five separate refuge units spread over 120 miles of the Red River Valley 

from the Arkansas/Louisiana state line to near Alexandria, Louisiana. The refuge units are located in 

parts of Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches parishes, Louisiana. The Red River 

Valley in Louisiana felt the pressure of European colonialization at an early stage. Continued 

agricultural development throughout the 1800s and early 1900s caused almost all the historic 

bottomland hardwood forests to be cleared. The valley is now one of the most environmentally 

degraded floodplains in the state. Four of the refuge units are in a rural setting; the fifth unit is 
36 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

located in the major metropolitan areas of Shreveport and Bossier City. Table 1 provides an overview 

of the demographics of the five parishes that contain portions of the refuge. 

Table 1. Demographics of Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Natchitoches, and Red River Parishes, 

Louisiana 

Parish Population Households Percent 

Caucasian 

Popu. 

Density 

(indiv/sq.mi.) 

Median 

Income 

(per 

household) 

Bossier 105,541 36,628 75.2 117.1 $40,581 

Caddo 251,309 97,974 51.6 285.9 $32,575 

DeSoto 26,383 9,691 58.4 29.1 $29,803 

Natchitoches 38,541 14,263 57.8 31.1 $27,272 

Red River 9622 3414 57.9 24.7 $23,153 

(Based on 2000 Census data) 

Data provided by the latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation 

(USDI et al. 2003) show that for the year 2001, a total of 1.6 million people participated in fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-watching activities in Louisiana. These activities resulted in roughly $1.6 billion 

in expenditures, with the majority spent on equipment (58 percent) and trip-related (36 percent) 

expenses. Of these totals, approximately 970,000 enthusiasts participated in fishing and 12.1 million 

fishing trips were made. The total expenditures for fishing were $703 million, with 57 percent triprelated, 39 percent for equipment, and 5 percent for other expenses. A total of 333,000 enthusiasts 

participated in hunting and 6.3 million hunting trips were made. Total hunting expenditures were 

$446 million, with 61 percent spent on equipment, 27 percent trip-related, and 12 percent for other 

expenses. A total of 935,000 enthusiasts participated in wildlife watching and 2.4 million trips were 

made. Total expenditures for wildlife watching were $168 million, with 58 percent spent on 

equipment, 33 percent trip-related, and 9 percent for other expenses. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge now owns in fee title approximately 20 percent of the 50,000 acres within its legislatively 

designated acquisition boundary. The refuge is in an active land acquisition mode and pursuing 

partnership efforts, such as the carbon sequestration/electric utility partnership, to help in this 

acquisition effort. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Currently, public use is available on only two of the five refuge units (Figure 7). Portions of the 

Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit and Bayou Pierre Unit are open to hunting. Species hunted are 

ducks, geese, coot, quail, woodcock, squirrel, raccoon, opossum, feral hogs, coyotes, beaver, 

and deer. Deer hunting is by archery only. The hunting seasons on the refuge are the same as 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 7. Current public use on Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
38 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

the state seasons. Although the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit is open to hunting, no parking lots 

exist and access into the unit is poor. 

Because Red River NWR is a young refuge, its visitor use program is not well-developed. An approved 

Visitor Services' Plan has not yet been developed for the refuge. Currently little, if any, orientation 

information is provided to direct visitors to the refuge or to welcome visitors at the refuge. The refuge has 

completed an opening package for hunting and fishing on some portions of the refuge. Compatible public 

uses on the refuge (wildlife-dependent recreational uses as designated in the Land Protection Plan 

Interim Compatibility Determination, April 2002) currently include wildlife observation and photography; 

recreational fishing in accordance with State of Louisiana regulations; recreational hunting of migratory 

birds and resident game in accordance with State of Louisiana regulations; and wildlife-dependent 

environmental education activities. At present, the primary wildlife-dependent public uses of the refuge 

include fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. 

Fishing and boating on the Spanish Lake Lowlands and Bayou Pierre units are permitted year-round 

during daylight hours only. Licenses, limits, and boating safety requirements are the same as those 

adopted by the LDWF. Access to the Spanish Lake Lowlands fishing area is poor. There is interest 

in opening the Headquarters Unit to fishing, but improved access is currently unavailable. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are encouraged. Currently, however, the fee title land 

base is minimal, with very little public access. As acquisition continues, management foresees an 

increase in this use. Designated hiking trails, observation platforms, and photo blinds are not 

currently available. Opportunities for partnering with other agencies or organizations exist. The 

American Wetland Birding Trail has expressed an interest in establishing some stops for birders on 

the refuge, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service has offered to help establish a variety of 

habitats at the Headquarters Unit to increase birdwatching and other wildlife observation 

opportunities. 

The refuge does not have an environmental education program at present. Kiosks, interpretive 

panels, and interpretive programs are not available at the refuge. As the refuge continues to buy 

land, there will be trails and observation areas developed. Funding has been provided to build an 

office/visitor center at the Headquarters Unit. Once the building is completed and the associated 

trails and kiosk are built, the refuge will then have the facilities for an education program; however, 

the refuge does not currently have staff to conduct an environmental education program or to staff the 

visitor center once it is opened. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Currently, the refuge has a staff of one—the refuge manager. However, the refuge is a part of the 

Service’s North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex and shares portions of the staff. Since it 

began operations, the refuge has relied on help from such groups as The Nature Conservancy and 

the Audubon Society, as well as the Red River Refuge Alliance. The Red River Refuge Alliance, in 

particular, has been instrumental in providing volunteers to increase public awareness and to 

increase support from local, state, and federal agencies regarding pressing refuge issues. In the 

years to come, the refuge will continue to rely on the assistance of these organizations to augment its 

resource management and public use activities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

In developing this CCP, the planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities 

related to wildlife and habitat management, resource protection, public use and environmental 

education, and refuge administration. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state 

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

process of obtaining public input through public scoping meetings, planning team meetings, comment 

packets, and personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered. However, 

some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this 

planning process. The team has considered all issues that were raised through this planning 

process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance competing opinions regarding important 

issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are most significant 

to the refuge. These issues are summarized below. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species is an important responsibility of 

the Service and its national wildlife refuges. One endangered species known to use areas on and/or 

near the refuge complex is the interior least tern. Terns travel along the Red River and nest along or 

within the refuge boundary. Surveys during the nesting season are needed to determine nest 

locations. The least terns primarily utilize the sandbars along the Red River as their primary habitat. 

Active management of these sandbars can encourage and promote benefits to these birds. The 

refuge will need to coordinate any management activities on these sandbars with the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers, the Red River Waterway Commission, and the LDWF because many of the sandbars are 

not included in the fee-title property of the refuge. A complete inventory of species occurrence on the 

refuge is needed to determine if other species of concern occur on the refuge. 

Resident Wildlife 

To better understand the biodiversity and environmental health of refuge lands, baseline information on 

wildlife and their habitats must be collected. These data will document presence or absence, monitor 

trends, and identify the impacts of refuge programs on species. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to 

the Red River Valley inhabits the five units of the Red River NWR. The refuge assumes responsibility for 

managing resident wildlife that are dependent on refuge resources. 

 

White-tailed deer occur on the refuge and have the potential to adversely affect habitats unless their 

numbers are kept at or slightly below the carrying capacity of the habitat. Hunting programs also 

provide opportunities for raccoon, rabbits, squirrel, and the incidental taking of beaver, coyote, and 

feral hogs. Overpopulation of raccoon, beaver, coyote, and feral swine adversely impact other 

species. Raccoon predation on the nests of turkey, wood ducks, turtles and songbirds can limit the 

reproductive success of those species. Raccoons also spread canine distemper, a common closecontact disease, to other species such as fox. Beavers have become pests on parts of the refuge by 

building dams that flood trees, which can cause die-offs of large tracts of bottomland hardwoods. 

Feral hogs are destructive to habitats and compete with native wildlife for food. 
40 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Migratory Birds 

Public opinion in the refuge area continues to overwhelmingly support efforts to expand habitat 

management programs for migratory and resident waterfowl. Habitat management actions to support 

waterfowl populations include providing high-calorie agricultural crops such as rice, corn, milo, and 

millet and managing and maintaining moist-soil areas and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, 

resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. The refuge intends to support and 

be a part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. This will require a management plan 

for the refuge that determines a minimum acreage of habitat and objectives to provide sufficient 

water, food, sanctuary, and resting/loafing areas to meet the needs of wintering waterfowl. 

Particular attention will be given to the amount of refuge croplands and moist-soil areas needed to 

meet habitat objectives and to the numbers of waterfowl that these cropland and moist-soil areas can 

support. Lands currently in agricultural crops that exceed acreages needed to meet objectives will be 

evaluated for conversions to moist-soil, early successional habitats, or reforestation to address the 

needs of other species of migratory birds and mammals. 

Neotropical migratory birds are of special management concern. The Partners in Flight Conservation 

Plan is currently developing habitat objectives in the West Gulf Coastal Plain to support viable 

populations of these species. Large contiguous blocks of interior forest are extremely rare along the 

entire Red River valley due to land clearing, primarily for agriculture. The reforestation efforts 

underway at the Red River NWR will help restore this much-needed habitat. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Bottomland Hardwood Management and Restoration 

Historically, the entire Red River valley along the stretch of the river encompassed by the refuge was 

almost completely covered in bottomland hardwood forest. As European settlers began to exploit the 

natural resources of the area following the removal of the Great Log Raft in the late 1800s, forest 

clearing eliminated virtually all forest cover. The Red River valley is now one of the most altered 

ecosystems in Louisiana. 

One of the primary goals of the refuge is the restoration of bottomland hardwood forests. As 

explained in the Resource Protection section below, this goal is being helped through a cooperative 

agreement between the refuge and electric utility companies. This cooperative arrangement is an 

outgrowth of concerns about global warming and the potential mandated costs of addressing that 

environmental issue. Utility companies that believe they will eventually face limits on how much 

carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming) they can emit are paying 

money into this program to fund the restoration of bottomland hardwood forests. The utility 

companies hope to use the documentation of their funding of this sequestration to offset carbon 

dioxide emissions from their power plants when regulatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions are 

someday imposed. 

The challenge for refuge management is to ensure that this program does not lead to management 

practices that might not serve the best long-term interest of the refuge. As stated earlier, this is a program 

with many positive benefits. It has helped a young refuge acquire additional land and finance 

reforestation. The concern is the need for a longer-term vision on how to manage the program to get the 

best possible gains for the refuge. The program cannot be allowed to dominate management decisions 

that could impact the wisest and best use of the resources within the refuge. Therefore, Red River NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

should utilize the most recent guidelines for bottomland forest management developed by the Forest 

Habitat Working Group of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. 

Farming on the Refuge 

Cooperative farming has long been an accepted, efficient, and a necessary method of producing 

crops that benefit wildlife, particularly waterfowl. All farming operations are conducted in a manner 

beneficial to both the refuge and the local farmers. Cooperative farmers are allowed to farm refuge 

land under certain guidelines and restrictions, including crop location, crops planted, tilling 

techniques, and chemicals used. In return for providing the land, the refuge receives a share, usually 

20–25 percent of the crop. 

Depending on waterfowl needs, the refuge’s shares of the crops are usually left in the field to provide 

immediate food and cover. Title 50, Part 29, of the Code of Federal Regulations and Service policies 

require that the value of a refuge’s share of cooperatively grown crops be set at rates that reflect the 

fees and charges received by private landowners in the vicinity for similar privileges. The value can 

be established through the use of competition in selecting cooperators, or through an analysis of local 

market conditions to establish the prevailing rates in the nearest comparable area. 

Moist-Soil Management 

One part of the comprehensive planning process for the Red River NWR is the establishment of 

moist-soil objectives for the refuge complex in support of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. Moist-soil management refers to management that promotes moist-soil 

conditions to encourage the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds and plant parts 

produced by these plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland-dependent 

wildlife species. The decomposing vegetative parts of moist-soil plants also provide substrata for 

invertebrates, which are vital foods for many wetland wildlife species. Factors that determine the 

success of moist-soil management include the timing and rate of drawdowns, soil disturbance 

and the stages of plant succession, and the timing and rate of reflooding. Best success is 

achieved when water levels can be controlled as well as the soil disturbed periodically, although 

good results can be obtained under natural conditions when artificial draining and flooding are not 

possible (Conservation Commission of Missouri 2002). 

Waterfowl depend on nutrient-rich seeds and invertebrates for various periods of their lifecycles. 

While high-calorie agricultural crops provide the needed energy for wintering migratory waterfowl, it is 

equally important that waterfowl receive the nutrients needed year-round to remain healthy and to 

reproduce. Natural wetlands, such as moist-soil, are best utilized when in close proximity to highcalorie agricultural crops to facilitate waterfowl access to aquatic invertebrates and other natural 

foods that are comparatively scarce in croplands, as is the case in much of the Red River valley 

(Kaminski and Davis 2002). 

The refuge is fortunate to have a variety of locations within certain portions of some of its 

management units to practice controlled moist-soil management. Past agricultural practices on lands 

now within the refuge left in place a number of water control structures. An analysis of the individual 

management units, current acreage, and potential management of moist-soil areas is needed to 

maximize management of these areas. Particular attention should be given to proper record-keeping 

on water-level management and subsequent plant/animal responses. 
42 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Carbon Sequestration Financed Reforestation Programs 

As described in Chapter II, the Red River NWR is a young refuge, authorized in 2000 and established 

in 2002. It is located in an area that was historically dominated by bottomland hardwood forests, 

which has been mostly cleared. Because of these circumstances, refuge management is in a very 

active land acquisition mode and would like to reforest much of the acquired land. Land acquisition 

and reforestation require money at a time when the National Wildlife Refuge System, like most 

governmental agencies, is under strict funding constraints. Into this backdrop, a public/private 

cooperative arrangement has emerged that can potentially go a long way toward facilitating 

reforestation and addressing the issues outlined above. 

The agreements stipulate that utility companies buy and reforest land for carbon sequestration 

purposes and donate it to the Service. The utility companies also provide additional funding for 

reforestation of existing Service lands. This is currently being conducted on a ratio to reflect land and 

anticipated carbon value. That is, for every acre of donated reforested land, the utility companies 

also fund reforestation of an additional one acre of land already owned by the Service. The Service 

agrees to keep the donated land in forest, although it reserves the right to manage the forest habitat 

for wildlife values (e.g., conduct thinning or other silvicultural treatments). The utility company 

receives documentation that shows it was responsible for funding the reforestation on so many acres 

as of a given date, from which a calculation can be made of how much total carbon has been taken 

up by the forest and kept in organic form. 

The question Red River NWR faces is whether privately funded financial assistance of a depleted 

ecosystem within the refuge poses any potential ecological problems. The danger exists that the 

sequestration program could come to dominate management decisions, requiring land that may not 

really be suitable or best used for forest to be reforested. It could also cause a rush to reforest that 

might not allow for the best mix of tree species. There are differences of opinion among biologists 

about this; some believe that what the Red River Valley lost most is forests and therefore, it needs 

trees; while others observe that the valley lost biodiversity and do not want to see it wholly turned into 

forest at the expense of prairie, moist-soil (emergent vegetation), scrub/shrub savannah, and other 

ecosystem types with important wildlife values. 

The carbon contracts require immediate reforestation of acquired, donated, and matching 

reforestable land. This creates two problems: the first is the fact that the availability of tree seedlings 

is limited, because there are a lot of other reforestation projects going on (tree nurseries need at least 

a year or perhaps two years of advance planning to grow the desired mix of species). The second 

problem is the need to provide reforestable federal land to match the land donation from the utility 

company, which leads to short-term land management planning. The refuge is trying to meet its 

requirements under the carbon contracts to plant trees. To do this, it has had to compromise in terms 

of what tree species have been planted to meet its obligations. 

Another problem is the flexibility of the carbon contracts in regard to precise acreages, i.e., the 

contract demands exact acreage, but the refuge often doesn’t have exact acreage figures when it 

starts the negotiations. Thus, at times the refuge has come up short and been forced to quickly find 

more acres to reforest that may not be the best choice. The concern here is that the rush to reforest 

without an inventory of the area being reforested could result in lost opportunities or values. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

As stated earlier, this is a program with many positive benefits. It has helped a young refuge acquire 

additional land and finance reforestation. The concern is the need for a longer-term vision on how to 

manage the program to get the best possible gains for the refuge resources. 

Land Protection and Acquisition Boundary Expansion 

Red River NWR is within the Red River Valley located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, 

Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches, and DeSoto parishes. The current approved acquisition boundary 

is approximately 50,000 acres, of which 9,787.92 acres are currently owned in fee title. The 

approved acquisition boundary includes five focus areas for acquisition: Wardview, Headquarters, 

Bayou Pierre, Spanish Lake, and Lower Cane (Figure 2). Upon full attainment, the established 

refuge will consist of a complex of five separate refuge units. The five units were selected based on 

their natural resource values, management potential, restoration possibilities, hydrologic/watershed 

influences, partnership opportunities, and proximity to development (current and projected). 

The Service’s current anticipated near-term acquisitions at the Spanish Lake and Lower Cane River 

units will result in divided ownerships (part of a landowner’s tract within the Service acquisition 

boundary and part outside the boundary). The landowners wish to sell their entire tracts to the 

Service. Also, the construction of the Arthur Teaque Parkway adjacent to the Headquarters Unit may 

result in a land exchange with Bossier Parish, Louisiana. A minor expansion of the current 

acquisition boundaries at the Spanish Lake Lowlands, Lower Cane River, and Headquarters units will 

rectify these significant boundary issues and also provide additional habitat for migratory birds and 

resident wildlife. In addition, these lands would provide for additional public use and access. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Currently, minimal public use occurs on the refuge besides hunting, fishing, and some wildlife 

observation. The complex does not have the staff or facilities to provide environmental education, 

interpretive or other wildlife-dependent recreational programs. A big part of this CCP, and the need for 

public involvement in its development, is planning for visitor services. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

From its inception, there has been the intention to locate a visitor center at the Headquarters Unit of 

the refuge, which was identified in the establishing legislation. This planned visitor center will play a 

significant environmental education and interpretation role for the refuge, particularly due to its 

location within a major metropolitan area. Where the visitor center will be located within the 

Headquarters Unit and how it will be utilized were issues brought up by the public. Partnerships with 

local schools and universities will be explored. 

Beyond the important visitor center, and consistent with the provisions outlined in the Improvement Act, 

the Service can provide quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreational programs throughout the Red 

River NWR. These recreational programs will include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These priority public uses will provide the 

public with an opportunity to learn about, enjoy, and appreciate the refuge’s natural resources, but not at 

the expense of wildlife and their habitats. 
44 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting and Fishing 

Hunting and fishing are integral parts of Louisiana culture. It is not surprising that there is 

considerable state and local interest in expanding hunting opportunities. Any additional hunting 

opportunities will depend on whether the refuge can provide safe, quality experiences that are 

compatible with refuge purposes. The public has expressed an interest in increased opportunities to 

hunt dove, waterfowl, and deer and in having universally accessible accommodations. 

Hunting is one management consideration for the isolated white-tailed deer population on the 

Headquarters Unit, but such a hunt would require careful coordination and control. Deer herds are now 

being actively managed on properties near some of the refuge units and any active management on 

these units will have to take into consideration the management techniques used on adjacent properties. 

 

Fishing could be expanded on Red River NWR by developing bank fishing areas, better public 

access, improved or expanded fishing piers, and by controlling aquatic weeds. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

A variety of wildlife observation and wildlife photography opportunities is available throughout the 

refuge. Expanding and enhancing these opportunities is integral to this CCP. Walkways with 

interpretive wayside exhibits are a natural fit for the Headquarters Unit. Observation towers would 

increase wildlife watching at moist-soil areas within several of the refuge units. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

Currently the refuge has a resident staff of one—the refuge manager. Increases for staff, facilities, 

and equipment will help the refuge realize its purpose and management objectives. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

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

planning process that is consistent with provisions of the Wilderness Act, National Environmental 

Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable legislation. Red River NWR lands 

were inventoried to identify whether areas met the defining wilderness criteria as set forth in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. Please refer to Appendix H for that determination. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

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

A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, 

and integrity of refuges. This chapter describes the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used 

to implement a science-based stewardship program for the fish and wildlife resources on Red River 

NWR. 

On national wildlife refuges, public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife 

and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

These public uses are therefore emphasized in this CCP. 

Described below is our plan for managing Red River NWR over the next 15 years. This management 

direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

The following three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered in the Draft CCP/EA: 

A. Current Management Direction (No Action Alternative)

B. Minimize Management and Public Use Management

C. Optimize Biological Program and Visitor Services

Each of the alternatives was described in the Alternatives section of the EA. We chose Alternative C, 

“Optimize Biological Program and Visitor Services,” as our preferred management action. This 

alternative best satisfies the vision of the refuge and best addresses the goals, objectives, and 

strategies expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, governmental partners, and the public. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in management based on sound science for the 

recreation and conservation of a structurally and species-diverse bottomland hardwood habitat (along 

with managed wetlands and associated prairies) for migratory birds and resident wildlife. A focused 

effort will directed towards reducing invasive species that threaten the biological integrity of the 

refuge. Wintering waterfowl habitat will be maintained through the development of important foraging 

habitat associated with cooperative farming efforts on the refuge and the management/manipulation 

of moist-soil areas. Baseline inventorying and monitoring of management actions will be completed 

to gain information on a variety of species from reptiles and amphibians to game animals, as well as 

species of concern. Several cooperative projects will be conducted with universities, LDWF, and 

other agencies and individuals to provide biological information for use in management decisionmaking. This CCP will also expand the current acquisition boundaries in the Spanish Lake Lowlands, 

Lower Cane River, and Headquarters units. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation will be provided and enhanced, while achieving the refuge’s purposes. 
46 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

VISION 

The Red River National Wildlife Refuge will be managed to provide for the restoration, enhancement, 

and conservation of bottomland hardwood forests, managed wetlands, and associated prairies, as an 

integral component of the Red River ecosystem. These habitats will support a variety of migratory 

birds, species of special concern, and other associated wildlife and plants. This effort will be 

enhanced and encouraged through both strong private landowner partnerships and public support by 

providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

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

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

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

with the various strategies. 

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

the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Red River 

NWR. With adequate resources, as outlined in Chapter V, the Service intends to accomplish these 

goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

GOAL A. Fish and Wildlife Population Management: Promote the conservation and management 

of migratory bird diversity and resident wildlife in support of national, regional, and ecosystem habitat 

and population goals.

Discussion: Red River NWR is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and is considered to 

be in the West Gulf Coastal Plain (WGCP) Bird Conservation Area. As such, Red River NWR is a 

component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning initiatives. Wildlife species found 

on the refuge are typical of forested wetlands and fields. The refuge provides habitat for thousands 

of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat for nesting wood ducks. The Red River is a historic 

migration corridor for migratory birds that use the Central and Mississippi flyways on their journey to 

the Gulf Coast. Species range from diving ducks, such as scaup, ring-necked duck, redhead, and 

canvasback, to traditional puddle ducks like mallards and teal. More than 300 species of neotropical 

migratory birds use the Red River at various times of the year. Priority species for conservation 

include the swallow-tailed kite, cerulean warbler, Swainson’s warbler, American woodcock, yellowbilled cuckoo, prothonotary warbler, worm-eating warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, Kentucky warbler, 

and hooded warbler. Listed species include the interior least tern, which nests on riverine sandbars. 

Other migratory birds, such as woodcock and mourning doves, are common in the cleared fields, 

while wading birds and shorebirds are numerous on sandbars, shallow flooded fields, and mudflats. 

Resident game and furbearer species along the river include white-tailed deer, swamp rabbit, 

cottontail rabbit, gray and fox squirrels, mink, muskrat, beaver, fox, and coyote. The Red River Valley 

also supports a variety of nongame mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. 

The river basin supports 133 species of fish, ranging from game species, such as largemouth bass, 

crappie, and catfish, to big river species, such as shovelnose sturgeon, freshwater drum, and gar. Two 

species of management concern, the blue sucker and paddlefish, are also found in the Red River. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Objective A-1. Migratory Waterfowl: Annually monitor winter waterfowl species abundance and 

habitat use on the refuge per the Southeast Region Waterfowl Survey Protocol in coordination with 

the State of Louisiana. 

 

Discussion: Concern over waterfowl population declines in the 1980s resulted in establishment of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), which focused the attention of federal, state, 

and private conservation groups on critical wintering and breeding areas. The Lower Mississippi Valley 

Joint Venture (LMVJV) was selected as one of the wintering habitat focus areas. One of the first tasks 

faced by the LMVJV was to find a model or decision tool for determining how much habitat was needed 

and a way to relate this objective to the population goals of NAWMP. The solution was to view wintering 

areas as responsible for contributing to the spring breeding population goals of NAWMP, proportional to 

the percentage of ducks historically counted in wintering areas (Loesch et al. 1994; Reinecke and Loesch 

1996). To contribute ducks to spring populations, wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to 

ensure adequate winter survival. To quantify winter habitat requirements, the LMVJV had to identify 

limiting factors and the LMVJV assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit waterfowl populations in 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Reinecke et al. 1989). Many of these same factors and planning 

procedures were applied to the WGCP as the LMVJV expanded to include this important area. 

Strategies: 

• Implement Waterfowl Survey Protocol for refuges in the Southeast Region twice a month from 

mid-September to March. 

• Design and implement an estimate of waterfowl use of flooded forest. 

• Fly mid-winter survey each year, and coordinate with LDWF to conduct surveys in northwest 

Louisiana. 

• Hire biologist to assist with surveys and data management. 

• Archive complete digital data of all waterfowl surveys and vegetation responses to water 

management. 

• Waterfowl survey objectives should be expanded beyond strictly determining peak waterfowl 

populations to record waterfowl numbers on a unit-specific and species-specific basis from 

September through February. Habitat conditions and waterfowl numbers should be correlated 

with habitat conditions throughout the winter period. Because of differences in species habitat 

preferences both within and among years, data should be recorded, archived, and analyzed 

over a period of years before irreversible actions are taken. 

Objective A-2. Waterfowl Sanctuary: Maintain at least 5 percent of refuge as waterfowl sanctuary 

to provide adequate resting and feeding areas and use adaptive management for yearly regulations, 

delineations, and modifications as lands are acquired. 

Discussion: An essential component of waterfowl wintering habitat is sanctuary. Waterfowl need 

sanctuary from human disturbance during the winter to prepare biologically for spring migration and 

reproduction (Reinecke et al. 1989). Disturbance can interrupt resting and feeding bouts, resulting in 

a loss of energy and lowering of body weight. Paulus (1984) found in Louisiana that increased 

foraging time by gadwalls was insufficient to counterbalance disturbance factors. Locally, the refuge 

can provide sanctuary for a portion of the waterfowl population. 

Sanctuary is a priority for management of wintering waterfowl to ensure that adequate and preferred 

feeding habitats are available. Many of the public believe that sanctuaries affect the availability of 

waterfowl for the hunting season. Some believe that sanctuaries hold all the ducks, or a large 

portion, off of public and/or private hunting areas. In contrast, it has been seen in some areas that 
48 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

creating sanctuary areas or areas with minimal human disturbance, among a diversity of habitat types 

that provide adequate food and cover resources, is probably the most effective management tool to 

encourage waterfowl use over time. Sanctuaries provide core use areas that enhance the use of 

adjacent areas by holding more birds closer to a hunting area (Bias et al. 1997). 

Strategies: 

• Post sanctuary boundary and continue to enforce no waterfowl hunting in the sanctuary. 

• Monitor the sanctuary for disturbance thresholds from access during the key waterfowl 

wintering period of September–March. 

• Evaluate the sanctuary in terms of size, location, and access as new lands are acquired. 

Objective A-3. Wood Ducks: Within 5 years of CCP approval, add 50 additional wood duck nest 

boxes for a total of 100. These boxes should be placed in or adjacent to good brood habitat, 

providing adequate cover and an abundance of aquatic insects. Cooperate and partner with LDWF 

to meet preseason wood duck banding efforts. 

Discussion: Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forest lands of the U.S., including Red River 

NWR. Preferred habitats include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, 

streams, sloughs, and beaver ponds. Wood ducks seek food in the form of acorns; other soft and 

hard mast; weed seeds; and invertebrates found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps, and along 

stream banks. They loaf and roost in more secluded areas and dense shrub swamps. 

Wood ducks are cavity nesters, seeking cavities in trees within a mile of water. Brood survival is 

higher in situations where nests are close to water. Due to the loss of forested wetlands and 

competition for nest sites from a host of other species, natural cavities are the primary limiting factor 

to reproduction. Nest boxes are commonly used to supplement natural cavities and increase local 

production of wood ducks. Box programs are not an end to all nesting problems. They require 

laborious maintenance at least annually. Production can be increased by more frequent checks and 

cleaning of boxes, but this must be weighed with other time constraints. 

An initial start of 25–40 boxes might be ambitious considering the current refuge staff level. As wood 

duck nest box usage exceeds 60 to 80 percent of the available boxes, the refuge should consider 

adding more boxes to minimize potential dump nesting. The decision to continue adding more boxes 

must be weighed with the available staff/volunteer time to properly monitor and maintain the boxes. 

Small nest boxes have been used in some areas following recommendations provided by a study 

conducted by Stephens et al. (1998) that cited nest success comparable to large boxes and financial 

savings. Subsequent studies by Hunter (2000) and Davis et al. (1999) report lower (compared to 

larger boxes) or declining usage of small boxes due to high nest site competition with nesting 

passerine birds. If the purpose of putting up nest boxes is to increase wood duck production, it is 

recommended that large nest boxes be used. 

Recent guidelines entitled, “Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and 

Banding, USFWS Lands (Southeast Region) 2003 (update)” by the Division of Migratory Birds, 

provided direction for the use of wood duck nest box programs on refuges. Boxes should be placed 

in or adjacent to, good brood habitat in areas where they are not subject to flooding. It is critical that 

boxes have functional predator guards and are checked and repaired annually; otherwise, boxes are 

considered traps for the hen and her clutch. Conical predator guards should be maintained on all of 

the boxes to more effectively keep rat snakes from climbing into the boxes. Some reports indicate 

that if rat snakes learn there is a meal of eggs in the nest box, it becomes very difficult to exclude 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

them from the boxes. If boxes cannot be properly maintained, they should be boarded up until 

sufficient effort can be put toward operating an effective nest box program. Cleaning the boxes after 

the initial peak of nesting (about mid-April) will significantly improve annual production if competition 

for nest sites increases. 

Adequate brood habitat can seriously affect duckling survival and reproductive success. Suitable 

brood habitat may be limiting recruitment in the vicinity of Red River NWR just as much as natural 

cavities. McGilvrey (1968) described preferred brood habitat as 30 to 50 percent shrubs, 40 to 70 

percent herbaceous emergents, and 25 percent open water. Overhead cover within 1 to 2 feet of the 

water surface is vital for wood duck broods. Optimum habitat should have 75 percent cover and 25 

percent open water, with a minimum of 1/3 cover to 2/3’s open water. Placement of boxes in or 

adjacent to good brood cover will significantly improve duckling survival to flight age. This information 

has been more recently supported by Davis (2001). 

One other factor affecting duckling survival is aquatic insect production that is probably poor in highly 

turbid systems. Other than serving as access to good brood habitat (e.g., beaver ponds and oxbow 

lakes), these waterbodies appear to be relatively poor brood habitat and should not be considered as 

a suitable site for a significant number of nest boxes. 

The Mississippi Flyway Council has established preseason wood duck banding quotas by state 

throughout the Mississippi Flyway to estimate survival. As staff time allows, the refuge should 

request a banding quota. In the interim, the refuge should consider making good banding sites 

available to the LDWF for banding. 

Strategies: 

• Nest boxes must be fitted with conical predator guards and inspected at least annually [see 

Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding, USFWS Lands 

(Southeast Region) 2003 (update) by the Division of Migratory Birds]. Boxes should be 

placed so that it is difficult to see from one box to the next or at least 100 yards apart. It is 

important to place boxes so that they are easy to access. As a minimum, box checks should 

be conducted in January, just prior to nest initiation. Preferably, boxes should also be 

checked in late April, soon after the first round of nest exodus by ducklings and again in 

August, just after the nesting season is complete. 

• Plant red oaks to achieve 30 to 60 percent overstory where feasible in floodable units for 

wintering wood ducks 

• Beaver ponds provide excellent brood habitat for wood ducks (e.g., nesting, brooding, and 

wintering) and numerous other wetland-dependent species (e.g., prothonotary warbler, otter, 

and American alligator). Some beaver ponds should be allowed to develop and mature, not to 

exceed 5 percent of the refuge. 

• In cooperation with LDWF, contribute to the Mississippi Flyway Council’s Preseason Wood 

Duck Banding effort. 

 

Objective A-4. American Woodcock: The refuge will develop and implement forest management 

plans that provide midstory and groundstory vegetation (thickets) in the forested lands for daytime 

cover and foraging habitat in grassland habitats for nighttime foraging by American woodcock to 

significantly contribute to the American Woodcock Management Plan (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). 
50 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: American woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested 

portions of the eastern U.S. Woodcock populations in the Southeast Region have declined 19 

percent from 1968 to 1990. Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes 

associated with land conversion and the maturing of forest habitats. 

In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan was completed, setting an objective to protect 

and enhance wintering and migration habitat on public lands to increase woodcock carrying capacity. 

The plan also set objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management 

demonstration areas. 

Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush and understory, especially 

when found in close association with agricultural fields and old field succession. These sites are 

typically wet thickets with a high density of plant stems and open ground cover. Typical cover 

includes privet, cane, and briars that result from openings in the canopy. Scrub/shrub and other 

dense habitats found on certain portions of the refuge provide good daytime cover for woodcock. 

These habitats result from reforestation, old field succession, ice storms, and forest management, 

which are recommended to benefit priority forest interior-nesting land birds (e.g., Swainson’s warbler 

and cerulean warbler) and other wildlife. 

At dusk, woodcock move to open or brushy fields to forage and conduct courtship activities 

throughout the night. These habitats include agricultural fields that were not fall disked and sparse 

grasslands that may have received a cool fall burn to create patchy openings of exposed soil 

interspersed between grass clumps 1 to 3 feet in height. Woodcock are closely tied to earthworms as 

their major food resource. Mowed or disked strips through reforestation areas will serve as sites for 

entry into these dense habitats. 

Strategies: 

• Develop forest management plans that provide preferred woodcock habitat. 

• Diurnal (daytime) cover and foraging habitat for woodcock includes thickets and shrub areas 

with high vertical density in the understory and spongy wet soil. These habitats can be 

created in existing forest stands through patch group thinning and patch clearcuts that also 

benefit other high-priority bird species. Preferred nocturnal habitat includes wet agricultural 

fields (not fall disked) and wet “old field” or grassland habitats with exposed soil and patchy 

cover 1 to 3 feet in height created by cool fall burns. 

• Take advantage of rights-of-way and other permanent forest openings to create woodcock 

habitat. 

• Inventory suitable woodcock wintering habitat on the refuge and conduct evening flight counts, 

nighttime counts and flush counts to assess woodcock usage of the refuge at least twice 

monthly from mid-November to mid-March. 

• Develop woodcock habitat demonstration sites to serve as educational opportunities for public 

and private land managers, realizing that habitat management for woodcock is similar to 

management for other priority species. 

Objective A-5. Scrub/Shrub Birds: Maintain and create early successional habitats along buffer 

strips, prarie demonstration site, and pipeline rights-of-way for priority breeding scrub/shrub species. 

Discussion: While bottomland hardwood forest is the habitat type that has been most disturbed and 

much effort to restore such habitat will be a focus on this refuge, there will be opportunities for 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

providing early successional habitats suitable for scrub/shrub birds. There will also be an opportunity 

to provide such habitat in a planned prairie demonstration area on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Encourage buffer strips “feathered edges” along forest-field edges and riparian zones. 

• Promote scrub/shrub habitats through the appropriate planting of scrub/shrub plant species 

(e.g., plum, swamp dogwood, devil’s walking stick, deciduous holly, and hawthorn species). 

• Where narrower corridor linkages between forest patches are created, consider establishment 

of scrub/shrub habitat. 

Objective A-6. Shorebirds, Marsh birds, and Wading Birds: Implement standardized surveys 

within the managed wetlands and agricultural fields for shorebirds, wading birds, and secretive marsh 

birds according to approved protocol. 

Discussion: Many of the refuge units have moist-soil units that can be manipulated to enhance 

habitat for this group of birds. Monitoring data (i.e., which species are using the refuge, its 

impoundments, and condition of impoundments) will provide valuable information for adaptive 

management decisions that will provide benefits for a wide array of species. 

Strategies: 

• Implement shorebird surveys in coordination with the national plan. 

• Implement secretive marsh bird surveys, locate nesting colonies, and count waders. 

Objective A-7. Forest Breeding Birds: In addition to developing a bird list, within 5 year of CCP 

approval, implement point count surveys according to the LMVJV protocol and long-term research 

studies on bird community responses to habitat changes and nest productivity within existing forest 

stands. As these research studies mature, develop priority areas of conservation in the Red River 

Valley and target protection of these lands for forest breeding birds. 

Discussion: Forest breeding birds, especially neotropical migratory birds, are declining in numbers 

(Robinson 1993). Much of the bottomland forests of the Red River Valley has been removed. The 

remaining forest habitat is fragmented and isolated. Information on species presence, abundance, 

population trends, and productivity is needed to better understand the forest nesting birds that use 

the refuge. Long-term monitoring will allow the refuge to identify problems and benefits associated 

with management practices, land use changes surrounding the refuge, or ecosystem changes. 

The LDWF has developed a conservation strategy and has outlined bird species in need of 

conservation concern (Lester et al. 2005). The refuge will continue to cooperate with the state and 

develop a nesting productivity research project, which will include as many of the state’s priority forest 

bird species as feasible. 

Strategies focused on research: 

• Develop a research project in cooperation with LDWF and a university to determine 

abundance and production of songbirds for a minimum of three years and provide 

recommendations on best management practices that will maintain or increase production of 

Louisiana’s species of concern. 
52 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• Monitor species diversity, abundance, and productivity as habitat succession progresses. 

• Complete baseline study to be conducted by graduate student or temporary employee. 

• Refuge staff will determine which information need is the highest priority from forest 

management activities affecting migratory songbirds. 

• In cooperation with LMVJV, design a study to determine bird community response to habitat 

changes. 

Strategies focused on specific habitats: 

• Tupelo Gum–Cypress: Overall passive management should be undertaken in this forest type. 

Some stands of tupelo could be thinned to increase value to wading birds and wood ducks 

and to encourage larger growth form based on site evaluations and the discretion of the 

refuge manager. 

• Frequently flooded oak-dominated flats (overcup, willow, Nuttall): Maintain forest in oak 

communities. Based on site inspection, regeneration will consist of using small clearcuts 

(about 10 acres) predominately as a regeneration tool. Adjacent sites will be used for 

subsequent entries. Experiment with leave-trees to provide dominant trees for future dens, 

cavities, and super-emergent trees (for forest breeding birds). These super-emergent trees 

are recommended to be in 2 patches of 5 or so trees per regeneration site. Also, experiment 

with interspersed shelterwoods and thinnings. 

• Higher sites (and sites with lower frequency of growing season flooding) with more diversity of 

tree species: These sites include ridges, sites with palmetto present, or otherwise infrequently 

flooded during growing (e.g., some of the forests between the levees). Overall future desired 

condition of mature wetland forests would be to emphasize (1) increasing stand structural 

diversity by favoring retention of largest trees (remove surrounding potentially competive 

trees); (2) opening up stands to allow light to reach the ground in support of better understory 

structure; and (3) group selection-sized openings to further structural complexity and support 

regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species (oaks) where needed. Retain at least two culls 

per acre for future potential cavities, dens, super-emergents (for forest breeding birds). 

• Reforested stands older than 20 years: The inclination is to thin these stands, even if it 

sacrifices future merchantable practices. If the refuge staff waits until these stands are at 

least 30 years old, their marketability will provide flexibility for future forest habitat 

improvement in contrast to 10–20 years of wasted habitat condition for migratory birds. 

• Reforested stands between 15–20 years: Recommend pre-commerical thinning as canopy 

closes, but may sacrifice future height, allowing light and species to come into stand. Perhaps 

for every 20 acres designate 5 acres for continued growth to be treated post 30 years, or vice 

versa. Also consider TSI (injections) to accomplish forest habitat improvement. 

• Reforested stands between 2–15 years: Before trees reach 12 to 15 feet in height, consider 

scarification and disking of small patches for clusters or groups of faster growing trees or 

patches of shrubs. Patches could be arranged in small groups of 4 to 6 trees or patches of up 

to 1⁄2 acre of trees. 

• Reforested stands at planting: A diversity of tree species should be planted to include fastergrowing species, including such species as cottonwood, sycamore, honey locust, and 

sweetgum, in addition to oaks and ash. 

Objective A-8. Wildlife Diversity/Resident Wildlife: Create a species list of mammals, mussels, 

butterflies, moths, insects, and other resitdent wildlife that utilize the refuge, based on surveys, 

literature, and collections. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Discussion: No inventory research has been conducted on the refuge; therefore, little information is 

available on their populations. Before management strategies can be planned, a basic understanding 

of which species use the refuge needs to be addressed. Trapping/surveying for all mammals on the 

refuge would be logistically time-consuming and expensive. Other alternatives, such as literature 

searches, would help initiate a species list. Target species or species of concern could then be 

focused on more intensive monitoring or research. 

Strategies: 

• Research the literature including range maps for species that should occur in northwest 

Louisiana. 

• Review local university collections and determine if wildlife professors have species lists for 

the surrounding areas. 

• Employ different surveying techniques, such as small mammal traps and mist-netting for bats, 

to sample for presence of all potential species. 

• In the long term, restore eastern wild turkeys to the refuge. 

Objective A-9. Game Mammal Management: Monitor white-tailed deer herd health, age, and sex 

structure every 3 to 5 years for disease and conditions that relate to exceeding carrying capacity on 

existing refuge lands and as lands are acquired and the hunting program is expanded. Maintain 

healthy populations of all game mammals at or just below carrying capacity. 

Discussion: Deer can reproduce quickly and should be monitored for herd health issues, as well as 

potential impacts on available habitats. This is especially true for the isolated herd that is found at the 

refuge’s Headquarters Unit. For example, chronic wasting disease is a transmissible spongiform 

encephalopathy of deer and elk. It has not been found in Louisiana to date, but the high profile of this 

disease, combined with Service responsibilities for wildlife resources that span state and federal 

jurisdiction, makes it critical for the Service to cooperate with the state and other federal agencies in 

monitoring for the disease. 

Hunting of white-tailed deer, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, and opossums is allowed on the refuge. All 

of these species reproduce quickly and should not only be able to withstand hunting but their 

numbers will also be kept in check. 

Strategies: 

• Continue to use hunting as the primary tool for regulating resident game mammal populations. 

• Use deer herd health checks every 3 to 5 years to determine status of deer populations on the 

refuge. 

• Conduct browse surveys during spring following LDWF protocols. 

• Conduct a very controlled deer harvest on the Headquarters Unit to maintain the proper 

carrying capacity. 

Objective A-10. Nuisance Wildlife Control: Within 7 years of CCP approval, control feral hogs, 

nutria, beaver, and other exotic species by a variety of methods. 

Discussion: Invasive wildlife species on the refuge include feral hogs, red fire ants, nutria, Eurasian 

collard doves, and European starlings. Control of doves, starlings, and fire ants is practically 

impossible. These species will be with us always. Nutria are established throughout Louisiana and 
54 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

can damage levees and impact native vegetation if populations become high. Numbers can be 

reduced by shooting or trapping. Hogs root up native vegetation and compete with native wildlife for 

food. A variety of control methods will be explored to determine the best fit for use at this refuge. 

The Red River acts as the primary source for intrusion by exotic fish species. Exotic carp are the 

primary species of concern in northeast Louisiana. Invasive carp have the ability to cause habitat 

degradation. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) can cause increases in turbidity, especially when 

abundant in shallow waterbodies. Grass carp feed on vegetation and may cause decline or 

eradication of native aquatic plants in certain situations. Silver (Hypopthalmichthys molitrix) and 

big head carp (H. nobilils) are primarily planktivores and may compete with native species, 

including bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus) and paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), which is a 

protected species in Louisiana. 

Freshwater mollusks and the young of most fish species may also be affected by increased 

competition with exotic planktivores. The silver and bighead species have not been here long 

enough to accurately determine their impacts. Another species, the Asian black carp 

(Mylopharyngodon piceus), has been found in at least one river in the southern part of the state. 

These fish feed primarily on mollusks and shellfish. If established, they have the potential to damage 

native mussel and snail populations and create additional competition for food with other fish, birds 

and mammals. Little can be done to prevent the introduction of these fish into the refuge. Periodic 

sampling may be done to inventory species and abundance, along with the noting of any changes in 

the condition of the fisheries that may be attributed to their presence. Eradication of these species 

without harm to other fish is not possible. 

Strategy: 

• Reduce numbers using an integrated pest management plan that utilizes both approved lethal 

and nonlethal methods of control. 

Objective A-11. Herpetofuana: Determine the presence of all species of herpetofauna utilizing the 

refuge and their habitat associations. 

Discussion: Although the prospective herpetofauna of the refuge is large (at least 80 species), the 

presence of relatively few of the species has been confirmed and associated with particular refuges 

or their habitats. Under the provisions of the Improvement Act, refuges are called upon to conserve, 

manage, and restore wildlife populations and their habitats. When confronted with a lack of 

knowledge concerning the species actually present on refuge lands, the first step in conserving them 

is learning of their presence and to the extent possible, associating their presence with particular 

habitats. These are fundamental aspects of biodiversity knowledge recommended as priorities for 

helping the Department of the Interior manage its lands. 

Strategies: 

• Initiate a survey using standard drift fences/pitfall trap arrays. Standard methodologies can be 

used to sample both amphibians and reptiles, with specific additional techniques aimed at 

sampling the most highly aquatic salamanders, snakes, and turtles. All major habitats on the 

refuge should be included in the survey and at least one full year of sampling should be 

conducted in order to account for seasonality of activity among the various groups. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

• Sample anurans using the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) protocol 

at a minimum of every other year in order to monitor population trends. Special effort should 

be expended during the late-February to mid-April period to look for spadefoot toads 

(Scaphiopus hurteri) in areas with predominantly sandy soils. 

Objective A-12. Fisheries: Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources 

historically associated with the Red River Ecosystem, such as sunfish, bass, and crappie. 

Discussion: Fishing is an important recreational activity for many area residents. While some areas 

with good fishing opportunities currently have poor access, there is a 200-plus-acre oxbow lake 

immediately south of the proposed visitor center site that could expect high use due to its proximity to 

the urban areas of Bossier City and Shreveport. Enhancing these fishing opportunities requires study 

and careful fisheries management. 

Strategies: 

• Conduct fish surveys in all lakes, borrow pits, and backwater areas at perhaps 3–4 year 

intervals. Such a survey should be conducted after an influx of new water from the Red River 

during high water situations. The surveys should be for game species composition, relative 

abundance, size distribution and fish body condition. Collection methods may include boat 

electrofishing, trap and/or fyke netting and perhaps limited gill netting or hoop netting. The 

methods will depend upon the bottom topography and structure. Target species are crappie, 

sunfish, largemouth bass and catfish, plus any prey species. Electrofishing is done in the 

spring and/or fall, whereas netting is generally done in late fall or winter. 

• Conduct creel surveys periodically to monitor fishing pressure, fish catch (species, sizes), 

angler satisfaction, and angler biographical, geographical and economic information (travel 

costs, fishing costs). Especially if the boat ramp is near the visitor center, anglers may be 

encouraged to voluntarily fill out angling experience/fish catch sheets. 

• Based upon fish survey and fishing pressure information, it may be necessary to impose 

certain fishing regulations, such as restrictive creel limits and/or size limits on certain species. 

It may be advisable to permit day-only fishing, at least by boating. Effective fishing regulations 

require sufficient fishing pressure (which is likely here) and angler obedience; the latter is 

dependent upon education and enforcement. Displays and personal contact could be used 

for educating anglers as to the reason for the regulations. 

• A map of all waterways, complete with bottom contours and bottom structure should be made. 

• Water quality should be taken initially, especially during critical times of the year. For 

instance, dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles in mid- to late-summer would show 

stratification in the lake and areas devoid of sufficient oxygen for fish life and well being. 

Factors, such as water hardness, alkalinity, and salinity, should be relatively stable until the 

lake receives an influx of new water from the Red River during high-water situations. 

• Determine if species of concern or invasive species are present and explore opportunities to 

enhance native fish habitat in these areas. 

Objective A-13. Species of Concern: Ensure that refuge management actions coincide with the 

recovery plan guidelines for bald eagle, interior least tern, pallid sturgeon, wood stork, paddlefish, 

slimy salamander, or other species of concern on the refuge, as identified by the Louisiana Wildlife 

Action Plan (Lester et al. 2005). 

Discussion: One endangered species is known to use areas on and/or near this refuge complex: the 

interior least tern. Although bald eagles have recently been delisted, both species travel along the 
56 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Red River and nest along or within the refuge boundary. Eagles are often seen during the winter 

months when waterfowl numbers are abundant. They are occasionally seen perched in trees near 

the larger refuge water bodies. Surveys during the nesting season are needed to determine nest 

locations. The least tern utilizes the sandbars along the Red River as their primary habitat. Active 

management of these sandbars can encourage and promote benefits to these birds. The refuge will 

need to coordinate any management activities on these sandbars with the Service’s Lafayette 

Ecological Services' Office, the LDWF, and the Red River Waterway Commission. A complete 

inventory of species occurrence on the refuge is needed to determine if other species of concern 

occur on the refuge. 

Three species of special concern, the Louisiana slimy salamander (Plethodon kisatchie), alligator 

snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), and western worm snake (Carphophis vermis) also occur 

on the refuge. The alligator snapping turtle is currently being studied by a graduate student at 

Louisiana State University-Shreveport. The Louisiana slimy salamander is listed by the Louisiana 

Natural Heritage Program as an S1S2 species and the western worm snake is listed as S1. 

Strategies: 

• The refuge will consult with the Ecological Services' Office in Lafayette during future 

management actions that may affect threatened, endangered, or other species of concern 

within the state and ecoregion, to ensure that appropriate review occurs and that necessary 

conservation actions are taken. 

• Participate in the Mid-Winter Eagle Survey. 

• Coordinate with the Interior Least Tern Working Group. 

• Map any new eagle nest locations and implement the National Bald Eagle Nest Guidelines for 

the Southeast. 

• Conduct surveys to determine the abundance of herpetile species of special concern. 

Objective A-14. Inventorying and Mapping: Enhance refuge inventory and mapping capabilities 

through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). 

Discussion: Red River NWR is a young refuge with many mapping needs. A baseline GIS database 

is needed to provide maps to the public for hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities and 

for refuge management decisions and reporting requirements. Vegetation cover, soil types, and 

digital elevation models are essential for reforestation planning. Data that can be collected using a 

Global Positioning System (GPS), such as roads, parking lots, bridges, buildings, etc., will be useful 

for SAMMS and RPI databases. Some of this information is available from the LMVJV. 

Strategies: 

• Acquire existing abiotic GIS data layers (e.g., topography, aerial photography, hydrography, 

soils, boundaries, and roads). 

• Develop GIS data layers depicting occurrence/abundance of plant and animal species (e.g., 

roost sites and vegetation cover maps) and management activities (e.g., forest management 

compartments, wood duck boxes, and water management units). 

• Continue working with the LMVJV Office and others to develop, maintain, and update GIS 

data layers. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Objective A-15. Research: Determine top two or three management questions needing to be 

addressed through sound research and partner with local universities to conduct studies on the refuge. 

Discussion: Red River NWR presents a unique opportunity for conservation and restoration research 

due to the current land uses of much of the property. A significant portion of the refuge is currently in 

pasture, crops, or other highly degraded habitat that will require intensive and extensive restoration 

and management activities. As such, the refuge has unlimited potential to be a natural laboratory for 

applied, management-oriented research along with basic ecological research. In particular, the 

opportunity to accurately observe and document plant succession (and the associated faunal 

responses) beginning at “ground zero” and proceeding over the long term can provide managers with 

useful information for many years to come. 

The refuge’s geographic location is also advantageous in that all refuge units are within a two-hour 

drive of two major state universities (Northwestern State University in Natchitoches and Louisiana 

State University in Shreveport). In addition, NSU’s Aquaculture Research Center in Marco, 

Louisiana, is just a few miles from the southernmost refuge unit. This facility has a full-time research 

staff, a dormitory for visiting scientists, an indoor recirculating water facility, and numerous ponds of 

various sizes that can be used for cooperative research, possibly in the culture of endangered fish, 

mollusks, or aquatic plant species. Finally, the Service’s Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery also 

has a full-time research staff along with numerous ponds that could be used cooperatively for the 

culture of aquatic species. 

From an applied perspective, any management activity, such as reforestation, hydrology alteration, or 

exotic species removal, can be considered an experiment provided sufficient statistical controls (i.e., 

multiple reforestation blocks or pre-management action data) are available. Specific projects might 

include efficacy of management practices, wildlife-habitat relationships (particularly for threatened 

and endangered or regional indicator species), landscape-scale patterns of habitat use (considering 

the fragmented nature of the refuge tracts and surrounding private property), or reforestation and 

restoration ecology. Basic science topics might include plant succession or colonization patterns of 

native or exotic species. 

An important first step would be to identify existing habitat types and the proposed management 

activity, if any, in those units. Once management objectives and an acceptable experimental 

design have been identified, permanent sampling plots can be established and preliminary or 

baseline data can be collected. Protocols for plot identification and biological sampling methods 

should be chosen so that long-term quality of data can be assured through consistent repetition. 

Protocols that allow for comparison with other regional or national databases (for example, 

Breeding Bird Survey routes, Continuous Forest Inventory plots, Monitoring Avian Productivity 

and Survivorship banding stations, etc.), should be considered. 

Strategies: 

• Work with local universities to develop an overall research strategy to identify best 

management practices for the refuge. 

• Partner with universities to hire graduate students for 2–3 year research studies. 

• Determine which research studies would be high priority in achieving refuge objectives and 

purposes. 

• Apply for funding through federal and other grant programs. 
58 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective A-16. Grassland Birds. Develop bird list and monitor newly reforested, prairie 

restoration, and new acquisition areas for grassland birds. 

Discussion: Currently, one of the primary management activities on the refuge is bottomland 

hardwood reforestation. These efforts will provide early successional habitat for many years to come. 

Also, there will be opportunities for grassland management with the prairie restoration area and 

potentially at the Wardview acquisition area if deemed appropriate. 

Strategy: 

• Survey early successional habitats for bird species presence, diversity and abundance using 

point counts. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

GOAL B. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Habitat: Restore, enhance, and manage healthy 

bottomland hardwood forests and associated habitat in order to support a natural diversity of plant 

and animal species that will foster the ecological integrity of the Red River Valley Ecosystem. 

Discussion: Historically, the Red River Valley was forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress 

sloughs, and shrub swamps. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, early settlers began to clear 

these areas for farms and homesteads. This forest clearing rapidly accelerated in the 1960s and 

1970s with the rise in soybean prices. During the last three decades, the Red River Valley was used 

extensively for agricultural production. Thus, the valley is one of the most altered ecosystems in the 

State of Louisiana. Reforestation efforts are a priority on refuge lands in an attempt to restore these 

lands to their former function. 

Objective B-1. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Restoration: Restore the forest cover on 

designated areas to reflect that of the historical Red River Valley. Utilize the carbon sequestration 

program to achieve restoration of bottomland hardwood forests. 

Discussion: Bottomland hardwood forest restoration in the Red River Valley in large contiguous 

patches of habitat is important to provide restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats. Some of the funds for land purchases and reforestation within the refuge are being donated 

by energy companies so that they may be allowed to claim the carbon credits. All reforestation efforts 

must be accompanied by a thorough review of geomorphological features and complexities. 

Strategies: 

• Compile a comprehensive inventory of the soils, topography, and hydrology of each of the 

focus areas within the refuge complex. It is well known that different vegetative communities 

are adapted to each combination of soil type, surface and subsurface hydrology, and land 

surface gradient. It is important to know where each of the variations occur before a 

revegetation strategy can be developed. 

• Complete forest inventory and GIS database of refuge forest to generate baseline data for 

development of a habitat management plan that will include a 10-year entry cycle, annual 

inventories by compartment, step-down prescriptions for desired conditions, and monitoring 

protocols such as reforestation survival surveys. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

• Develop a forest habitat management plan which includes the following components: Plant 

tree species that are adapted to each microenvironment within the designated areas; increase 

numbers of light seeded species; increase water oak and willow oak component, and reduce 

numbers of nuttal oak being planted when possible; plant cypress and button bush along 

edges of drains and lakes where semi- to permanent-water is present; request seedlings at 

least one year in advance of planned planting to ensure adequate seedlings and species will 

be available; and monitor seedling survival. 

• Utilize recommended site preparation techniques, including sub-soiling. The Natural 

Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Conservation Practice Standard Forest Site 

Preparation (490) is a good reference to use for this purpose: 

(http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx?Fips=22079&MenuName=menuLA.zip, Section 

IVC). If sub-soiling is not used, it is recommended that machine planting be used instead of 

hand planting. 

• Work cooperatively and support reforestation agreements with energy companies through the 

carbon sequestration program to provide quality restoration efforts on the refuge. 

Objective B-2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management: Manage existing, reforested, and 

any future reforestation according to bottomland hardwood guidelines to meet the various needs of 

many wildlife species, including waterfowl, neotropical migratory songbirds, and resident species 

while providing the public educational information on different habitat types.

Discussion: Currently, the forested habitat on Red River NWR is broken up and divided among four 

existing units of the refuge. Forest management needs, opportunities, and recommendations on the 

refuge are listed below by unit and forest conditions: 

Strategies for the Headquarters Unit: 

• Pecan Orchard: Manipulate trees in the orchard to simulate various habitat conditions for 

environmental education purposes, such as leaving a portion in pecan orchard condition, 

discontinuing mowing to allow natural invasion to occur, removing a portion of trees and 

allowing natural plant succession to take place, and planting other species. 

• Baldcypress Swamp: Leave mature trees and plant seedlings of baldcypress and additional 

species to enhance swamp area along the edge of the lake. 

• Riparian Forest: This area is found along the banks of the Red River and should be left alone, 

at this time, to provide forested habitat for various wildlife species. 

• Plum Shrub: Maintain area in this condition and supplemental plant with various shrub 

species, such as eastern red cedar, swamp dogwood, deciduous holly, etc., to provide habitat 

for various wildlife species that prefer this habitat condition and as demonstration area on the 

refuge for this type of habitat native to the area. 

• Partner with NRCS and others to restore a native prairie demonstration area along the 

southwestern portion of the plum shrub area. 

Strategies for the Bayou Pierre Unit: 

• Riparian Forest: This area is the largest single area of maturing forest found within the 

boundaries of the refuge and should be left unmanaged at this time to provide habitat for 

species that need these conditions. 

• Clearcut Bottomland Hardwood and Reforestation Areas: Monitor the changes in forest 

conditions that occur in this area as the trees grow. 
60 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• Maturing Bottomland Forest: This area is the only stand of typical bottomland hardwood forest 

on the refuge units and should be left as is for now. 

• Royal Palownia Area: This area is from 1⁄4- to 1⁄2-acre in size and should be removed as soon 

as possible. Royal palownia is an exotic species and should be removed before is spreads to 

other areas of the refuge. 

• Reforestation: Allow to develop as it is with some supplemental planting as needed. 

Strategies for the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit: 

• Honeylocust Thicket: Allow this area to continue to develop much as a reforestation area 

would be left to grow. This area provides good scrub/shrub habitat for various migratory and 

resident bird species. Regeneration from other tree species will slowly start outcompeting the 

honeylocust. 

• Reforestation: Allow to develop as it is with some supplemental planting as needed. 

Strategy for the Lower Cane River Unit: 

• Reforestation: Allow to develop as it is with some supplemental planting as needed. 

Objective B-3. Invasive Plant Species: Inventory and map presence of invasives on the refuge 

and implement a management program for invasives on the refuge by 2012. 

Discussion: There are numerous exotic/invasive plant species now on the refuge and expanding 

their range in the region. It is recommended that surveys be performed to inventory and monitor their 

presence and to determine their impacts. When deemed detrimental to the management goals of the 

refuge, control measures should be taken whenever possible. Control of these species should be 

prioritized by the refuge manager, as their levels of environmental impact are variable. 

There are several species of invasive aquatic plants to be concerned with on the refuge. The 

majority of these are capable of forming dense mats over the surface of the water. When this occurs, 

dissolved oxygen levels in the water may become too low to support oxygen-dependent aquatic 

species (fish, mollusks, etc.). All of these species compete with native species and can cause habitat 

degradation. They may also inhibit waterfowl and other animal use and boat navigation. The 

efficiency of water control structures may also be affected if left uncontrolled. When infestations 

occur, herbicidal applications are normally the most effective control measure. Biological control for 

certain species may also be achieved with the use of sterile grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in 

waterbodies that are not prone to flooding. Table 2 lists the invasive aquatic plants that are known to 

exist in Louisiana and should be considered priorities for control. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Table 2. Invasive aquatic plant species and concerns 

Alligatorweed 

Alternanthera philoxercoides 

grows from shoreline, degrades and competes with shoreline species, may 

impede navigation, very common in area 

Common salvinia 

Salvinia minima 

forms dense surface mats that may deplete oxygen in water, impedes 

navigation, fairly common in area 

Giant salvinina 

Salvinia molesta

forms dense surface mats that may deplete oxygen in water, impedes 

navigation, more harmful than minima, currently exists in southwest and 

southeast Louisiana. 

Hydrilla 

Hydrilla verticillata 

can form dense “thickets” beneath water, may impede fish movement, 

navigation and water flow, fairly common in area 

Water hyacinth 

Eichhornia crassipes 

forms dense surface mats that may deplete oxygen in water, impedes 

navigation and water flow, very common in area 

These species may spread naturally, intentionally, or nonintentionally. The main source of 

nonintentional spread is by boat trailer transport. Signs should be placed at boat ramps to encourage 

boaters to inspect trailers for exotic plants before backing them into the water. Refuge waterbodies 

should be periodically checked for presence of any exotic species. If exotics are identified and 

serious detrimental impact is expected, a method of control should be taken immediately. 

Many species of exotic plants occur on the refuge and are rapidly spreading. Terrestrial exotic plants 

are the most serious threat to the biological integrity of the refuge. Although many species have been 

recorded, such as tree-of-heaven, royal palownia, privet, Johnsngrass, and sesbania etc., the species 

of greatest concern is Chinese tallow tree. This plant aggressively spreads throughout the forest with 

little hope of being eradicated. Refuge personnel should also aggressively treat this species with the 

objective of keeping them from spreading as much as possible. Tallow is a small, fast-growing tree 

with high reproductive ability. It grows in a variety of habitats, having its most detrimental impacts in 

marsh type areas, where it has the ability to cause large-scale ecosystem modification by changing 

marshlands to forested communities. Tallow would be particularly detrimental to the refuge fields 

managed for waterfowl and shorebirds. Handpulling the seedlings is effective if their numbers are not 

too high. Basal applications of triclopyr and cut-stem application of 50 percent triclopyr or 10 percent 

imazaypr can be effective. Fire usually won’t completely kill the tree, but burning during winter 

followed by burning or mowing in the summer has shown some success. This species should be 

considered difficult to eliminate once established. 

Strategies: 

• Terrestrial and aquatic plants can be mapped using a GPS and entered into a GIS system. 

• A basic species list (inventory) of invasive plant species needs to be created. 

• Establish a monitoring program of invasive plants to determine rate of spread by annually 

mapping areas of infestation and comparing to previous year’s range. 

• After comparison, calculate rate of growth (spread) by tallow and any aquatic invasives. 

• Treat 5 percent of invasive plants annually by hacking and squirting using chemical means, 

such as Roundup or other more appropriate chemicals. 
62 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

GOAL C. Managed Wetlands and Agriculture: Promote efforts to combine farming and the 

management of closely associated moist-soil units in order to provide essential habitat for migratory 

birds and other wetland dependant species. 

Discussion: The West Gulf Coastal Plain (WGCP) and Red River Valley (RRV) are important 

ecoregions for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America. Red River NWR provides 

important foraging and resting (refuge) habitats within the RRV for these waterfowl and serves an 

integral role in a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort known as the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 

Concern over waterfowl population declines in the 1980s resulted in establishment of the 

NAWMP, which focused the attention of federal, state and private conservation groups on critical 

wintering and breeding areas. The LMVJV was selected as one of the wintering habitat focus 

areas. One of the first tasks faced by the LMVJV was to find a model or decision tool for 

determining how much habitat was needed and a way to relate this objective to the population 

goals of NAWMP. The solution was to view wintering areas as responsible for contributing to the 

spring breeding population goals of the NAWMP proportional to the percentage of ducks 

historically counted in wintering areas (Loesch et al. 1994; Reinecke and Loesch 1996). To 

contribute ducks to spring populations, wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to 

ensure adequate winter survival. To quantify winter habitat requirements, the LMVJV had to 

identify limiting factors and the LMVJV assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit waterfowl 

populations in the MAV (Reinecke et al. 1989). Many of these same factors/planning procedures 

were applied to the WGCP as the LMVJV expanded to include this important area. 

In simple terms, the objective of the LMVJV is to provide enough foraging habitat (in duck-energy 

days) (DEDs) for (1) the continental duck population goal of NAWMP; (2) multiplied times the 

proportion of ducks typically wintering in the WGCP area; (3) adjusted for ducks that die during winter 

but require habitat before they die; (4) multiplied by the average number of days ducks are present; 

and (5) multiplied by the amount of food required per day. These calculations generate the need for 

millions of DEDs of foraging habitat value. Research indicates that foods used by mallards, pintails, 

wood ducks and other species emphasized by NAWMP generally are obtained in three primary 

habitats: moist-soil areas, croplands, and forested wetlands. The ability of these habitats to provide 

DEDs of foraging habitat have been summarized (Reinecke et al. 1989; Loesch et al. 1994; Reinecke 

and Loesch 1996) and are used by the LMVJV to calculate the acres of various combinations of 

habitat needed to satisfy population goals. 

Habitat objectives are based on food production and acres by habitat type for the complex of habitats 

including harvested and unharvested cropland and moist-soil areas. Each of these habitats is required to 

provide an important part of the food resources (i.e., native weed seeds, small grains, and invertebrates) 

required by waterfowl wintering in the WGCP. Agricultural grains are high in carbohydrates (i.e., “hot 

foods”) needed by waterfowl to maintain body temperature during cold periods during winter. Native 

weed seeds (moist-soil seeds) and invertebrates provide higher levels of protein and other nutrients used 

by waterfowl to complete other important functions during the winter period, such as molting and 

improving body condition for return migration to the breeding grounds and egg-laying. A variety of both 

natural and agricultural foods provide a diversity of nutrients for waterfowl with temporally varying 

nutritional needs. Because of the high production of agricultural crops, unharvested grain provides much 

higher duck-use day values per acre than natural areas. For example, unharvested rice is estimated to 

provide 24,025 DEDs per acre, whereas moist-soil impoundments are predicted to provide 1,883 DEDs 

per acre, and bottomland hardwoods with a 40 percent red oak overstory component are predicted to 

provide 161 duck-use days per acre. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Many of the foraging requirements are met on agricultural lands or former agricultural lands (i.e., 

moist-soil habitat) that are naturally flooded or managed specifically for waterfowl. Flooded shrub 

swamps and bottomland forests provide some foraging habitat but may serve a greater function for 

isolation during pair bonding and thermal protection on cold, windy days. It is critical that each 

segment of habitat (i.e., agricultural grains, moist-soil, and wooded swamp/bottomland forests) be 

provided if the wintering waterfowl habitat needs are to be met. 

Objective C-1. Managed Wetlands: Develop infrastructure and increase cooperative farming to 

produce a minimum of 100 acres of unharvested rice/milo and at least 400 acres of moist-soil habitats 

or approximately 3.0 million DEDs of wintering waterfowl foraging habitat in coordination with LMVJV 

step-down objectives.

Discussion: The step-down objectives that were established for Red River NWR for moist-soil habitat 

was 388 acres (730,604 DEDs). The refuge has purchased additional acres since the date of this 

allocation process and has the ability to contribute significantly to waterfowl foraging habitat needs in 

the RRV and WGCP. Complicating the reliability of the DED objective is the need for a review of the 

step-down process to further refine objectives based on more up-to-date information. This refinement 

of foraging objectives is currently being conducted, and the updated objectives should be available 

for Red River NWR within the next 12 months. 

Strategies: 

• Setting habitat objectives is an ongoing process. Objectives set for Red River NWR should be 

reviewed and compared with actual performance at least annually to assure that refuge and 

landscape-based (e.g., WGCP) objectives are being met. The refuge should strive to provide 

3.0 to 3.5 million DEDs of wintering waterfowl foraging habitat annually provided by a 

minimum of 100–125 acres of unharvested rice yielding about 5,000 pounds per acre and 400 

to 500 acres of moist-soil fields yielding at least 480 pounds of desirable seed/tubers per acre. 

• A water management plan should be developed and implemented to include flood dates and 

rotations for management units. Included in the plan should be 100 to 200 acres of water for 

early migrating waterfowl, teal and pintail, beginning no later than September 1 of each year 

and at least 50 acres at any one time for fall migrating shorebirds (July through October). 

Management for shorebirds and early migrating waterfowl should be integrated to the degree 

possible. Additional acres should be flooded from November through December to continually 

provide additional food resources for wintering waterfowl. By mid- to late-January, water 

levels in some impoundments should be slowly lowered to concentrate invertebrates, a 

practice that should be continued into mid- to late-April. 

• For each waterfowl impoundment (moist-soil, cropland and greentree reservoir) , establish 

water level gauges and maintain accurate records of management actions, plant response 

and waterfowl response. Record water levels at weekly intervals, management actions by 

activity and date, vegetation response by percent plant cover (by species), and estimated food 

production and waterfowl response to those management action(s) by waterfowl surveys 

conducted at least twice monthly from October through February and at least once monthly in 

September, March, and April. The goal should be to at least meet the refuge foraging habitat 

acreage objective. Adapt management strategies to improve food production and waterfowl 

usage of the food resources produced on the refuge. 

• Strive to develop management units capable of maintaining complete water control (ability to 

get the water on and off of fields as needed) of all waterfowl impoundments and improve 

water management effectiveness/efficiency. 
64 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• Nurture and promote a partnership between the refuge and research community to initiate 

research that will develop and evaluate the most effective methods for waterfowl 

management. 

Objective C-2. Moist-Soil Management: Create and maintain at least 900 to 1,000 acres of early 

successional habitats utilizing discing, herbicides, small grain farming, and water management for 

wintering waterfowl (moist-soil), shorebirds, and marshbirds. The goal is to produce 400–500 acres 

of quality moist-soil, producing at least 480 pounds of desirable seed per acre. 

Discussion: The high seed production of moist-soil plants and their value as waterfowl foods have 

been known since at least the 1940s (Low and Bellrose 1944). However, managing seasonally 

flooded herbaceous wetland impoundments or “moist-soil units” only became a widely accepted 

practice after many years of research in southeastern Missouri (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; 

Fredrickson 1996). 

Although geese sometimes use moist-soil impoundments and eat shoots of germinating plants, 

rhizomes, roots, or tubers, the primary emphasis of moist-soil management is to produce seeds that 

will provide food for ducks. Most research has focused on estimating seed production and studies 

have shown that, under intensive management, species of barnyard grass (Echinochloa spp.), 

sprangletop (Leptochloa spp.), flatsedge (Cyperus spp.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.) and panicum 

(Panicum spp.) can produce more than a 1,000 pounds/acre of seed (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). 

However, we know far less about production that might be occurring under current conditions in the 

LMV. Reinecke et al. (1989) suggested an average of 450 kg/ha (400 lb/ac) of seed might be 

reasonable because of site and staff limitations. More recently, the LMVJV Waterfowl Working Group 

used available moist-soil seed estimates of nearly 500 pounds per acre reported by Kross (2006) to 

increase the value of its habitat to 1,883 DEDs per acre. Regardless of the quantity of seed 

produced, moist-soil impoundments are highly recommended as a means of diversifying habitat 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; Reinecke et al. 1989) and supplying food with nutrients not generally 

available in agricultural grains. 

Moist-soil management is often referred to as an “art” more than a “science” because of the 

uniqueness of most moist-soil sites in terms of their local hydrology, hydroperiod, seed bank, prior 

and recent land use, and a host of other site-specific factors. Managers are strongly advised to keep 

complete and accurate records of management actions and subsequent plant and waterfowl 

responses. If data on manipulations and plant/animal responses are collected and archived, 

managers will more quickly begin to see desirable patterns, which can be replicated. Conversely, 

undesirable habitat responses can be prevented if managers know what manipulations caused the 

problems. Finally, keeping records enables communication of desirable management actions to 

future personnel. For more information on moist-soil management, see Moist-Soil Management 

Guidelines for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region (Strader and Stinson 2005). 

Due to the lack of refuge staff, equipment and funding, active moist-soil management has not been 

possible to date on Red River NWR. Proper moist-soil management is very labor-intensive, requiring 

soil disturbance through discing and leaving fallow, or planting a food crop using cooperative farming 

or forced account work to help set back succession every 2 to 4 years. Often, much of this habitat 

type can be obtained in conjunction with rice farming, which is currently being done on the Lower 

Cane River Unit, but other sites will need to be identified as primary moist-soil areas. The keys to 

success of such areas are moisture and water control (levees, pumps, structures, ditches, and 

monitoring). Without excellent water control, moist-soil management in the Southeast is a hit-or-miss 

activity. Timing of inundation, adequate disturbance, and sustained record-keeping are needed to 

assure good production on a yearly basis. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Preferred moist-soil plants for foraging waterfowl are typically heavy seed producing annuals, such as 

wild millets, smartweeds, sprangletop, other grasses and sedges. Soil disturbance and moisture are 

critical for the production of these desirable plants. Failure to disturb the soil will allow the invasion of 

perennials, both herbaceous and woody, that outcompete annual plants and greatly reduce waterfowl 

food production. Therefore, it is critical that the moist-soil areas be maintained using whatever means 

available if the refuge is to meet its waterfowl foraging objectives. 

The objective for Red River NWR of 388 acres of moist-soil habitat is based upon a minimum 

preferred seed yield of 480 pounds/acre. Recognizing that in any one year as much as 25–50 

percent of the acreage could be in a rotational stage or providing shorebird habitat that will result in 

limited waterfowl foraging habitat, the review team agreed that 600–750 acres of moist-soil habitats 

are needed to provide the DED objective on an annual basis. Additionally, a current deficit of moistsoil acreage within the West Gulf Coastal Plain BCR strengthens the need to provide as much of this 

habitat type as is feasible on the refuge. 

The Yates Tract (375 acres) on the Bayou Pierre Unit probably offers the best opportunity for crop 

(rice or milo) production and/or intensive moist-soil management due to the readily available source 

of water from the Red River and the favorable slope of this tract. If crops are not an option, suitable 

habitat can always be provided for shorebirds, waterfowl and marshbirds by staggering the rotation 

among the existing moist-soil units. For example, a unit that is disced will provide mudflats for 

shorebirds during that first year, annual grasses and sedges for waterfowl during years 2 and 3, and 

perennial vegetation for marsh birds during years 4 and 5, at which time this unit could then be 

treated again to set back succession. A concern was raised during the review about the prevalence 

of cattail that dominated some units only after 3 years of no disturbance. It may be that these areas 

will provide marsh bird habitat by year 3, and the rotation would then be shorter, to prevent cattail 

from diminishing the production of annuals important to foraging waterfowl. The key is keeping 

complete and accurate records of vegetation production and bird response and then practicing 

adaptive management, to ensure the most favorable habitats are provided to the various wetlanddependent avian groups. The possibility of investigating the opportunity to have cooperative farming 

in the Yates Unit was also discussed during the review, which would provide a mixture of small grain 

crops (rice) and moist-soil habitats annually. 

The moist-soil/rice rotation on the Lower Cane Unit would provide excellent annual moist-soil plants 

on approximately 500 acres. Up to 100 acres of this area could be dedicated to shorebird 

management, which would involve tilling in midsummer, then flooding and drawing down by early 

August to provide mudflats for shorebirds. The 106-acre open field on the Spanish Lake Lowlands 

Unit has the potential to be managed for moist soils, with the water source being an existing pump 

located on private land about two miles away. This unit will need to be disced in 2008 to set back 

succession and promote the production of desirable moist-soil plants. In addition, a series of rice 

levees will probably need to be constructed in order to provide shallow water to 100 percent of the 

unit. The review team recommended managing the 106 acres for moist soils for at least a couple of 

years, or until it becomes unfeasible due to pumping costs, manpower, etc. 

The abandoned catfish ponds located on the Dill Tract of the Bayou Pierre Unit offer some potential 

for moist-soil management, but are dependent upon the the condition of an existing well and the 

degree of slope of these pond beds. Possible management options for catfish ponds include a mix of 

habitats, including moist soils for waterfowl and secretive marsh birds; deeper water 

buttonbush/willow areas for wood ducks and wading birds; mudflats provided for shorebirds; and 

eventually reforestation. All of these options and strategies will be more readily apparent following an 

investigation into the condition of the well and surveys to determine the slope. 
66 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Managing approximately 1,000 acres of moist-soil habitats annually is a massive endeavor, even with 

the assistance available from a cooperative farmer. It is particularly challenging given the current lack 

of staff and budget. It is critical that a biologist be added to the refuge staff as soon as possible to 

focus management efforts on waterfowl habitat objectives. Vegetative surveys should be conducted 

once or twice annually in managed impoundments to assess waterfowl food production and 

vegetative treatment recommendations. An equally important key to success is water control, good 

record keeping, proper timing of management treatments and adaptive management (feedback and 

adjustments). Additional staff and equipment needs have been identified by the review team, which 

will greatly assist in the performance of these moist-soil management functions. In addition, the 

migratory bird biologist assigned to this area can play an important role in assisting the refuge in 

developing treatment alternatives and monitoring results. 

Strategies: 

• Manipulate annually at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the moist-soil units by discing, planting, etc., to 

ensure production of quality foods and prevent succession to undesirable plants. 

• Strive to improve production of preferred moist-soil plant production by implementing good 

management practices, including timely and slow drawdowns of water levels to maintain 

moist-soil conditions, deep disk, spray herbicides, mow, hold the flood through a growing 

season, etc. Include the often forgotten below ground foods such as yellow nut sedge (chufa) 

(Cyperus esculentus) and duck potato (Sagitarria platyphylum) as preferred moist-soil plants 

in all evaluations. The goal should be to produce a minimum of 480 pounds per acre of 

preferred waterfowl food or at least 50 percent coverage of good to preferred plants in all 

moist-soil areas annually. 

• Monitor moist-soil units at least weekly throughout the growing season, keeping records of all 

management actions, water levels, etc., by management unit. 

• Use water as a management tool throughout the growing season to maintain moist-soil 

conditions and flood as necessary to promote preferred plant production and eliminate pest 

plants, especially cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and coffeebean (Sesbania macrocarpa). 

Mowing, disking, and herbicide treatment should also be used to promote production of 

preferred moist-soil plants. 

• Work closely with the migratory bird biologists in conducting plant surveys and developing 

management recommendations. 

Objective C-3. Agricultural Land: Maintain current level or expand grain crop production to 

annually produce a minimum of 100–125 acres of unharvested rice and milo that can be flooded for 

wintering waterfowl and a diversity of other species. Farm operations can also help the refuge meet 

objectives by maintaining early successional habitats and providing water at critical times. 

Discussion: There is little question that grain production can provide high DEDs on a minimum of 

acres. At Red River NWR, grain production can be used to address the WGCP’s DED deficit and/or 

offset inadequacies associated with current manpower shortages to effectively manage moist-soil 

habitat. Under current funding and staffing limitations, cooperative farming is the only option 

available to the refuge to produce crops. Rice, milo, and corn are the top choices as grain crops for 

ducks. Rice is particularly resistant to decomposition even under flooded conditions. Milo and corn 

also provide high energy resources for waterfowl and can generally be kept above the water surface, 

but problems arise from depredation prior to flooding as well as seed degradation after flooding. It is 

important to manage the farm program to provide the best mix of waterfowl foods. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

If grain crops are being planted in moist-soil units to supplement native seed production, rice and milo 

are the obvious choices. It is important to select varieties and planting methods that will encourage 

quick germination and successful competition with the native plants. Cypress and Lamont are two 

rice varieties that germinate quickly. Soaking rice seed prior to planting will encourage rapid 

germination. The soil should remain shallowly flooded or moist to ensure proper growth and survival. 

Milo is the most productive when planted in drier fields. Large dabbling ducks, such as mallard and 

northern pintail, can readily obtain seeds from standing milo plants. Short varieties of milo (~2 ft in 

height) are recommended to facilitate waterfowl feeding activities after the field is flooded. Milo 

appears to be the crop of choice for supplemental planting in moist-soil areas due to the low input 

necessary to control moisture, fertility, insects and competitive vegetation. 

Leveled fields maintain a limited change in topography that provide some diversity, but are intended 

to allow the manager the opportunity to flood a large area with only a few inches of water. This is 

particularly important when managing for moist-soil plants, mudflats for shorebirds, or crops. 

It should be noted that the refuge is highly dependent upon cooperative farming to produce crops and a 

diversity of waterfowl foods needed to fulfill the refuge purposes. Any significant reduction in cooperative 

farming will require significant increases in staff and equipment needs dedicated to Red River NWR to 

partially offset the loss of foraging habitat. With adequate staff and equipment, the refuge could farm by 

forced account or contract, and it is estimated that as much as 40 to 60 percent of the cropland acreage 

could be converted to moist-soil management and shorebird habitat. In a refuge-operated farm program, 

a significant reduction in yield occurs as a result of decreased pesticide use in the field. Reforestation 

should be considered after other, early successional species habitat needs are met. 

Strategies:

• Refuge crops should be limited to grains, including rice, milo, or corn. Soybeans are not a 

crop of choice because of the low energetic value to waterfowl. It is recognized that unusual 

circumstances could make soybeans the only available choice to achieve specific 

management goals. 

• Continue implementing the Red River NWR pond and rice field restoration project funded 

through the DOI Secretary’s “American Landscape Initiative.” 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal D. Resource Protection: Identify and protect natural and cultural resources and acquire lands 

within the congressionally approved acquisition boundary through programs such as carbon 

sequestration partnerships, migratory bird programs, and other funding sources. 

Discussion: Red River NWR has an approved acquisition boundary of 50,000 acres, and currently 

the refuge owns less than a third of this amount. Acquiring new land requires adequate financing and 

willing sellers. Pulling all this together calls for partnerships and concerted efforts by all stakeholders 

in resource protection. 

Objective D-1. Land Protection: Continue under legislative mandate to expand the refuge up to 

50,000 acres and expand the approved acquisition boundary to incorporate 1,413 acres in the 

Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit (Figure 8), 87 acres in the Headquarters Unit (Figure 9), and 1,938 

acres in the Lower Cane Unit (Figure 10). Work with landowners and nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs), where appropriate, to acquire the largest inholding properties within the current refuge 

acquisition boundaries at each unit. 
68 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Figure 9. Headquarters Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River National 

Wildlife Refuge 
70 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 10. Lower Cane Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River National 

Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Discussion: The current approved refuge acquisition boundary encompasses 50,000 acres, within 

which 9,787.92 acres have been acquired by the Service. Numerous smaller inholding properties 

ranging in size from a few acres to several hundred acres are located within the refuge acquisition 

boundary. These inholdings are mostly agricultural and/or recreational hunting properties of various 

sizes distributed throughout the refuge units. Acquisition of these private inholdings would greatly 

facilitate refuge management by incorporating these smaller parcels into the larger contiguous blocks 

of refuge lands. 

The Service’s current anticipated acquisitions at the Spanish Lake and Lower Cane River units will 

result in divided ownerships (part of a landowner’s tract within the Service acquisition boundary and 

part outside the boundary). The landowners wish to sell their entire tracts to the Service. Also, the 

construction of the Arthur Teaque Parkway adjacent to the Headquarters Unit may result in a land 

exchange with Bossier Parish, Louisiana. All of these acquisitions require an expansion of the 

current acquisition boundary and will provide benefits to the wildlife resources on the refuge. 

The Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit is a low-lying wet area characterized by fallow fields, wet pasture 

lands, and row crop agriculture. It has excellent migratory bird habitat and outstanding opportunities 

for reforestation projects. Partnerships have already developed with the Conservation Fund and 

energy companies for carbon sequestration projects. The approximate 1,413-acre addition to the unit 

is primarily early successional bottomland hardwood reforestation projects that will provide excellent 

migratory bird habitat and act as a buffer from nearby rural development. 

The Lower Cane River Unit sits approximately 20 miles south of Natchitoches, Louisiana, and is 

immediately adjacent to the Red River. The majority of the 1,938-acre expansion area is in row 

crop agricultural production. This area is broken into several large fields separated by sparse 

hedge rows, small bayous, roads and irrigation canals. The area also has a few widely dispersed 

blocks of timber. If included in the acquisition area, the new area will provide a great opportunity 

for future reforestation and active management for migratory birds through moist-soil 

management and cooperative farming agreements. 

The Headquarters Unit is characterized by a mosaic of habitats that include a pecan grove on the 

north end of the property, old pastureland that is progressing toward a shrub type habitat, and a 

backswamp area that includes an oxbow lake. The 87 acres outlined within the scope of the 

expansion is currently active pastureland that will provide a great opportunity for reforestation in the 

future and protection of riparian habitat. This land exchange and expansion will also provide 

improved access to the visitor center and other recreational facilities. 

Strategies: 

• Obtain permission from landowners to appraise their property, with the intent to offer 

purchase. 

• Work through the Department of the Interior’s Appraisal Services Directorate and obtain 

approved fair market value appraisals of the properties. 

• Obtain signed purchase agreements for acquisition of the properties from willing sellers. 

• Work through the Service’s Realty Division to request funding from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF), Inholding and Emergency Account, Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund (MBCF), or other sources in the amount needed to acquire the properties. 

• When funding is available, acquire the properties under the terms of the purchase 

agreements. When closing is completed, vest title in the United States and begin managing 

the properties as part of the refuge. 
72 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective D-2. Private Lands: Annually provide technical assistance and target up to 3 private 

land conservation programs (where appropriate) to develop partnerships with other federal and state 

agencies, universities, nongovernmental wildlife organizations and landowners within the Red River 

Alluvial Valley and West Gulf Coastal Plain, acquisition boundary and prioritized areas, to help 

achieve wildlife and habitat objectives. 

Discussion: The current focus areas of Red River NWR are widely situated and separated among 

private agricultural ownership within the Red River Alluvial Valley, making the vast private land a 

critical part of any landscape level conservation initiative within this area. The Service with the 

assistance of partners can provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners interested 

in conserving, restoring, enhancing and managing fish and wildlife resources and high priority 

habitats on their property. Conservation tools such as conservation easements, Farm Bill programs, 

partnership agreements and technical assistance are available, many with significant financial 

incentives and technical support, which could be utilized to achieve this goal. Existing threats, 

linkages to protected habitats, value of habitats to trust species, accessibility and the potential to 

provide opportunities for wildlife-related environmental education and recreation should be analyzed 

when considering conservation initiatives. Refuge staff also will help deliver land conservation 

assistance in concert with other federal and state environmental agencies and similarly affiliated 

private organizations and individuals. Providing conservation assistance to private landowners 

through partnerships is a critical element in achieving landscape-level habitat initiatives within the 

Red River Alluvial Valley. 

Strategies: 

• Through partnerships, identify funding sources which may support Red River NWR, local 

ecosystems and overall Service objectives related to conservation. 

• Establish formal partnerships with agencies, organizations and individuals interested in habitat 

conservation within the Red River Alluvial Valley. 

• Establish specific partnerships with landowners within the Red River NWR acquisition 

boundary to achieve conservation goals and habitat objectives. 

• Assist agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and Farm Service Agency) in the delivery of various private lands programs, including 

the Wetland Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other 

such programs and initiatives which emphasize habitat conservation and restoration. 

• With partner involvement, develop and distribute public information and outreach material 

related to eligible private lands conservation within the Red River Alluvial Valley and employ 

techniques which aid in enrolling private landowners in conservation programs. 

• Use the Red River NWR, especially the Headquarters Unit, as a showcase/field trial for 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat conservation, highlighting projects related to restoration of 

native and declining habitats. 

Objective D-3. Contaminants: Determine what, if any, contaminants may exist on the refuge, what 

their impacts to the refuge are, and how to mitigate the impacts. 

Discussion: During a review of the contaminant issues at the refuge, it was noted that a Level I 

contaminants survey was completed for each tract of land prior to acquisition. As stated in the policy, 

“While not precluded, sampling is neither required nor recommended for a Level I survey.” Having 

not reviewed the survey, it is not known if a Level II survey or a Level III survey was recommended 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

and whether sampling was to be a part of either of those surveys. These recommendations are 

based solely on the visual inspections that took place during site visits on December 6–7, 2005. 

There are two airstrips located on refuge property. The airstrips were used for crop dusting. The 

potential for releases during loading of fertilizer and fuel spills over time at these two sites is possible. 

Two abandoned oil well sites are located within the refuge boundary. A paper mill is located adjacent 

and upstream from refuge property and it will need to be determined if there are possible impacts to 

resources on the refuge, both direct wastewater discharges and aerial drift. There are no 

consumption fish advisories in the associated water bodies of the refuge, although high levels of 

mercury in the water have been issues in the past. 

Strategies for Oil and Gas Exploration: 

• Utilize the Service’s Oil and Gas Handbook to oversee all oil and gas activities on the refuge, 

including mitigation for potential spills. 

• Provide refuge monitoring of oil and gas operations to provide first alert services in the event 

of spills or potential threats of spills from accidents, noncompliant facilities and faulty gas 

operations. In the event of an unavoidable spill or other natural resources injuries from oil and 

gas operations, a cooperative Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration 

action should be pursued consistent with Department of the Interior guidance. This process is 

to include all interested state and federal agencies, as well as the responsible party. 

• Incorporate the refuge special use permit system into all phases of oil and gas management 

on the refuge when possible. Special conditions within each permit will allow clear 

communications to operators regarding refuge requirements for wildlife benefits. 

• Determine the ownership and future use of wells through the Regional Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) or the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Review the Louisiana 

DEQ permit for the paper mill. 

• Pursue plugging and abandonment of wells by the responsible party. 

• Reforest well pad sites. 

• Sample the oxbow lake, including sampling of the water, sediments and fish. 

• When sampling fish, include whole body burden sampling as well as tissue sampling of most 

likely species (i.e., bream, crappie, catfish and bass). 

Strategies for Bayou Pierre Unit: 

• Sample soils for fertilizer and fuel spills from airstrip use. 

• Determine what, if any, discharges are occurring into Bayou Pierre from the paper mill located 

west of the Dill Tract of the Bayou Pierre Unit. Provide mitigation options if contamination 

found. 

Strategies for Spanish Lakes Lowlands Unit: 

• Sample water quality of borrow pits for contaminants. 

• If necessary, issue public consumption warnings and determine management or mitigative 

measures. 

Strategies for Lower Cane River Unit: 

• Determine if any contaminants occur in the two lakes at the Lower Cane River Unit from the 

use of agricultural chemicals on adjacent farmland. 
74 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• Sample water quality of lakes for contaminants and determine if management or migative 

measures are necessary. 

Objective D-4. Cultural Resources: Within 10 years of CCP approval, identify, evaluate the 

importance of, and seek the appropriate protective designation of cultural resources on the refuge in 

accordance with existing legal requirements, regulations, and professional standards. 

 

Discussion: Protection and preservation of our Nation’s cultural resources is an important part in 

maintaining its heritage. This is just as true in the rural areas of our country as it is in our cities. In 

order to assure that no historial and/or cultural resources are ignored or inadvertently damaged on 

the refuge, an inventory of possible sites should be identified and evaluated. 

Strategies: 

• Perform a search of historical records on all properties in the refuge for any indication of the 

presence of cultural resources. 

• Have a professional historian inspect any potential sites. 

• If any potential cultural resources are found on the refuge, seek appropriate protective 

designation. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

GOAL E. Visitor Services: Utilize the urban proximity of the refuge’s headquarters location to 

promote environmental education and interpretation opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent 

public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.

Discussion: Currently, use that occurs on the refuge includes hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

observation. The complex does not have the staff or facilities to provide environmental education or 

interpretive or other wildlife-dependent recreational programs. A big part of this CCP, and the need 

for public involvement in its development, is planning for visitor services. 

Objective E-1. Visitor Services Program: Develop and improve visitor access, facilities, and 

program support to promote priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Discussion: The Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent public use activities: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Fundamental to the provision of these uses are viable and diverse fish and wildlife populations and the 

habitats upon which they depend. These priority uses, along with all other proposed uses, must be 

compatible with the refuge purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. The proposed visitor 

facilities are illustrated in Figure 11. 

Strategies: 

• Develop and implement a visitor services' plan by 2010. 

• Utilize the recreational fee program to maintain and enhance visitor facilities, (i.e., interpretive 

information, waterfowl hunting blinds, fishing pier, bank fishing areas, and trail access). 

• Promote youth education through participation in the Youth Conservation Corps Program. 

• Use consistent signage at all visitor service areas (e.g., parking, hiking, hunting, fishing, and 

all-terrain vehicles). 

• Place standardized refuge information in parking areas. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Figure 11. Proposed visitor service facilities on Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
76 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

• As use increases, improve parking areas (e.g., gravel and add bumpers). 

• Expand the volunteer program to help implement the visitor services' program. 

Objective E-2. Hunting: Provide safe, quality hunting opportunities in appropriate areas consistent 

with the refuge’s established purposes and wildlife and habitat objectives for 1,000 visitors. 

Discussion: Hunting, when conducted under carefully controlled conditions, is not detrimental to most 

wildlife populations. In addition, hunting is an opportunity to participate in one of the identified priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Development of a hunt plan, based on sound biological information, 

is a vital component for assuring quality hunting experiences and viable wildlife populations. 

Hunting on newly acquired lands will be conducted in accordance with refuge purposes reflected in 

the authorizing legislation and Refuge System policy. If lands within the current refuge acquisition 

boundary are acquired, the number of hunting opportunities and hunting visits could be increased. 

Hunting seasons will be scheduled and managed to ensure that negative effects to nongame wildlife 

and migratory birds are minimized during critical periods. Hunting seasons will be set in close 

coordination with the LDWF. 

Strategies: 

• Continue the hunting opportunities at Bayou Pierre and Spanish Lakes. 

• Evaluate additional opportunities (species, methods) as more land is acquired. 

• Consider a youth waterfowl hunt on Headquarters Unit and in closed area of Bayou Pierre. 

• As use increases consider lottery hunts if needed. 

• Make hunt brochures available at main entry kiosks. 

• Identify that ATV trails are for seasonal and hunting use only. 

• Explore and evaluate opportunities for turkey hunting in the future. 

Objective E-3. Fishing: Provide quality fishing opportunities in the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit and 

Bayou Pierre Unit for 2,500 visitors. 

Discussion: Fishing and boating on the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit and Bayou Pierre Unit are 

permitted year-round during daylight hours only. Licenses, limits, and boating safety requirements 

are the same as those adopted by the LDWF. 

Strategies: 

• Continue to improve access and fishing opportunities at Bayou Pierre and Spanish Lakes. 

• Build a boat launch to access the oxbow lake at the headquarters site and use vegetation to 

screen parking from the visitor center. 

• Put a fishing pier at the high site of the Headquarters Unit. 

• As more land is acquired and access is improved, explore ways to increase bank fishing 

opportunities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Objective E-4. Wildlife Observation and Photography: Develop and provide opportunities and 

facilities for wildlife observation and photography on all units of the refuge, with emphasis on the 

Headquarters Unit. 

Discussion: The public is free to walk throughout the refuge units for wildlife observation and 

photography, except in designated closed areas. Currently, the fee title land base is minimal and 

there is very little public access. As acquisition continues, more lands will be accessible for wildlife 

viewing. There are no designated hiking trails, no observation platforms, and no photo blinds. The 

America’s Wetland Birding Trail has expressed an interest in establishing some stops for birders on 

the refuge. During the station’s biological review, the NRCS suggested partnering with the refuge to 

establish a variety of habitats. This diversity of habitats would increase opportunities for birding and 

other wildlife observation. 

Strategies throughout refuge: 

• On all units open to the public, provide some form of observation/trail opportunity. 

• Develop diverse habitats to increase birding opportunities. 

Strategies for the Bayou Pierre Unit: 

• Build the proposed observation tower. 

• Designate the ATV trail as a hiking trail also. Sign it as a hiking trail with directional signs and 

mileage indicators. (If necessary, manage this trail seasonally to avoid user conflicts.) 

• Consider developing a hiking trail west of Highway 1. (This trail could provide access to 

existing bottomland hardwood forest.) 

• Develop sites to be included on the America’s Wetland Birding Trail. 

Strategies for the Headquarters Unit: 

• Work with a landscape architect to develop a master site plan for this area. 

• During the master planning for the Headquarters site, consider a “central parking area” with 

the trail system developed out from it. (Locate this across the lake from the visitor center site.) 

• In partnership with NRCS and others, develop the habitat restoration areas and trail system. 

• Develop a trail to the Red River. 

• Develop a photo blind somewhere overlooking the lake. 

• Build an observation deck overlooking the lake associated with the proposed visitor center 

location. 

Objective E-5. Environmental Education: Develop a community-based environmental education 

program in coordination with area schools and other area educational organizations. 

Discussion: The refuge does not have an environmental education program at present. Funding has 

been provided to build an office/visitor center at the Headquarters Unit. Once the building is 

completed and the associated trails and kiosks are built, the refuge will then have the facilities for an 

education program. The refuge does not have staff to conduct environmental education programs or 

to staff the visitor center once it is opened. 
78 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• In the absence of dedicated public use staff at the refuge, work with the Red River Refuge 

Alliance to establish and coordinate a volunteer corps to deliver education programs. 

• Select an individual to serve as the “volunteer” coordinator. 

• Hold a discussion about how volunteer education staffing will change when the refuge is 

permanently staffed with Service personnel. 

• Assuming successful volunteer development, offer by fall 2009, a program to school groups 

consisting of a discovery hike and/or activities to learn about the refuge and its plants, animals 

and ecology. The initial program may target a specific age/grade level. 

• Establish an environmental education work group to keep the program focused. Determine 

what is already being offered in the community (nature centers, Sci-port), and consider what 

the refuge’s environmental education program can provide to best fit within the existing 

community programs. Determine what to offer. Determine how much programming to offer 

(days per week, etc.) 

• Incorporate environmental education considerations into site planning for Headquarters Unit. 

• Provide temporary restroom facilities right away if programs are offered. 

Objective E-6. Environmental Interpretation: Develop an interpretive program that will increase 

awareness of the habitat features, wildlife values, and management programs on the refuge. 

Discussion: There are no kiosks, interpretive panels, or interpretive programs available at the refuge. 

As the refuge continues to buy land, trails and observation areas will be developed and many of 

these will include panels that interpret the natural resources of the refuge. There will also be 

interpretive exhibits in the new visitor center. 

Strategies for the Headquarters Unit: 

• Develop a looped trail through the pecan grove area to the edge of the lake. 

• Develop panels for this trail which could include: Habitats, human activities, agriculture, 

backyard habitats/urban wildlife. 

• Develop trail in wetland/prairie area (including a boardwalk into the cypress area) 

• Develop panels for this trail which could include: prairie restoration, habitat transition zones, 

landowner opportunities, invasives and biodiversity, cypress trees. 

Strategies for the Bayou Pierre Unit: 

• Develop observation deck with panels depicting migratory birds, wetlands, Refuge System, 

agriculture for wildlife. 

• Develop Bottomland Hardwoods trail (west side of Highway 1) with panels depicting 

bottomland hardwood ecology. 

Strategies for the Visitor Center: 

• Exhibits in the visitor center should be used to tell all of the identified messages plus the 

Refuge System story. 

• Develop presentations of volunteer-led guided trail walks that are a regularly scheduled event 

(i.e., a First Friday Night Talk) or could happen more opportunistically as appropriate (i.e., a 

birding talk for Migratory Bird Week, or have someone available to provide a special 

presentation.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Objective E-7. Refuge Support: Within the next 10 years, complete steps to develop the refuge’s 

infrastructure and operations to provide for quality, wildlife-dependent public use. 

Discussion: A refuge that is well used by the public for a variety of interests will generate support 

from the public for the refuge. Supporting a variety of public involvement activities requires 

personnel, equipment, training, and a well-designed public outreach program. 

Strategies: 

• Provide up-to-date training and equipment to all full-time and dual function officers. 

• Develop Memorandums of Understanding with state and parish law enforcement agencies to 

facilitate cooperation and assistance in law enforcement activities. Update current Law 

Enforcement Plan. 

• Provide education and outreach programs in the local community as part of a preventive law 

enforcement effort. 

• Provide assistance to the Service’s special agents and state conservation officers for offrefuge activities as requested. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal F. Refuge Administration: Secure and enhance staffing, funding, and facilities to maintain 

the long-term integrity of habitats and wildlife resources of the refuge in support of the achievement of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission. 

Discussion: The Red River NWR is a young refuge with little permanent staff or facilities to support a 

large refuge divided into four units spread over 120 miles of the Red River Valley. In order to provide 

the support and management needed to provide visitor services and wildlife protection on this refuge 

there will be a need to secure sufficient resources. 

Objective F-1. Staffing: Provide the refuge with sufficient resources. 

Discussion: Sufficient personnel permanently assigned to the refuge are needed to provide the level 

of services necessary to support the achievement of the Refuge System’s mission. 

Strategy: 

• Add 7 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs), including 1 administrative assistant, 1 assistant 

refuge manager, 1 outdoor recreation specialist, 1 wildlife biologist, 1 refuge law enforcement 

officer, 1 engineering equipment operator, and 1 maintenance worker. 

Objective F-2. Facilities: Provide the refuge with the facilities necessary to fulfill its Vision. 

Discussion: With its Headquarters Unit located in an urban environment, the refuge needs a visitor 

center/headquarters facility that can showcase the mission of not only this refuge but the natural 

resource protection mission of the Service. With this new visitor center as a base, the rest of the 

refuge needs to be adequately maintained to support a strong level of compatible visitor services. 
80 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategy: 

• Over the life of the CCP, repair, maintain, and replace existing facilities, buildings, and roads, 

while adding an administrative/visitor center at the Headquarters Unit. 

Objective F-3. Partnerships: Expand and create new partnerships for the refuge what will help 

support its mission. 

Discussion: Partnerships with state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and interested 

volunteers is an integral part of maintaining and expanding local and regional associations that can 

help in the activities of the refuge. 

Strategy: 

• Continue to collaborate with all existing partners and look for opportunities to expand 

cooperation with existing and new partners. 

Objective F-4. Equipment: Provide the refuge staff with vehicles and equipment appropriate to the 

work intended.

Discussion: This is a large, young refuge with no equipment permanently assigned to this facility. 

There are a variety of equipment needs to address the work associated with maintaining a refuge of 

this size. 

Strategy:

• Over the life of the CCP, provide additional safe and efficient equipment, including additional 

vehicles as necessary: 2 boats, 1 dozer, 1 grader, 1 excavator, 1 backhoe, 2 additional farm 

tractors and associated implements, one 1-ton pickup truck, 1 ATV, and 1 semi-truck and 

trailer to perform needed refuge operations and maintenance. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a 

clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife 

refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on 

balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

The goals and objectives outlined in Chapter IV addressed specific refuge management needs for 

fish and wildlife population management; habitats and habitat restoration; land protection and 

acquisition; cultural resources; visitor services; and refuge management on five units stretched over 

120 miles along the Red River that is the Red River NWR. Habitat management will be tailored to 

meet priority species needs, while meeting the needs of other fish and wildlife that are dependent 

upon refuge lands. Because the rate at which each unit of the refuge achieves its full potential is 

dependent on the level of resources that are invested, wildlife populations that are locally, regionally, 

and nationally important may be delayed until staffing and funding are adequate to meet the identified 

needs. Proposed priority public use programs (such as the planned visitor center) that would 

establish and expand opportunities for wildlife-dependent public recreation cannot be implemented 

and accomplished without specialized staff and substantial resources. 

(Note: This plan does not constitute a commitment from Congress for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.) 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Red River 

NWR, this chapter identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnerships 

opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and 

plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection visitor services and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, the planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects 

were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary 

linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

Annual funding requests for new projects or personnel that are needed to implement the goals, 

objectives, and strategies outlined in this CCP will be included in the Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS), a national database that contains the unfunded operational needs for each refuge. 

Projects requiring new equipment, road projects, required maintenance, and other refuge 

management needs will be included in the Service Assessment Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) database, a computerized database and management tool used for planning and 

budgeting maintenance, capital improvements, and equipment replacement. 
82 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Substantial changes in habitat management may be needed over time, as new information becomes 

available, new lands are acquired, and habitat conditions evolve. These changes will be included in 

CCP revisions. Step-down plans (not included in this CCP) will be developed in conjunction with 

future visitor services program plans and forest management plans, among others. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Science-based Inventories and Monitoring of Wildlife Populations: Science-based inventories 

and monitoring of wildlife populations are critical to ensuring the biological integrity of the refuge. 

Information collected will serve as the basis for developing habitat management plans and will 

influence all refuge management activities. A systematic inventory and monitoring program will 

enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable long-term contributions to 

national and regional objectives for waterfowl, shorebirds, forest breeding birds, wintering forest and 

scrub/shrub birds, among others. 

Standardized census and survey techniques will be employed and all data compiled into databases, 

including GIS, for spatial analysis. This information is critical to formulating management actions and 

evaluating bottomland hardwood reforestation, moist-soil unit manipulation, and other refuge 

programs. All data will be shared with appropriate state and federal partners in an effort to further 

ecosystem management. This project will add one permanent wildlife biologist (GS-486-7/9/11). 

Recurring Costs: $124,000 Special Project Cost: $154,000 

Control Invasive Wildlife Species: Red River NWR has an established population of invasive feral 

swine. The scientific literature has documented many adverse effects caused by feral swine on the 

habitat productivity and reproduction of most native wildlife. Being omnivores, feral swine utilize virtually 

every component of the habitat and directly compete with native wildlife, reducing habitat carrying 

capacity and adversely affecting their reproduction and recruitment. Feral swine are compromising the 

refuge’s efforts in bottomland hardwood reforestation, wetland restoration, and species recovery. 

The refuge lands also contain extensive wetland acreage with varying sources and duration of 

hydrology that can be impacted by beaver activity. Beaver have constructed dams that hold 

water and kill trees. Although beaver ponds do provide habitat for some waterfowl and aquatic 

species such as wading birds, reptiles, and amphibians, forest losses can be substantial if not 

controlled. Beaver suppression will be required in many areas throughout the refuge, and 

nutria are also a problem. 

The refuge will use a multifaceted control program including public hunting, staff control, trapping, 

and various other techniques. This project will require professional animal damage control personnel 

to supplement the refuge staff’s invasive wildlife control efforts. Control work will be contracted with 

the USDA Animal Damage Control and/or other professional nuisance animal control personnel. This 

project will add one permanent maintenance worker (WG-4749-9) and supplies.

Recurring Costs: $90,000 Special Project Cost: $108,000 

Manage Deer Herds on Refuge: Because of the urban location of the refuge Headquarters 

Unit, the resident deer herd is isolated and contained within the headquarters boundary. In 

order to protect the health of this isolated herd, control of the population size is essential. 

Hunting practices that would be routine in rural settings will not work here due to the close 

proximity of homes. The refuge will use a multifaceted control program including tightly 

controlled public hunting, staff control, trapping, and various other techniques. This project will 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

include adding one permanent park ranger (LE) (GS-0025-7/9) ($140,000), educational and 

interpretive materials ($5,000), and miscellaneous expenses ($3,000). 

Recurring Costs: $115,000 Special Project Cost: $148,000 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Provide and Protect Habitat for Endangered Species on the Refuge (i.e., Interior Least Tern): 

Interior least terns have historically bred and nested from late April to August on barren and sparsely 

vegetated sandbars, and sand and gravel pits along the Red, Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, and Rio 

Grande rivers. They feed in shallow waters on fish, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and annelids. 

However, river chanrnel alterations for navigation, hydropower, irrigation, and flood control have 

destroyed much of their nesting and breeding habitat. Many remaining sandbars are unsuitable for 

nesting due to vegetation encroachment or frequent flooding. In 1985, interior least terns were 

placed on the Endangered Species list in many states, including Louisiana, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service developed a recovery plan in 1990. 

Proper management of sandbars (i.e., discing to control vegetation) along the Red River adjacent to 

the refuge boundary can play an integral role in the national recovery plan. These sandbars are 

outside the boundary of the refuge and belong to the State of Louisiana. Coordination and 

cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Red River Waterway 

Commission, the Service’s Ecological Services Lafayette Field Office, and the Army Corps of 

Engineers is needed to protect and preserve habitat for the interior least tern. This project would 

include conducting a feasibility study and analysis. Contract work cost is unknown at this time. 

Recurring Costs: Cost Unknown Special Project Cost: Cost Unknown 

Water Management System Operation and Maintenance: Man-made hydrological alterations 

have all but eliminated the natural flooding regimes that once supported historical numbers of 

waterfowl and shorebirds. In this altered floodplain, a system of levees, water control structures, and 

weirs are necessary to provide dependable flooded habitats that correspond with the migration 

chronologies of migratory birds. The timing of water management is critical not only to meet the 

needs of migratory birds, but also to stimulate the production of desirable moist-soil plants and to 

control undesirable plants. Water management includes monitoring water flow, water levels, and 

pumping—coordinated with a GIS database to more efficiently manage resources. 

The refuge uses a system of levees, water control structures, and wells in an effort to mimic historic 

flooding regimes and provide dependable flooded habitat for migratory birds. Habitat management 

for these moist-soil units requires discing every two to three years to maintain desirable plant 

composition. For the functional operations of the entire water management system to work reliably, 

annual maintenance must be performed on the levees, water control structures, wells, and power 

units. This project includes monitoring equipment maintenance, water flow, water levels, pumping, 

etc. and supports adding one permanent assistant refuge manager (GS-401-9/11,128K). Installation 

of water control structures and levee plow is estimated at $80,000. 

Recurring Costs: $102,000 Special Project Cost: $208,000 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest Restoration: Prior to European settlement, the Red River Valley 

was almost completely covered with a mature bottomland hardwood forest ecosystem. Today, 

almost all of that original forest type has been lost to land clearing for agriculture, transportation, 

industrialization, and urbanization. The remaining bottomland hardwood forests (what little is left) lie 
84 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

in numerous isolated islands that are often surrounded by a sea of agriculture. One of the primary 

goals of the refuge is to restore this lost habitat in large integral tracts in order to support interior 

bottomland hardwood forest function where possible. This project will support the addition of a 

Complex forestry technician proposed in the Upper Ouachita NWR CCP. The estimated cost of 

evaluation and reforestation is for a total cost of $240,000. Much of the existing reforestation had 

been completed with carbon sequestration funds with little or no cost to the Service. Recurring costs 

associated with fire suppression, monitoring, and management will average $5 per acre per year. 

Recurring Costs: $1,000 Special Project Cost: $240,000 

Control of Invasive Plants: The refuge’s biological integrity is threatened by a variety of invasive plant 

species. This project will develop and implement an integrated pest management program (IPM) to 

control invasive plants. Invasive plant occurrence will be mapped and quantified. Appropriate IPM 

strategies will be used to control water hyacinth, American lotus, etc., in all water bodies; sesbania and 

Johnsongrass in moist-soil and cropland fields; and Chinese tallow and pawlonia in reforestation areas. 

Strategies will include chemical, mechanical, and biological control techniques. 

Recurring Costs: $40,000 Special Project Cost: $75,000 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Land Acquisition and Priority Areas of Conservation Interest: Through a combination of fee title 

purchases from willing sellers and leases, cooperative agreements, and conservation easements with 

willing landowners, the Service will continue to purchase sufficient interest in lands within the 50,000-

acre approved refuge acquisition boundary. The Service will acquire sufficient interest in the 

identified lands to prevent conflicting land uses and to provide the management flexibility required to 

protect and manage the habitat as a national wildlife refuge. Technical assistance will be provided to 

private landowners in the area that are interested in forest management, habitat management, and 

wildlife conservation. Pursuing this project will help this young refuge significantly reduce forest 

fragmentation and contribute to the biological integrity and environmental health of the entire Red 

River Valley. Additionally, this project will eliminate numerous small inholdings and consolidate 

refuge boundaries, eliminating many administrative and public access issues. The acquired lands will 

be made available to the public for additional wildlife-dependent recreation. All acquisitions will be 

made from willing sellers. Potential funding sources for this project include the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, carbon sequestration and cooperative 

efforts with various Service partners. The estimated cost to acquire the remaining 43,438 acres 

within the current acquisition boundary ($1,200 per acre) is $52,125,600. 

Archeological Survey: A comprehensive archaeological survey of all the units of the refuge will be 

conducted. This project is essential to meet federal cultural resource mandates and will provide the 

baseline information needed for protection of existing resources and resource/public use 

development activities. Surveys and interpretation are estimated to cost $75,000. 

Recurring Costs: $10,000 Special Project Cost: $75,000 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor Center Construction and Operation: The planned visitor center at the Headquarters Unit 

will be a focal point for environmental education and interpretation for the Shreveport/Bossier City 

metropolitan area. This center will provide a great opportunity to educate the public on the Service 

and what the entire refuge has to offer in the way of natural resource management and visitor 

services. The size and design of the visitor venter will incorporate space for housing the 

administrative staff of the refuge. The estimated cost of this project includes $3 million for 

construction of the visitor center; a $1.2 million match from Service partners; $150,000 to construct a 

concrete boat landing; $520,000 to construct a photo blind, observation tower, trails, two kiosks, and 

a fishing pier; and $24,000 for interpretive and orienting signage. This project would also add a 

permanent park ranger, outdoor recreation specialist (GS-0025-9/11) at $154,000 and a permanent 

administrative officer (GS-0341-7) at $40,000. 

Recurring Costs: $260,000 Special Project Cost: $5,135,000 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Expand the Ability to Meet Growing Maintenance Needs: With five distinct refuge units spread over 

120 miles along the Red River, the maintenance staff is challenged to adequately provide for existing 

needs. To adequately maintain existing needs and develop future infrastructure for public use activities 

and habitat management, and to comply with SAMMS database requirements, additional staff, 

equipment, office space, and funding is needed. Additional funding and personnel would be used to 

construct new roads and trails, maintain existing roads and trails, develop and maintain observation 

platforms, maintain water control structures, levees and refuge facilities, maintain equipment and vehicles, 

input and manage information in SAMMS, and other refuge maintenance needs. This project will 

construct an equipment storage facility ($250,000); require the acquisition of a 175-horsepower tractor 

($80,000), an 18-foot offset disk ($20,000), a 15-foot flex-wing bush hog ($45,000), grading implement 

($160,000), boxblade ($25,000), backhoe loader ($75,000), 650JD or D5 Cat size dozer ($150,000), 

diesel transport truck ($90,000), and lowboy trailer ($40,000). This project will also support a permanent 

equipment operator (WG-5716-10) at $137,000. 

Recurring Costs: $150,000 Special Project Cost: $950,000 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Table 3 and Figure 12 summarize the project funding and personnel needs. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

The refuge currently has an excellent partnership with the volunteer group called the “Red River 

Refuge Alliance” and will use it as a model for other partnerships. This group of volunteers is actively 

involved in helping to make the refuge a part of the surrounding community. The refuge will continue 

to work with the Red River Refuge Alliance and recruit others to assist in such activities as wood duck 

and blue bird box management, migratory songbird point count surveys, amphibian and reptile 

surveys, grounds maintenance, etc. 
86 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. Summary of projects with funding and staffing needs 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE 

FIRST YEAR 

COST 

($) 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST ($) 

STAFF (FTE’S) 

1 

Science-based Inventory and 

Monitoring of Fish And Wildlife 

Populations 

154,000 124,000 1 

2 Control Invasive Wildlife 108,000 90,000 1 

3 Manage Deer Herd on the Refuge 148,000 115,000 1 

4 

Provide and Protect Habitat for 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species on the Refuge 

* * 

5 Water Management System 

Operation and Maintenance 208,000 102,000 1 

6 Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Restoration 240,000 1,000 

7 Control of Invasive Plants 75,000 40,000 

8 Land Acquisition 53,000,000 100,000 

9 Archaeological Survey 75,000 10,000 

10 Visitor Center Construction and 

Operation 5,135,000 260,000 2 

11 Expand the Ability to Meet Growing 

Maintenance Needs 950,000 260,000 1 

* Cost unknown at this time. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Figure 12. Red River National Wildlife Refuge proposed organizational chart 
88 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the 

immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, 

elementary and secondary schools, universities, and community organizations. At the regional and state 

level, partnerships might be established with organizations such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, among others. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated will depend upon the number of staff 

positions the Service provides the refuge. As staff and resources are committed to the refuge, 

opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop partnerships will be enhanced. 

If staff can be expanded to allow time for additional outreach to local communities, there may be 

opportunities to expand existing volunteer opportunities on the refuge. The refuge already has an 

active and growing volunteer program, managed by the refuge manager. Properly supervised and 

directed, these volunteers could make even more valuable contributions to the refuge by assisting 

future staff with any number of activities, including projects to monitor habitat and wildlife populations 

and environmental education both on and off the refuge. 

The goals and objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the partnerships of federal, state, 

and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens. This broad-based 

approach to managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond social and political boundaries and 

requires a foundation of support from many stakeholders. The refuge will continue to seek creative 

partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan 

provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services' management. 

These step-down plans (Table 4) are also developed in accordance with NEPA, which requires the 

identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their 

implementation. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and nontarget species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the comprehensive conservation plan will be revised. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Table 4. Red River National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans 

 (Related to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan) 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Station Safety Plan 2017 

Law Enforcement Plan 2015 

Fishery Management Plan 2018 

Fire Management Plan 2015 

Forest Management Plan 2016 

Water Management Plan 2011 

Animal Control Plan 2018 

Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2010 

Trapping Plan 2018 

Hunt Plan 2008 

Cultural Resource Protection Plan 2015 

Habitat Management Plan 2012 

Visitor Services Management Plan 2010 

Invasives Management Plan 2015 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually as the refuge’s annual work plans and budgets are 

developed. It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if 

and when conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in 

ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. This CCP will be augmented by detailed 

step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of the 

refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to this CCP and the step-down management plans will 

be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
90 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 91

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Approved Acquisition 

Boundary: 

A project boundary that the Director of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the detailed planning and 

environmental compliance process for establishment of a refuge. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Biological Integrity: Composition, structure, and function at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural conditions, and the biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

Canopy: A layer of foliage, generally the upper-most layer, in a forest stand. It can 

be used to refer to mid or understory vegetation in multi-layered stands. 

Canopy closure is an estimate of the amount of overhead tree cover. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 
92 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

Community: A distinct assemblage of plants that develops on sites characterized by 

particular climates and soils, and the species and populations of wild 

animals that depend on the plants for food, cover and/or nesting. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 
Appendices 93

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the 

nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives should be met 

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate 

information from a field offices background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management 

Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Ecotone: Edge or transition zone between two or more adjacent but different 

plant communities, ecosystems, or biomes. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 
94 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of 

no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)I of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that 

cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of 

the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Exotic: A species that does not normally live and thrive in a particular 

ecosystem. 

Extirpation: The localized extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality 

or country, but still exists elsewhere in the world. 

Fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area. 

Flora: All the plants of an area. 

Fragmentation: The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches. 

The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 
Appendices 95

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Herbicide: A chemical agent used to kill plants or inhibit plant growth. 

Historic Conditions: Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from 

natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional 

judgment, were present prior to substantial human-related changes to 

the landscape. 

Hydrology: The properties, distribution, and effects of water in the atmosphere, on 

the earth’s surface and in soil and rocks. The movement of water and 

how it changes in depth, timing, flow, or location of surface water. 

Kiosk: A small structure with one or more open sides that is used to display or 

provide information. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Indicator Species: A species of plant or animals that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “to go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Invasive Species: A species of plant or animal that is non-native and whose 

establishment does, or is likely to, cause economic or environmental 

harm. 

Inventory: A point-in-time measurement of the resource to determine location or 

condition. 
96 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Littoral Zone: The area from high water mark to low water mark or the intertidal zone. 

Management 

Alternative: See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

Monoculture: When the plant life in an area comprises of only one species. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate 

NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making 

(40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans for all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also 

describes the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS 

(i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation). 
Appendices 97

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neo-tropical Song 

Birds: 

A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexico border 

and winters primarily south of that border, which includes Mexico, West 

Indies, Central America and part of South America. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Nuisance Species: A plant or animal for economic or environmental reason causes 

problems. A native species can be a nuisance species. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 
98 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural ignition 

or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe require protective measures and/or management 

guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species include the 

following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) species or groups 

of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a 

specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate 

(e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, commercial, 

and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 
Appendices 99

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

Congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 

S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director and Secretary, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge. 

Riparian: Relating to the banks of a water body. 

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant 

issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, tribal, state and 

local agencies; private organizations (businesses and non-profit); 

and individuals. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 
100 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. In 

taxonomy, a category of biological classification that refers to one or 

more populations of similar organisms that can reproduce with each 

other but is reproductively isolated from – that is, incapable of 

interbreeding with – all other kinds of organisms. 

Species of 

Management Concern: 

This is a category assigned to species for which information in the of 

the Service indicated that proposing to list as threatened or endangered 

was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data were not 

available to support proposed rules. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge 

expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 
Appendices 101

Unit Objective: See Objective. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System Mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system. 

Wetland: Areas such as lakes, marshes, bogs, and streams that are inundated 

by surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year 

to support, and that do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3. 
102 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife Corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of 

animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation 

functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, 

including frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the once 

in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are transitional 

habitats and need not contain all habitat elements required by migrants 

for long-term survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife Dependent 

Recreational Use: 

A use (activity) on a refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation, as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their 

relative abundance. 
Appendices 103

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

ACRONYM DESCRIPTION 

Ac Acre 

ATV All-terrain vehicle 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CATX Categorical Exclusion 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DED Duck-energy-days 

DUD Duck-use-days 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-time equivalent 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GTR Green Tree Reservoir 

HQ Headquarters 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 
104 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

ACRONYM DESCRIPTION 

Lb Pounds 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries 

LMV Lower Mississippi Valley 

LMRE Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

LMVJV Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MAV Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

MBCF Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standars 

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Non-government organizations 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

NWRSI National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PIF Partner’s In Flight 

RRV Red River Valley 

RHPO Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RPI Real Property Inventory 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS or USFWS) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 
Appendices 105

ACRONYM DESCRIPTION 

T&E Threatened and Endangered Species 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

TSI Timber Stand Injections 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Dpartment of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VC Visitor Center 

WGCP West Gulf Coastal Plain 

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program 
106 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 107

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 

Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 6:9-23. 

Bias, M.A., M.A. Wolder and P.E. Schmidt. 1997. Disturbance as a Component of Waterfowl Habitat 

Quality. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Valley Habitats: a technical guidance series for private land 

managers in California’s Central Valley. Number 17. 12 pp. 

Braun, C.E., K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national wildlife 

refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bulletin 90:309-321. 

Brauning, D. W., ed. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 484 pp. 

Brush, T. 1991. Nesting ecology of prothonotary warblers in eastern Iowa: 1988-1991. 

Report submitted to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished. 

Bushman, E. S. and G.D. Therres. 1988. Habitat Management Guidelines for Forest Interior Breeding 

Birds of Coastal Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Technical 

Publication 88-1. 50 pp. 

Chambers, A., D.M. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt, A. Diem, D. Dismukes and D. Mesyanzhinov. 2005. 

Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Nitros Oxide Emission Impacts of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Projects: Shreveport, Louisiana Case Study. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-710-37721. Revised July 2005. 

Charlebois, P. 2002. Non-native Aquatic and Wetland Plants in the United States. National Invasive 

Aquatic Plant Outreach and Research Initiative, Sea Grant Program. 

Conservation Commission of Missouri. 2002. Managing Wetlands: Moist-Soil Management 

(Seasonally Flooded Impoundments). Missouri Department of Conservation, 

February 2002. 2 pp. 

Davis, J.B. 2001. Survival, Recruitment, and Management of Box-nesting Wood Ducks in 

Mississippi and Alabama. PhD Dissertation, Mississippi State University. 185 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1996. Moist-soil management, 30 years of field experimentation. International 

Waterfowl Symposium 7:168-177. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of Seasonally Flooded Impoundments for 

Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 148, Washington, D.C. USA. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence 

through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp. 

Guillory, H. D. 1987. Cavity competition and suspected predation on prothonotary warblers by 

Peromyscus spp. Journal of Field Ornithology 58:425-7. 
108 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Gooding, G. and R. Langford. 2004. Characteristics of tree roosts of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and 

southeastern bat in Northeastern Louisiana. Southwestern Naturalist 49(1):61-67 

Harvey, M.J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 64 pp. 

Heitmeyer, M.E. and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter Resource Use by Three Species of Dabbling 

Ducks in California. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California at 

Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, 

Manitoba, Canada. 200 pp. 

Hunter, B.E. 2000. Wood Duck Use Rates of Small versus Large Nest Boxes. M.S. Thesis, 

Louisiana State University. 

Johnson, R.E. 1964. Fish and fowl. Pages 453-458 in J.P. Linduska, ed., Waterfowl Tomorrow. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

Kaminski, R. and B. Davis. 2002. Wood Duck Broods in Dixie: Striving to Survive Early Life. 

Research Advances, Vol. 7, No. 2, Mississippi State University, Forest and Wildlife Research 

Center, Mississippi State, Mississippi. 4 pp. 

Keppie, D.M. and R.M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American woodcock. The Birds of North America vol. 3, 

no. 100. American Orinithologists' Union, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 

Kilgore, K.J., E.D. Dibble and J.J. Hoover. 1993. Relationships between Fish and Aquatic Plants: A 

Plan of Study. Miscellaneous Paper A 93-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Kross, J. 2006. Conservation of waste rice and estimates of moist-soil seed abundance for wintering 

waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi 

State, Mississippi. 56 pp. 

Leberman, R.C. 1992. Prothonotary warbler. Pages 334-335 in D.W. Brauning, ed., Atlas of 

Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Lester, Gary D., Stephen G. Sorensen, Patricia L. Faulkner, Christopher S. Reid and Ines E. Maxit. 

2005. Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Loesch, C.R., K.J. Reinecke and C.K. Baxter. 1944. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

Evaluation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Water Quality Inventory, Section 305b 

Report. Water Quality Management Division, Non-point Source Unit. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Appendices 109

Louisiana Geologic Survey. 1990. Generalized geology of Louisiana. Information obtained from the 

website http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/lgs/gengeo.html. 

Low, J.B. and F.C. Bellrose, Jr. 1944. The seed and vegetable yield of waterfowl food plants in the 

Illinois River Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 8:7-22. 

Mayer, J. L. and L. Brisbin, Jr. 1991. Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative 

Morphology, and Current Status. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 314 pp. 

McGilvrey, F.B. 1968. A Guide to Wood Duck Production Habitat Requirements. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Research Publication 60. 32 pp. 

Meyer, Kenneth D. 1995. American swallow-tailed kite. The Birds of North America vol. 4, no. 138. 

American Orinithologists' Union, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 

Oliarnyk, C.J. and R.J. Robertson. 1996. Breeding behaviour and reproductive success of cerulean 

warblers in southeastern Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 108(4):673-684. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Petit, L.J. 1991. Adaptive tolerance of cowbird parasitism by prothonotary warblers: a consequence 

of nest-site limitation? Animal Behavior 41:425-32. 

Prosser, D.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1998. A verified habitat suitability index for the Louisiana 

waterthrush. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(2):288-298. 

Reinecke, K.J. and C.K. Baxter. 1996. Waterfowl habitat management in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley. Pages 159-167 in J.T. Ratti, ed., 7th International Waterfowl Symposium.

Reinecke, K.J. and C.R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating research and management to conserve wildfowl 

(Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, USA. Gibier Faune Sauvage Game 

and Wildlife 13:927-940. 

Reinecke, K.J., R.M. Kaminski, D.J. Moorehead, J.D. Hodges and J.R. Nassar. 1989. Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. Pages 203-247 in L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson and R.M. Kaminski, eds., Habitat 

Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University 

Press. 506 pp. 

Robbins, C.S., J.W. Fitzpatrick and P.B. Hamel. 1992. A warbler in trouble: Dendroica cerulea. 

Pages 549-562 in J.M. Hagan Ill and D.W. Johnson, eds., Ecology and Conservation of 

Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xiii + 609 pp. 

Robinson, S.K. 1993. Conservation problems of neotropical migrant land birds. Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 58:379-389.
110 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Shea D., C.S. Hofeltet, D.R. Luellen, A.Huysman, P.R. Lazaro, R. Zarzecki and J.R. Kelly. 2001. 

Chemical contamination at National Wildlife Refuges in the Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem. Report by North Carolina State University to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 40 pp. 

Stephens, S.E., R.M. Kaminski, B.D. Leopold and P.D. Gerard. 1998. Reproduction of wood ducks 

in large and small nest boxes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(1):159-167. 

Strader, R.W. and P.H. Stinson. 2005. Moist-Soil Guidelines for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region. Division of Migratory Birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Jackson, Mississippi. 

Trousdale, A.W. and D.C. Beckett. 2005. Characteristics of tree roosts of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorthinus rafinesquii) in Southeastern Mississippi. 

American Midland Naturalist 154: 442-449. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. Office of 

Science, Office of Fossil Energy. Accessed at 

http://fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/front_feb.pdf 

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2003. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated 

Recreation – Louisiana. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. New Employee Handbook. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American Woodcock Management Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Managemen, Washington, D.C. 11 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Species of Special Management Concern List, 

December, 1999. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Guidelines for Managing Bottomland Hardwood Forests. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of Wintering Northern Pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. Thesis, Humbolt State University, Arcata, California. 62 pp. 

Wood, G. W. and D.N. Roark. 1980. Food habits of feral hogs in coastal South Carolina. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 44(2): 506-511. 

Yarrow, G. K. 1988. The potential for interspecific resource competition between white-tailed deer 

and feral hogs in the post oak savannah region of Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International 

B Sciences and Engineering 48(10): 2837. 
Appendices 111

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive 

Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies 

with respect to identification of information to be made public; 

publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance of records; 

attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act 

authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal interests 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the federal share of the cost 

of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish are 

also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This Act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by the 

Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or for 

the religious purposes of Indians. 
112 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This 

Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with direct 

responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of land under 

their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, as 

amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 

the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that federally 

permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act standards, state 

water quality laws, and any other appropriate state laws. Section 

404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating 

discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, 

including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, 

and minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

federal expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), expanded 

the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great 

Lakes and in the Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected 

Areas (OPAs).” The Service is responsible for maintaining official 

maps, consulting with federal agencies that propose spending 

federal funds within the CBRS and OPAs, and making 

recommendations to Congress about proposed boundary revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to participate 

in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration 

program, participate in the development and oversight of a coastal 

wetlands conservation program, and lead in the implementation and 

administration of a national coastal wetlands grant program. 
Appendices 113

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring, 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established entrance 

fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species 

of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of state programs. It provides for the determination 

and listing of threatened and endangered species and the 

designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge managers 

to perform internal consultation before initiating projects that affect or 

may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This Act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer 

a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relative to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the Secretary 

was required to establish conditions to ensure the permanent 

protection of estuaries. 
114 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This law creates a federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees may 

be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative 

function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise 

specified and meetings must be open to the public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

national wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the 

natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is 

directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the use 

of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, state 

and local agencies, farmers’ associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such 

weeds. The Act requires each federal land-managing agency, 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an office or 

person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the 

agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

states, including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 
Appendices 115

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property 

on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of 

volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions; official, published and unpublished policy statements; 

final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15 c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 
116 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and 

to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign species, this Act 

prohibits interstate and international transport and commerce of fish, 

wildlife or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to America of foreign species. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land 

acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of the Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. With 

certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium on 

the taking and importation of marine mammals, as well as products 

taken from them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the commission 

was expanded by the North American Wetland Conservation Act to 

include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid federal 

hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited 

into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 

migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet 

Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, 

capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 
Appendices 117

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons; sulphur; phosphate; 

potassium; and sodium. Section 185 of this title contains provisions 

relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (i.e., gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and requires that federal 

agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unqualified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and 

technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a 

program of matching grants for preservation of significant 

historical features. Federal agencies are directed to take into 

account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or 

eligible for listing in the National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic, and historic values of some important trails. National 

recreation trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior or 

Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the 

consent of the involved state(s), and other land managing agencies, 

if any. National scenic and national historic trails may only be 

designated by Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various national wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of a 

refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the refuge was established. 
118 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

six priority wildlife-dependent public uses, establishes a formal 

process for determining compatible uses of Refuge System lands, 

identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible for managing 

and protecting the Refuge System, and requires the development of 

a comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grant program to fund projects that promote 

the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the united States, 

Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, the United States, and 

Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council was 

created to recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be 

expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United 

States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when 

such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It 

authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and 

the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the state fish 

and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for 

conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no more 

that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at least 1/3 

state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are required 

to pass payments along to other units of local government within the 

county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the establishment 

of Service areas. 
Appendices 119

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by 

the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It 

requires the Secretary of each military department to use trained 

professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his 

jurisdiction, and requires that federal and state fish and wildlife 

agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife 

activities on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by 

a federal agency can be transferred, without reimbursement, to the 

Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory 

birds, or to a state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act also 

established a grant program to assist States in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 
120 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

This Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every roadless 

area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of 

size within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to recommend 

suitability of each such area. The Act permits certain activities within 

designated wilderness areas that do not alter natural processes. 

Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum tool” 

management approach, which requires refuge managers to use the 

least intrusive methods, equipment, and facilities necessary for 

administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program 

within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within the 

Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with federal and state 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling 

their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains.” 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 
Appendices 121

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EOs and other actions in 

connection with transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private 

sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to comprehensive conservation planning 

is the National Vegetation Classification System 

(NVCS), which is the adopted standard for vegetation 

mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which in turn, can 

provide an ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with states and 

tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs federal 

agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and 

their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 
122 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
Appendices 123

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

Public involvement in the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red 

River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, was sought throughout the planning process. A 

planning team (Appendix J) composed of representatives from various Service divisions, was 

formed to prepare the CCP and Environmental Assessment. Initially, the team focused on 

identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several 

occasions from February 2006 to March 2008. 

In preparation for developing the CCP, a Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review was conducted on 

Red River NWR during the week of December 6-9, 2005, by a team of Service biologists, managers, 

foresters, and non-service managers/biologists (Appendix J). A Visitor Services' Review was 

completed in January 2006. Public input in the development of the CCP was initiated through a 

notice of intent published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2006, (71 FR 12710). To expand the 

range of issues and generate potential alternatives, public input in the development of the CCP was 

sought through public scoping meetings held on May 15, 2006, in Shreveport, Louisiana, and on 

May 17, 2006, in Natchitoches, Louisiana. At the meetings, interested stakeholders were able to 

register their concerns to ensure that they would be considered in developing the CCP. The meeting 

was publicized by a press release in the local papers. Approximately 15 members of the public 

attended the open house and scoping meetings. In addition, information packets, including a letter of 

notice and invitation to attend, public input questionnaire, and mailing list request form were mailed to 

approximately 150 different federal, state, non-governmental agencies, state legislative offices, 

congressional offices, and private individuals. Five questionnaires were returned and three letters of 

comment were received from the public. 

The issues and alternatives generated from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning 

team, are summarized in Chapters I and III. Over a 2-year period, a Draft CCP was developed for the 

refuge, which, when final, would direct management over the next 15 years. 

Approximately 170 copies of the Draft CCP were made available for public review beginning April 14, 

2008, and ending May 14, 2008. Six respondents consisting of local citizens submitted written 

comments by mail or e-mail. Draft CCP comments and the Service's response to those comments 

are summarized below. 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSE 

General 

The National Wild Turkey Federation submitted comments supporting the selection of Alternative C. 

Service Response: The Service believes that the selection of Alternative C as the preferred action 

best meets the purpose and goals of the refuge. 

One respondant believes cleaning up the water on the refuge should be the priority for the Service. 
124 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: The Service supports this suggestion and addresses water quality issues in 

Chapter IV of the CCP. 

One respondent provided general editorial comments. 

Service Response: The Service will incorporate these changes and update the information. 

One respondent would like the Service to tie the projects listed in Chapter V to the remainder of the 

document. 

Service Response: The Chapter V projects refer the reader to the specific goals, objectives, and 

strategies which are supported. The “Discussion” sections within each objective should also tie the 

document to national and regional plans for which the projects support. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management 

One respondent was opposed to trapping. 

Service Response: On Red River NWR, beavers cause an unacceptable degree of damage to the 

bottomland hardwood forest and habitat on adjacent lands. On a landscape scale, considering the 

historical forest as greatly diminished in size, the percent of remaining forest impacted by beavers is 

much greater than would have occurred naturally in an undisturbed setting. Although some beaverdriven habitat is desirable, the current level is disproportionate for a diverse, healthy forest. 

Beaver damage on Red River NWR is mitigated by (1) removing dams manually, with explosives, 

and/or heavy equipment; (2) installing excluder devices on water control structures; and (3) 

shooting/trapping by Service employees. The extent of beaver damage is too vast and widespread 

for techniques, such as fencing, tree wrapping, and repellents, to be cost effective when considering 

the amount of required labor and materials. Lethal control is site-specific and intended to remove 

those individuals causing the most serious problems. 

Raccoons and opossums depredate bird, mammal, and reptile nests at much higher rates than 

occurred historically, directly causing population threats to some species, such as neotropical 

migratory birds. The extirpation of natural predators in Louisiana, such as wolves and cougars, has 

led to overpopulation of some species. Although trapping is not open on the refuge currently, 

trapping of raccoons and opossums has proved helpful in controlling these species’ populations. 

One respondent believed the Service needs to give consideration to restoration of extirpated species 

such as buffalo, black bear, coyote, wolf, and cougar. This respondent also would like the Service to 

control invasive Asian carp. 

Service Response: As noted in the text of the CCP, the Service will actively participate in species 

recovery plans for restoring populations of native species and will control invasive species where 

possible. 

Habitats 

One respondent would like the Service to define restoration and utilize pre-European settlement 

hardwood species to reforest the Red River NWR. 
Appendices 125

Service Response: The habitat management step-down plans will address and consider site-specific 

restoration activities, including species composition. The Service, as indicated, will also use 

integrated pest management to best control invasive plant species. 

Resource Protection 

One respondent would like the Service to extrapolate on the cultural resource aspects and associated 

impacts on the pre-European settlement habitats of the area. 

Service Response: The cultural resources of the area will be thoroughly investigated as stated in the 

CCP. Any action by the Service will consider cultural resources of the area. 

Visitor Services 

Three respondents believed ample opportunities for hunting should be provided. One respondent is 

opposed to all forms of hunting and related facilities. The National Wild Turkey Federation suggests 

restoring the Eastern wild turkey to refuge lands. The Federation also suggests this would provide a 

tremendous opportunity for wildlife viewing and hunting. 

Service Response: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the Improvement Act, 

and hunting has been found to be compatible with the purpose for which Red River NWR was 

established. Hunting of white-tailed deer is necessary to keep deer from becoming overpopulated, 

which leads to disease, starvation, an increase in lime disease infections in humans, and increased 

vehicle/deer collisions. Studies have shown that hunting of small game, such as rabbits and 

squirrels, does not affect populations of these animals due to their high reproductive rate. The 

Service relies on the Migratory Bird Sport Hunting Frameworks to set hunting regulations of migratory 

birds annually. The Frameworks are based on the best biological information available and the 

refuge is often more conservative in setting regulations. The Service added language in Chapter IV, 

Goal E, Objective E-2, to support increased restoration and hunting opportunities for wild turkeys. 

One respondent would like the Service to foster a good media interface for the educational goals. 

Service Response: Outreach and environmental education is thoroughly addressed in the CCP. 
126 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 127

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

• Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

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

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

• Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that include hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of wildlife under 

such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

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

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “. . . it is the policy of the 

United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
128 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do 

not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. §410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires the Service to designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among the 

various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or rescind any 

area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 

requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles when it is determined that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 
Appendices 129

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
130 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 131
132 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 133
134 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 135
136 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 137

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction: The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the 

comprehensive conservation planning process for Red River NWR. The descriptions and 

anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the Uses through 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission sections, and the Approval of Compatibility 

Determinations section, apply to each use. If one of these uses is considered outside of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, then those sections 

become part of that compatibility determination. 

Uses: Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge System 

and the mission and purposes of the refuge: (1) wildlife observation and wildlife photography; 

(2) environmental education and interpretation; (3) big game hunting; (4) small game hunting; 

(5) migratory bird hunting; (6) fishing; (7) hiking, jogging, and walking; (8) boating – motorized 

and human-powered; (9) all-terrain vehicles; (10) berry/fruit picking; (11) bicycling; and 

(12) cooperative farming. 

Refuge Name: Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Parishes: Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Natchitoches, and Red River Parishes, Louisiana 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Refuge Purpose(s): "The purposes of the refuge are the following: (1) To provide for the restoration 

and conservation of native plants and animal communities on suitable sites in the Red River basin, 

including restoration of extirpated species. (2) To provide habitat for migratory birds. (3) To provide 

technical assistance to private landowners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife." (114 Stat. 1056, dated Oct. 13, 2000) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997). 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities such as videography, has occurred on 

the refuge since its inception. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography could occur anywhere on 

the refuge throughout the year. These activities can be accomplished while driving, boating, or 

walking on the refuge, according to refuge regulations. 
138 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Minor amounts of personnel 

time associated with administration, management, and law enforcement 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Observation tower, 

observation deck, access roads, kiosks, and brochures 

Maintenance costs: $15,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $3,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Impacts from the construction of a photo blind, observation deck, and tower will include permanent 

removal of vegetation and disturbance to wildlife during actual construction. These impacts should 

be short-lived and minimal. The footprints of the tower, deck, and blind will be small. Most of the 

deck will be built over water, necessitating few trees or bushes having to be removed. Construction 

will be a one-time event that should be short in duration. 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. Visitors participating in 

observation or photography may disturb individual animals by varying degrees. Examples of 

potential disturbance include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas, and 

trampling of plants from observers and photographers. Disturbance to trust species is expected 

to be minimal. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be avoided by 

special closures due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: 

Other refuges administered by the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex have offered 

wildlife observation and photography for more than 20 years without long-term impacts. Thus, longterm impacts at Red River NWR are not expected. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 
Appendices 139

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Visitors are required to abide by all refuge regulations that limit impacts on plant and wildlife 

populations. 

Justification: 

Visitors have the opportunity to view and photograph many species of wildlife with relative ease at 

many places on the refuge. Opportunities exist for these activities by boat, by walking, or by driving 

the public roads. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses of the refuge. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation activities include traditional environmental education, 

such as teacher or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, and interpretation of 

wildlife resources on the refuge. Interpretive panels are usually placed along trails or on observation 

decks to assist members of the public in interpreting the environment they are viewing. 

Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent public uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Environmental education and interpretation could occur throughout the refuge year-round as 

requested by the public. Although the activities do not require special use permits, they are most 

often closely coordinated with and led by the refuge manager. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Minor amounts of personnel time 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Kiosks, observation 

tower, brochures, and environmental education materials 

Maintenance costs: $2,000/year 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 
140 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these 

activities. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species 

in the immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing 

roads, trails, and other facilities, impacts would be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced on other refuges in the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge mission through the 

education of the general public. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

On-site activities should be held where minimal impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and 

programs should be conducted periodically to assess if objectives are being met and to ensure that 

the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begins to 

appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the outdoor activities. 

Justification: 

Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage an understanding in citizens of all 

ages to act responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to use in building land 

ethic, developing public support, and decreasing wildlife violations. They constitute one method of 

increasing visibility in the community and improving the image of the Service. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023
Appendices 141

Description of Use: Big Game Hunting 

Big game hunting on Red River NWR consists of white-tailed deer and feral hogs. Hunting activities 

are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and appropriate state licenses. The refuge hunt 

program is an excellent wildlife management and public relations tool, which provides quality 

recreational opportunities for the public, while regulating specific animal populations at desired levels. 

The refuge hunt plan was developed to ensure that associated public recreation and wildlife 

management objectives are met in a responsible and consistent manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreation, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use provided it is compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Archery deer hunting and hog hunting occur on 2,545 acres split between the Bayou Pierre and 

Spanish Lake Lowlands units. All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination 

with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. One either-sex deer may be harvested each 

day of the season. All regulations and annual changes are published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR). 

Hunters access the refuge on open roads, by boat, by foot, and by all-terrain vehicles limited to 

designated trails. 

Public hunting opportunities are limited in north Louisiana. Hunting opportunities on private land are virtually 

non-existent unless a person is willing and able to purchase hunting rights through hunting leases. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Access roads, gates, 

boat ramps, brochures, kiosks, and law enforcement equipment. 

Maintenance costs: $15,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

National wildlife refuges administered by the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex have 

been open to hunting since 1975, with no documented disturbance to refuge habitats. Deer populations 

have always remained healthier on refuges with a hunt program in place; likewise, the populations have 

never been jeopardized by hunting. Feral hogs are non-native, invasive, and extremely detrimental to the 

biological integrity of a refuge. Therefore, any decrease in hog numbers is beneficial to the refuge. 
142 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Long-term impacts: 

To date, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the complex’s deer 

hunting program. However, should it become necessary, the refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting 

seasons and bag limits annually, or to close the refuge entirely, if there are safety issues or other 

concerns that merit closure. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat 

conditions by the Service and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, will ensure that 

long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure increase on the refuge, alternatives such as quota hunts, a reduction in the number 

of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting can be utilized to limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program does not coincide with most other uses of 

the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt 

coordination meeting with state personnel. These generally fall within the state framework. The 

refuge can, and has, established more restrictive seasons and bag limits to prevent over-harvest of 

individual species or disturbance to trust species. All hunters are required to possess a refuge 

hunting permit while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which augments the state hunting 

regulations, explains both the general hunt regulations and the refuge-specific regulations. Law 

enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure compliance 

with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a Refuge Operating Needs System project 

for a full-time officer to ensure compatibility over the long term. 
Appendices 143

Justification: 

White-tailed deer hunting is necessary to keep deer populations at or below the habitat’s carrying 

capacity. Overpopulation of deer causes an increase in disease and starvation. Deer herds that are 

overpopulated will significantly alter habitats. Feral hogs are invasive exotics that destroy native plant 

habitats and compete for food with other native species, such as deer, turkey, squirrel, and waterfowl. 

Reduction of the hog population by hunting is beneficial to the biological integrity of the refuge. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023

Description of Use: Small Game Hunting 

Small game hunting consists of squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, opossum, coyotes, beaver, and quail. 

Hunting activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and appropriate state licenses. The 

refuge hunt program is an excellent public relations tool, which provides quality recreational 

opportunities for the public while promoting national wildlife refuges. The refuge hunt plan was 

developed to ensure that associated public recreation and wildlife management objectives are met in 

a responsible and consistent manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreation, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use provided it is compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Hunting occurs on 2,545 acres split between the Bayou Pierre and Spanish Lake Lowlands units. 

Small game hunting seasons on the refuge follow the state regulated seasons, which usually are from 

October through February. All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination with 

the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. All regulations and annual changes are 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR). 

Hunters access the refuge on open roads, by boat, by foot, and by all-terrain vehicles limited to 

designated trails. 

Public hunting opportunities are limited in north Louisiana. Hunting opportunities on private land are virtually 

non-existent unless a person is willing and able to purchase hunting rights through hunting leases. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Access roads, gates, 

boat ramps, brochures, kiosks, and law enforcement equipment. 

Maintenance costs: $10,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 
144 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

National wildlife refuges administered by the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex have 

been open to hunting since 1975, with no documented disturbance to refuge habitats and no 

noticeable impact on the abundance of species hunted or other associated wildlife. While managed 

hunting opportunities may result in localized disruption of individual animals’ daily routines, no 

noticeable adverse effect on populations has been documented. 

Long-term impacts: 

To date, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the complex’s hunting 

program. However, should it become necessary, the refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting 

seasons and bag limits annually, or to close the refuge entirely, if there are safety issues or other 

concerns that merit closure. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat 

conditions by the Service and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, will ensure that 

long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure increase on the refuge, alternatives, such as quota hunts, a reduction in 

the number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting, can be 

utilized to limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program does not coincide with most other uses of 

the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt 

coordination meeting with state personnel. These generally fall within the state framework. The 

refuge can, and has, established more restrictive seasons and bag limits to prevent over-harvest of 

individual species or disturbance to trust species. All hunters are required to possess a refuge 

hunting permit while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which augments the state hunting 

regulations, explains both the general hunt regulations and the refuge-specific regulations. Law 
Appendices 145

enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure compliance 

with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a Refuge Operating Needs System project 

for a full-time officer to ensure compatibility over the long term. 

Justification: 

Regulated hunting does not have an adverse impact on populations of small game. Hunting is a 

priority public use and offers the public an inexpensive wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023

Description of Use: Migratory Bird Hunting 

Migratory bird hunting on Red River NWR consists of ducks, woodcock, coots, and geese. Hunting 

activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and appropriate state licenses. The refuge 

hunt program is an excellent public relations tool, which provides quality recreational opportunities for 

the public while promoting national wildlife refuges. The refuge hunt plan was developed to ensure 

that associated public recreation and wildlife management objectives were being met in a responsible 

and consistent manner. 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreation, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use provided it is compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Hunting occurs on 2,545 acres split between the Bayou Pierre and Spanish Lake Lowlands units. 

Migratory bird hunting seasons on the refuge follow the state regulated seasons. All hunting seasons 

are established annually through coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. All regulations and annual changes are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 

CFR). Waterfowl, though, can only be hunted until noon each day on the refuge. 

Hunters access the refuge on open roads, by boat, by foot, and by all-terrain vehicles limited to 

designated trails. 

Public hunting opportunities are limited in north Louisiana. Hunting opportunities on private land are virtually 

non-existent unless a person is willing and able to purchase hunting rights through hunting leases. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Access roads, gates, 

boat ramps, brochures, kiosks, and law enforcement equipment. 

Maintenance costs: $15,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 
146 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

National wildlife refuges administered by the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex have 

been open to hunting since 1975, with no documented disturbance to refuge habitats and no 

noticeable impact on the abundance of species hunted or other associated wildlife. While managed 

hunting opportunities may result in localized disruption of individual animals’ daily routines, no 

noticeable adverse effect on populations has been documented. 

Long-term impacts: 

To date, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with the complex’s hunting 

program. However, should it become necessary, the refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting 

seasons and bag limits annually, or to close the refuge entirely if there are safety issues or other 

concerns that merit closure. This latitude, coupled with monitoring of wildlife populations and habitat 

conditions by the Service and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, will ensure that 

long-term negative impacts to either wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are unlikely. 

Should hunting pressure increase on the refuge, alternatives such as quota hunts, a reduction in 

the number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting can be 

utilized to limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

The timing and duration of the refuge’s hunting program does not coincide with most other uses of 

the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt 

coordination meeting with state personnel. These generally fall within the state framework. The 

refuge can, and has, established more restrictive seasons and bag limits to prevent over-harvest of 

individual species or disturbance to trust species. All hunters are required to possess a refuge 

hunting permit while participating in refuge hunts. This permit, which augments the state hunting 

regulations, explains both the general hunt regulations and the refuge-specific regulations. Law 
Appendices 147

enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure compliance 

with refuge laws and regulations. The refuge has included a Refuge Operating Needs System project 

for a full-time officer to ensure compatibility over the long term. 

Justification: 

Regulated hunting does not have an adverse impact on populations of migratory birds. Hunting is a 

priority public use and offers the public an inexpensive wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the area that is now Red River NWR prior to its inclusion 

into the National Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a recreational pursuit with the public. It 

is one of the more popular wildlife-dependent uses on the refuge. Fish populations currently support 

a sustainable harvest under a regulated fishing program. 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreation, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Fishing would be permitted on portions of the Bayou Pierre, Spanish Lake Lowlands, and 

Headquarters units. The use is conducted year-round. Fishing is conducted subject to 

regulations established by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Fishing is further 

restricted on the refuge by regulations which prohibit commercial fishing on the refuge and 

prohibit the use of certain fishing methods. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Boat ramps, kiosks, 

brochures, law enforcement equipment, and access roads. 

Maintenance costs: $10,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Minor impacts, such as litter and gasoline contamination, could occur but not at a level that would 

cause serious concern. There is some erosion from outboard wakes. 
148 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Long-term impacts: 

Fishing, as regulated, should not have any long-term negative impacts on the refuge. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial fishing is prohibited. No trotlines, yo-yos, stump lines, or traps are permitted. 

Justification: 

Fishing is probably one of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation in the state, and the refuge 

has the opportunity to provide quality fishing to the public, which is a priority public use. Current state 

and refuge regulations limit impacts to fish and wildlife populations on the refuge, while providing a 

safe and rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2023

Description of Use: Hiking, Jogging, and Walking 

Hiking, jogging, and walking facilitates travel and access for the priority public uses. Priority public 

uses as defined in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 include hunting, fishing, 

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

The primary areas of these uses occur along refuge roads and trails, which are maintained for refuge 

administrative and other management activities. At times, individuals will walk along rights-of-way or 

across country throughout the refuge scouting for hunting areas. Access for walking, hiking, or 

jogging may not be allowed at times if deemed by the refuge manager that there are safety issues or 

wildlife disturbance issues. 
Appendices 149

Access to the refuge is open every day during daylight hours, but only in areas specifically open to 

walking, hiking, and jogging. Entry on all or portions of individual areas may be temporarily 

suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, 

vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. 

Walking or jogging can facilitate non-consumptive priority public uses by allowing observation of the 

natural landscape and for wildlife viewing. Individuals stop to observe associated animals and plant 

communities. The use mainly occurs in very small groups or by individuals. Regarding consumptive 

uses, anglers and hunters can access refuge lands by walking anywhere on the refuge. 

Access to the refuge is necessary for desirable use and management of the refuge. Foot traffic on 

the refuge provides increased access and opportunities to participate in priority public uses, such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Hiking, jogging, and walking can also 

be a form of exercise while enjoying the outdoors that coincides with former Secretary Norton’s 2004 

America’s Public Lands get Fit with US initiative; this initiative is part of a larger partnership initiated 

by President Bush to promote trails and refuges for health and recreation. The Get Fit with US 

initiative is a direct result of President George W. Bush’s Executive Order, which was issued for the 

purpose of improving the health of all Americans. It is designed to promote a healthy lifestyle alliance 

between public health and recreation. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are not directly attributable to these incidental uses on 

the refuge. 

Monitoring costs: Minimal costs are associated with these uses to monitor consequences of the 

public having access to the refuge, such as degree of littering and vandalism. Plants and wildlife will 

be monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public use. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Hiking, jogging, and walking access is typically by single individuals or small groups on 

improved refuge roads or trails. Damage to habitat is negligible. Use is sporadic and dispersed 

for minimal disturbance. 

There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activity on the land, as with any level of 

public use. Use is sporadic, though, and limited so as not tp create significant impacts. Winter 

disturbance to resident wildlife is temporary and minor, but would be monitored at this important time 

during fat deposition and when energy conservation is important. Spatial and season closures will be 

used when needed to protect wintering waterfowl. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds 

for the refuge manager to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm. 

Disturbance to trust species are minimal due to the locations of the designated gravel roads and 

unimproved roads. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, are not expected. 
150 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

No long-term or cumulative impacts are anticipated; however, the program can be modified in the 

future to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Camping and fires are prohibited, and personal belongings may not be left on the refuge overnight. 

Harassment of wildlife is prohibited as is the taking of any plant, animal, or artifact from the refuge. 

If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of the limited public access, then further restrictions 

may be imposed to protect the plant and animal resources of the refuge. Any group associated with 

a commercial operator (e.g., birding tour) will need to request permission from the refuge manager. 

Individuals walking or hiking to support hunting opportunities will follow all refuge regulations and possess 

a valid hunting permit. Road races/fun runs are generally not allowed if off-refuge sites are available, but 

permission may be requested from the refuge manager through the special use permit process. 

Justification: 

Hiking, walking, and jogging, as identified in this determination, are not expected to materially interfere 

with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or from the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. The associated disturbance to wildlife and habitat is temporary and minor. 

Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that these uses remain compatible. If uses increase and 

impacts are suspected, a re-evaluation will be conducted and corrective actions taken to protect refuge 

resources. These uses provide opportunities to participate in wildlife observation and photography. 

Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with quality wildlife-dependent experiences, 

educational opportunities, and allow them to utilize a natural environment. These activities also support 

the Federal Government’s initiative to promote physical fitness opportunities on public lands. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018
Appendices 151

Description of Use: Boating – Motorized and Human-powered 

There is a 75-acre lake on the Headquarters Unit of the refuge open to boating. Boating facilitates fishing 

and wildlife observation and photography. Access to the lake is from a boat ramp located on the refuge. 

The refuge is open during daylight hours from March 15 through September 30. Entry on all or portions of 

the lake may be temporarily suspended, by posting, upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions 

affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. 

Providing the public with wildlife-dependent recreation is a priority use of the refuge. Boating 

provides access to fishing and a means to observe wildlife, both priority public uses. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Every 3-5 years the annual maintenance costs may increase in order to provide 

gravel for parking lots and roads and to replace signs. 

Monitoring costs: Minimal costs are associated with monitoring the consequences of the public 

having access to the refuge, such as degree of littering and vandalism. Plants and wildlife will be 

monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public use. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Boating is restricted to the lake. The lake is not connected to any other water body or tributary. 

Disturbance by boats may affect wildlife, but it is expected to be minimal, especially since boating will 

not be permitted during winter when waterfowl use is high. No rookeries exist on the lake; nor are 

there any eagle nests in the vicinity. Continued monitoring for significant disturbance to wildlife, in 

particular to birds, will allow the refuge to determine if additional regulations are needed if use 

increases. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds for the refuge manager to close the 

area to boating or restrict the use to minimize harm. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
152 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Motorized land vehicles are required to remain on designated roads only. Boats and other personal 

belongings are not allowed to be left on the refuge overnight. Harassment of wildlife is prohibited. If 

any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of boating, then further restrictions may be imposed to 

protect the plant and animal resources of the refuge. 

Justification: 

Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with quality wildlife-dependent experiences, educational 

opportunities, and allow them to utilize a natural environment. Motorized and human-powered boating for 

fishing and wildlife observation is a low impact and low cost activity on Red River NWR. Boating provides 

access to fishing, a priority public use. Since fishing and wildlife observation are integral parts of the 

boating experience, it is considered a wildlife-dependent activity and, therefore, does not materially 

detract or interfere with the purposes of the refuge or mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018

Description of Use: All-terrain Vehicles 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are generally defined as three-, four-, or six-wheeled vehicles that are 

equipped with low pressure tires designed primarily for off-road use. The use of ATVs is strictly in support 

of priority public uses: hunting and fishing. The refuge has a very limited system of roads and only one 

ATV trail on the Bayou Pierre Unit, which runs along the levee of the Red River. All ATV use is restricted 

to a designated, marked trail. ATVs are prohibited from one hour after legal shooting hours end until 4:00 

a.m. Trails are marked with signs and are closed from March 1 through August 31. ATV use is by the 

general public for access to hunting and fishing areas. ATV tires are restricted to those no larger than 

25x12 with a maximum 1” lug height and a maximum allowable tire pressure of 7 lbs. psi, as indicated on 

the tire by the manufacturer. ATVs are usually trailored to a parking lot and ridden on the trail to access 

remote areas within the refuge prior to walking to hunting or fishing areas. ATVs are not permitted off the 

designated trails. ATV trails support priority public uses, such as hunting and fishing. The existing 

designated trail system is close to optimum for the public use program. Minor additions/deletions, rerouting, or seasonal opening date changes may be implemented from time-to-time to address needs as 

they occur. No major changes/modifications are foreseen. 

Availability of Resources: 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Use of ATVs does result in some minor disturbance to wildlife as with any use. Restricting use to 

designated trails routed to avoid sensitive areas, such as major stream crossings or archaeological 

areas, and opening trails only to seasonal use, minimizes overall potential impacts. The primary 

compatibility issues of concern are with disturbance to migratory waterfowl, endangered species, and 

habitat conservation. 
Appendices 153

Migratory waterfowl and endangered species are not significantly impacted by ATV use. The ATV 

trails are limited to areas where migratory birds do not congregate and would not interact with any 

endangered species or their habitats. The trails are located along the levee system of the Red River, 

which is accessed by the levee board for maintenance; therefore, no natural habitats are being 

degraded or ridden on. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

ATVs may be used only to reach areas open to wildlife-dependent activities, such as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Trails are open only from September 1 through 

February 28. Restrictions apply to tire size, and ATVs can only be used on designated trails. ATVs 

and other personal belongings are not allowed to be left on the refuge overnight. Harassment of 

wildlife is not prohibited. If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of this limited public access, 

then further restrictions may be imposed to protect the plant and animal resources of the refuge. 

Justification: 

Use of ATVs is an access concession strictly in support of the priority public uses of hunting and 

fishing. ATVs cause much less damage to trails than do conventional and four-wheel drive vehicles. 

Use of ATVs help distribute hunters, thereby facilitating a balanced harvest and reducing hunter 

crowding. This access enhances the pursuit of wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography) in this resource-rich area. Providing such recreation is a 

refuge objective, and demand for this access is high among users. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018

Description of Use: Berry/Fruit Picking 

Berry picking is not one of the six priority public wildlife-dependent uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, but it is a historical use of the land before the refuge was established. The collection of native 

fruit is for personal (non-commercial) use on the refuge. A special use permit is not required. 
154 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Mayhaw fruit ripens in late April-May, with collection being very time consuming and quite difficult, 

with further complications in some years by the refuge being flooded. No more than a few individuals 

even make an effort to gather mayhaws, resulting in very little quantity of fruit actually removed, and 

therefore no restriction is made on the number of individuals allowed for this use. 

Seldom has the refuge received a request for acorn collection. These will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis to determine if the cause is for reforestation and whether productivity of the tree species is 

available. Stipulations for area and methods of collection will be issued with a special use permit. No 

commercial operations will be allowed. 

Berry-picking and acorn collecting are allowed on the entire refuge. Mayhaws occur in the 

bottomland hardwoods, and blackberries/dewberries are in most any of the areas on the refuge. 

Picking would most likely occur in the mornings of late spring for mayhaws and late summer for 

blackberries/dewberries. No extensive or commercial equipment is allowed. Mayhaw pickers may 

use cherry picking ladders to get in the tops of trees, but would have to carry the ladder in and out on 

each trip. Mayhaws would primarily be picked in areas adjacent to roads or in water by boat. 

This was an existing use prior to refuge establishment, and the general public still requests access for 

the activity as it is a traditional use. The demand for this use is very light, but the refuge wants the 

public to feel free to pick a handful of blackberries or mayhaws to eat while walking the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Staff will not be involved in 

the collection of berries. Acorn collection proposals will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within 

existing resources. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring and compliance will be handled within existing resources, programs, 

and staff time. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: 

Collection of fruits and berries for personal use will have a negligible impact on forest and wildlife 

resources. Some habitat trampling or disturbance may occur with foot-traffic to berry-picking areas, 

but no more than other uses, such as wildlife observation while hiking. Short-term impacts are 

minimal and not significant due to the current, small number of users. 

There is no significant increase in the magnitude of this use expected over the next 10 years. In fact, 

we would expect a decrease based on the change in demographics. If for some unanticipated 

reason this level of use increases a significant degree, a new compatibility determination would be 

required and regulating measures (e.g., special use permit and quantity restrictions) could be 

evaluated with subsequent public comment. 
Appendices 155

Long-term Impacts: 

Direct impact is a small amount of plant resources taken from individual trees or shrubs, but is 

extremely insignificant on the scale of habitat acres available over the long-term for mayhaw and 

blackberry/dewberry seeding. There is no concern for removing important food resources for wildlife 

since the amount is insignificant, and it has been noted by Martin et al. (1961) that “the small applelike fruits are not used by wildlife to nearly so great an extent as might be anticipated.” 

Cumulative Impacts: 

No cumulative impacts with other uses are expected to affect the refuge in any detrimental manner. 

No conflict of users occurs since berry-picking occurs outside of the hunting season. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Berry pickers may not sell berries or otherwise engage in commercial activities associated with berry 

picking. Cherry picking ladders can be used but must be carried in and out on each trip. No personal 

belongings may be left on the refuge overnight. All refuge regulations are applicable, including vehicle use. 

Justification: 

Picking wild berries for personal consumption is not an economic use and does not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purpose of the refuge. There is no significant wildlife or habitat disturbance from the light demand, 

and accessibility is limited to roads and trails. No refuge support is needed for implementation of this 

use. Picking wild berries fosters wildlife observation on the refuge and illustrates the advantage of 

certain plants and a healthy environment to the public. 

Martin, Zim and Nelson. 1961. “American Wildlife & Plants—A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits” 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018
156 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Bicycling 

Bicycling facilitates travel and access for the priority public uses on Red River NWR. Priority public 

uses as defined in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 include hunting, fishing, 

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

Bicycles are considered legal modes of transportation on most state and parish roads. Therefore, in 

most cases where refuge roads are open to vehicles, they are open to bicycles. Bicycles will not be 

allowed if there are safety issues or wildlife disturbance issues. Secondary roads that are closed to 

vehicles are open to bicycles since they support the wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Bicycle 

races or other organized, group events are not allowed. 

The refuge is open during daylight areas. Bicycling will only be allowed in areas open to the public. 

Cyclists accessing the refuge for hunting will need to possess a valid hunting permit and follow all 

refuge regulations. Access to the refuge is open every day. Entry on all or portions of individual 

areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical conditions 

affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. 

Bicycling to facilitate non-consumptive priority public uses involves observing the natural landscape 

from a bicycle. Riders stop to observe associated animals and plant communities. The use mainly 

occurs by individual users rather than groups. 

Bicycle travel is conducted in accordance with stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility. Access 

to the refuge is necessary for desirable use and mangement of the refuge. Bicycle travel on the 

refuge provides increased access and opportunities to participate in priority public uses, such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation. and wildlife photography. It is an alternative means of travel to 

view the refuge’s diverse biological assets and can be less physically demanding than pedestrian 

travel for some users. It can also be a form of exercise while enjoying the outdoors that coincides 

with the Federal Government’s initiative, “America’s Public Lands Get Fit with US” to promote 

physical fitness activities on public lands. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring and compliance will be handled within existing resources, programs, 

and staff time. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Bicycle access is typically by single individuals on improved refuge roads. Damage to habitat is 

negligible. Access by bicycle during the hunting season is often used to retrieve game or to access 

remote areas of the refuge to hunt. Use is sporadic and dispersed from minimal disturbance. 
Appendices 157

There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activity on the land, but no more so 

than any other use, and actually probably less. Disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor but 

would be monitored. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds for the refuge manager to 

close the area to bicycling or restrict the use to minimize harm. 

No long-term or cumulative impacts are anticipated; however, the program can be modified in the 

future to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

No equipment may be left on the refuge overnight. Harassment of wildlife is prohibited. If any 

adverse impacts occur from any aspect of this use, then further restrictions may be imposed to 

protect the plant and animal resources on the refuge. Individuals using bicycles to support hunting 

will follow all refuge regulations and will posses a valid hunting permit. 

Justification: 

Bicycle use, as identified in this determination, is not expected to materially interfere with or detract 

from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or from the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. The associated disturbance to wildlife and habitat is temporary and minor. 

Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that this use remains compatible. If use increases and 

impacts are suspected, a re-evaluation will be conducted and corrective actions taken to protect 

refuge resources. Bicycles are used to facilitate priority public uses as a reasonable mode of access. 

Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with quality wildlife-dependent experiences, 

educational opportunities, and allow them to utilize a natural environment. This activity also supports 

the Federal Government’s initiative to promote physical fitness on public lands. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018

Description of Use: Cooperative Farming 

Cooperative farming is utilized on the refuge to manage and maintain approximately 1,000 acres of 

waterfowl impoundment habitats that provide seasonally flooded crops and moist-soil units necessary 

to meet the refuge’s waterfowl habitat objectives. This farming program is a critical component of the 

refuge’s habitat management program. The refuge’s cooperative farmers enter into annual cooperative 
158 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

farming agreements, specifying what crops will be grown in specific fields for both the refuge and the 

cooperative farmer’s share. The cooperative farmer receives 80 percent of planted acres, while the 

refuge receives 20 percent of the planted acres. The refuge’s crop share is strategically located in 

areas that can be flooded in the winter to provide waterfowl foraging habitat in support of North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. At the present 

time, the refuge does not have the staff or equipment necessary to manage and maintain the acreage 

needed to meet its waterfowl foraging objectives without the assistance of the cooperative farming 

program. Refuge cooperative farming operations will continue under carefully regulated conditions. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there 

is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Cooperative farmers grow rice on the refuge under an annually 

updated cooperative farming agreement. Refuge crop shares are left standing in the field to provide 

high-energy grain and forage primarily for wintering waterfowl. The cooperative farmers' harvested 

fields are also used extensively by snipe, shorebirds, geese, ducks, deer, and other wildlife. The 

majority of all cooperative farming takes place in the refuge’s core waterfowl sanctuary area. 

Cooperative farming results in some degree of soil erosion due to disking and planting operations. 

The impact of soil erosion on adjacent wetlands and water bodies is minimal because of maintained 

grass buffer strips around each field and the extensive use of flash board risers to retain and slowly 

release sediment-laden water. Cooperative farmers are allowed to use approved pesticides under a 

closely monitored pesticide use proposal system. Refuge-approved pesticides have low toxicity and 

fast biodegradation rates compared to other commonly used agricultural pesticides. Under approved 

label application rates and methods, approved pesticides should have minimal effect on the biological 

environment. However, the potential exists for misapplication or accidental spills of approved 

pesticides. During the past 10 years, there have been no known pesticide accidents or pesticiderelated wildlife mortality reported on the refuge. Careful monitoring of cooperative farmer pesticide 

use should further reduce any potential impacts from pesticide use on the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, which was 

announced in the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 20059) and made available for public 

comment from April 14, 2008, until May 14, 2008. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge 

headquarters and area locations, and more than 150 copies were distributed to local landowners; 

members of the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The cooperative farming program is regulated through annual cooperative farming agreements that 

specify the field crops to be grown, acceptable farming practices, and approved pesticide use 

procedures. Special conditions contained in each cooperative farming agreement provide the 

following requirements: no fall disking allowed; vegetative filter strips are maintained around all fields 
Appendices 159

and water bodies; crops must be harvested by November 15; and no drainage of seasonally flooded 

habitat is allowed until after March 1; refuge crops will be planted in designated fields and not be 

manipulated in any way after maturity; and only approved pesticides will be used when the level of 

pest occurrence is at the economic threshold level as indicated by crop scouting. Under these 

carefully controlled conditions, the cooperative farming program has been and is expected to 

continue to be compatible with the refuge’s purposes. 

Justification: 

The cooperative farming actions as set forth in the Cropland Management Plan for Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge are in accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management, 

and enhancement of habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. Adherence to the Cropland 

Management Plan promotes the enhancement of habitats for migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, and resident wildlife. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: June 10, 2018
160 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 
Appendices 161

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

REGION 4 

INTRA-SERVICE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Brett Hunter, Refuge Manager, Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Telephone Number: 318-726-4222 E-Mail: _brett_hunter@fws.gov

Date: June 4, 2007 

PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Number): Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red River NWR 

I. Service Program:

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

_X_ Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Louisiana/USFWS 

III. Station Name: Red River NWR 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): 

Implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red River NWR by adopting the proposed 

alternative. This plan directs the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

 

 See Figure 1. River frontage is owned within the Headquarters, Bayou Pierre, and Lower 

Cane River Units. If land were acquired in the Wardview Unit, river frontage might be owned 

there. Records of nesting least terns are known for sandbars adjacent to the Headquarters 

Unit and near the Bayou Pierre Unit prior to refuge establishment. Since 2000, neither colony 

has been present due to sandbars being colonized by willow trees. The Wardview Unit has 

an active colony across the river from what could one day be refuge lands. No nesting 

records occur anywhere near the Lower Cane River Unit. 
162 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Pallid Sturgeon E 

Interior Least Tern E 

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: West Gulf Coastal Plain 

B. County and State: Red River, Bossier, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): See Figure 1. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: The Bayou Pierre Unit is 

approximately 15 miles north of Coushatta, LA. The Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit is 10 

miles north of Natchitoches, LA. The Headquarters Unit is located in Bossier City, LA. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum anthalassos) – known to occur in Caddo, Bossier 

and Red River Parishes. Breeds on sand or gravel bars of the Upper Red River. 

Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) – possibly occurs in Natchitoches Parish. It 

inhabits large rivers in central U.S. In Louisiana, it was formerly thought to be 

restricted to the main channel of the Mississippi River. However, recent data indicate 

that the species also exists in the Atchafalaya River. 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed): 

SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT

IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Pallid Sturgeon Beneficial impacts from best management practices of riverside 

habitat, erosion control, etc. 

Interior Least Tern Beneficial impacts from working with Interior Least Tern Working 

Group and potentially assisting state of Louisiana in protecting 

and restoring interior least tern nesting habitat in the future. 
Appendices 163

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Pallid Sturgeon See below 

Interior Least Tern See below 

Proposed actions in the CCP would likely have no impact, beneficial or adverse, to pallid sturgeon. 

The only minor impacts that may occur would be beneficial due to adjacent riverine lands being 

managed according to Best Management Practices. Forested batture lands would not be clear-cut 

causing erosion and increased sedimentation of the river. 

Interior least terns are found in Caddo, Bossier, and Red River Parishes on the upper portions of the 

Red River. Red River frontage occurs within the Headquarters, Bayou Pierre, and Lower Cane River 

Units; however, the refuge does not currently own any suitable sandbars for nesting terns. However, 

if in the future any sandbars are developed within the refuge boundary, then they will be monitored for 

least tern activity and any necessary posting or closures will be conducted. No construction of piers, 

observation towers, boat ramps, etc., will be conducted on sandbars. Hunting will not coincide with 

the breeding season of interior least terns. The refuge will participate in the Interior Least Tern 

Working Group and will partner with the State of Louisiana to protect and restore interior least tern 

nesting habitat off of refuge lands. 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1 RESPONSE1

REQUESTED 

 NE NA AA 

Pallid Sturgeon X Concurrence 

Interior Least Tern X Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact, 

either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response 

Requested is optional but a AConcurrence@ is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact 

any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these 

resources. Response Requested is a AConcurrence@. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely impact any 

listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is ”Formal 

Consultation.” Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is ”Conference.”

____________________________ __11/29/07__ 

Signature (originating station) Date 

Refuge Manager_______________

Title 
164 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

If the project description changes or incidental take exceeds that which has been exempted under 

section 9 of the Act, then the Ecological Services Field Office must be contacted. 
Appendices 165

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Red River National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found 

to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not 

further analyzed in this plan. 
166 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 167

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Bird List 

This list contains those species of birds thought to occur on lands owned by the Red River NWR 

according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Grebes 

 Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) 

 Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) 

Pelicans, Cormorants, and Darters 

 American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) 

 Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

 Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga) 

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

 American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) 

 Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) 

 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 

 Green Heron (Butoroides virescens) 

 Little Blue Heron (Efretta caerulea) 

 Tricolored Heron (Efretta tricolor) 

 Black-crowned Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

 Yellow-crowned Night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea) 

 Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 

 Great Egret (Ardea alba) 

 Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) 

Ibises, Spoonbills, Storks, and New World Vultures 

 White Ibis (Eudocimis albus) 

 Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia) 

 Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 

 Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) 

 Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Waterfowl 

 Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) 

 Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) 

 Ross’s Goose (Chen rossi) 

 Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 

 Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) 

 Gadwall (Anus strepera) 

 American Wigeon (Anus americana) 

 American Black Duck (Anus rubripes) 

 Mallard (Anus platyrhynchos) 

 Mottled Duck (Anys fulvigula) 

 Blue-winged Teal (Anus discors) 

 Northern Shoveler (Anus clypeata) 
168 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Waterfowl (continued) 

Northern Pintail (Anus acuta) 

 Green-winged Teal (Anus crecca) 

 Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) 

 Redhead (Aythya americana) 

 Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) 

 Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) 

 Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) 

 Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) 

 Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) 

 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) 

 Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) 

 Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) 

Hawks, Eagles, and Kites 

 Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) 

 Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

 Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

 Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

 Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis) 

True Falcons 

 American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) 

 Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Gallineaceous Birds (Quail, Turkey, and Allies) 

 Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

 Wild Turley (Meleagris gallopava) 

Rails, Gallinules, Coots, and Cranes 

 King Rail (Rallus elegans) 

 Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) 

 Sora Rail (Porzana carolina) 

 Purple Gallinule (Porphyrula martinica) 

 American Coot (Fulica americana) 

 Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) 

Plovers 

 American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica) 

 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) 

 Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) 

 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) 

 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) 
Appendices 169

Avocets and Sandpipers 

 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) 

 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) 

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) 

 Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) 

 Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) 

 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) 

 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) 

 Semipalmated Sandpiper (Caladris pusilla) 

 Western Sandpiper (Caladris mauri) 

 Least Sandpiper (Caladris minutilla) 

 Pectoral Sandpiper (Caladris melanotos) 

 Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) 

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) 

 Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) 

 Dunlin (Caladris alpine) 

 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) 

 Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) 

 Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) 

 Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) 

 American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) 

Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers 

 Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia) 

 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) 

 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) 

 Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) 

 Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri) 

 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) 

 Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) 

Pigeons and Doves 

 Rock Dove (Columbia livia) 

 Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 

 Common Ground Dove (Columbina passerine) 

 Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) 

Cuckoos 

 Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erthropthalmus) 

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

 Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) 

Owls 

 Barn Owl (Tyto alba) 

 Eastern Screech-Owl (Otus asio) 

 Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 

 Barred Owl (Strix varia) 

 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) 
170 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Swifts and Hummingbirds 

 Chimney Swift (Chaeura pelagica) 

 Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 

Nightjars 

 Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 

 Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) 

 Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) 

Kingfishers 

 Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) 

 

Woodpeckers 

 Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 

 Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 

 Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus) 

 Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) 

 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 

 Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)

 

Shrikes 

 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Vireos 

 White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus) 

 Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) 

 Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) 

 Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) 

 Philadelphia Vireo (Vireo phidelphicus) 

 Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Jays and Crows 

 Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 

 American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

 Fish Crow (Corvus ossigragus) 

Larks 

 Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) 

Martins and Swallows 

 Purple Martin (Progne subis) 

 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) 

 Barn Swallow (Hirundia rustica)

 Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) 

 Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 

Chickadees and Titmice 

 Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) 

 Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) 
Appendices 171

Nuthatches 

 Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 

 White-breasted Nuthatch (Sita carolinensis) 

 Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

Creepers 

 Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 

Wrens 

 Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) 

Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

 House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) 

 Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) 

 Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

 Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

 Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) 

 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) 

Thrushes 

 Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) 

 Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 

 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 

 Wood Thrush (Hylocichia mustelina) 

 American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 

 Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) 

 Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

 Northern Mockingbird (Minus polyglottos) 

 Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 

 Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 

Starlings 

 European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 

Pipits 

 American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) 

Waxwings 

 Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulous) 

Tanagers 

 Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) 

 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 

Blackbirds 

 Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) 

 Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 

 Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) 
172 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Blackbirds (continued) 

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 

 Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magnus) 

 Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurious) 

 Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

 Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) 

Wood Warblers 

 Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) 

 Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 

 Orange crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) 

 Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) 

 Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrine) 

 Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) 

 Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) 

Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) 

Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) 

 Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) 

 Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean) 

 Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) 

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) 

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) 

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) 

Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) 

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) 

 Black-and White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 

 American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) 

 Prothonotory Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) 

 Worm-eating Warbler(Helmitheros vermivorus) 

 Swainson’s Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) 

 Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) 

 Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) 

 Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) 

 Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) 

 Mourning Warbler (Oporomis philadelphia) 

 Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 

 Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 

 Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrine) 

 Wilson’s Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) 

 Northern Parula (Parula americana) 

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 

New World Finches 

 Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 

 Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheuticus ludovicianus) 

 Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) 

 Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 

 Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) 

 Dickcissel (Spiza americana) 
Appendices 173

Old World Finches 

 Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) 

 American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) 

Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) 

 Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) 

Sparrows 

 Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erthrophthalmus) 

 Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) 

 Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine) 

 Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 

 Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

 Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

 Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) 

 Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) 

 Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) 

 Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) 

 Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

 Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 

 White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 

 White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 

 Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) 

 Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) 
174 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Mammal List 

This list contains those species of mammals thought to occur on lands owned by the Red River NWR 

according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Didelphiidae (Opossums) 

 Opossum (Dedelphis marsupialis) 

Soricidae (Shrews) 

 Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) 

 Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) 

Talpidae (Moles) 

 Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) 

Chiroptera (Bats) 

 Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) 

 Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) 

 Seminole Bat (Lasiurus seminolus) 

Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) 

Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) 

Southern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) 

 Eastern Pipistrel (Pipistrellus subflavus) 

 Evening Bat (Nycticeius humeralis) 

 Rafinesque’s Bat (Coryrhincus reainesquii) 

Dasypodidae (Armadillos) 

 Nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) 

Leporidae (Rabbits) 

 Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) 

 Swamp Rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) 

Sciuridae (Squirrels) 

 Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 

 Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) 

 Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) 

Geomydae (Pocket Gophers) 

 Plains Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius) 

Castoridae (Beaver) 

 Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

Muridae (Old World Rats and Mice) 

 Roof Rat (Rattus rattus) 

 Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 

 House Mouse (Mus musculus) 
Appendices 175

Cricetidae (Mice, Rats, Voles) 

 Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) 

 Fulvous harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens) 

 Golden Mouse (Peromyscus nuttalli) 

 Hispid Cotton Mouse (Sigmodon hispidus) 

 White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus luecopus) 

 Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma floridana) 

 Marsh Rice Rat (Oryzomys palustris) 

 Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) 

 Pine Vole (Pitymys pinetorum) 

Capromyidae (Nutria) 

 Nutria (Myocactor coypus) 

Canidae (Coyotes, Wolves, Foxes) 

 Coyote (Canis latrans) 

 Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) 

 Red Fox (Vulpes fluva) 

Ursidae (Bears) 

 Black Bear (Ursus americanus) 

Procyonidae (Raccoons) 

 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Mustelidae (Weasels, Skunks) 

 Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) 

 Mink (Mustela vison) 

 River Otter (Lutra canadensis) 

 Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 

Felidae (Cats) 

 Bobcat (Lynx rufus) 

 

Suidae (Hogs) 

 Feral Hog (Sus scrofa) 

Cervidae (Deer) 

 White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 
176 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Herptile List 

This list contains those species of reptiles and amphibians thought to occur on lands owned by the 

Red River NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

 

Alligatoridae (Alligators) 

 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

Chelydridae (Snapping Turtles) 

 Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) 

 Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) 

Kinosternidae (Musk and Mud Turtles) 

 Common Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) 

 Razorback Musk Turtle (Sternotherus carinatus) 

 Mississippi Mud Turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis) 

Emydidae (Box and Water Turtles) 

 Three-toed Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis) 

 Mississippi Map Turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica kohnii) 

 Ouachita Map Turtle (Graptemys ouachitensis) 

 Southern Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta dorsalis) 

 Western Chicken Turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria) 

 Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) 

 River Cooter (Pseudemys concinna) 

Trionychidae (Softshell Turtles) 

 Smooth Softshell (Apalone mutica) 

 Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera) 

Iguanidae (Anoles and Fence Lizards) 

 Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis) 

 Northern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulates hyacinthinus) 

Teiidae (Racerunners) 

 Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus) 

Scincidae (Skinks) 

 Ground Skink (Scincella lateralis) 

 Broadhead Skink (Eumeces laticeps) 

Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) 

 Southern Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis) 

Anguidae (Glass Lizards) 

 Western Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuatus) 

Elapidae (Coral Snakes) 

 Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus fulvius tener) 
Appendices 177

Colubridae (Snakes) 

 Broadbanded Water Snake (Nerodia fasciata confluens) 

Diamondback Water Snake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer) 

Mississippi Green Water Snake (Nerodia cyclopion) 

 Yellowbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster) 

 Graham’s Crayfish Snake (Regina grahamii) 

 Gulf Glossy Crayfish Snake (Regina rigida sinicola) 

 Florida Redbelly Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata obscura) 

Midland Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi wrightorum) 

 Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) 

 Western Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis proximus proximus) 

 Rough Earth Snake (Virginia striatula) 

Western Smooth Earth Snake (Virginia valeriae elegans) 

 Black Rat Snake (Elaphe obsolete obsoleta) 

 Corn Snake (Elaphe guttata guttata) 

 Louisiana Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum amaura) 

 Prairie King Snake (Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster) 

 Speckled King Snake (Lampropeltis getula holbrooki) 

Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) 

 Eastern Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum flagellum) 

Flathead Snake (Tantilla gracilis) 

Mississippi Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus stictogenys) 

 Northern Scarlet Snake (Cemophora coccinea copei) 

Racer (Coluber constrictor anthicus) 

Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus) 

Western Worm Snake (Carphophis vermis) 

 Western Mud Snake (Farancia abacura reinwardtii) 

Viperidae (Vipers) 

 Southern Copperhead (Agkistrodon controtrix contortrix) 

 Western Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) 

 Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridis) 

Western Pygmy Rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius streckeri) 

Proteidae (Mudpuppies) 

 Red River Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus louisianensis) 

Amphiumidae (Amphiumas) 

 Three-toed Amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactlyum) 

Sirenidae (Sirens) 

 Western Lesser Siren (Siren intermedia nettingi) 

Ambystomatidae (Salamanders) 

 Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum) 

Mole Salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) 

 Smallmouth Salamander (Ambystoma texanum) 

 Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) 

 

Salamandridae (Newts) 

 Central Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) 
178 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Plethodontidae (Lungless Salamanders) 

 Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus complex) 

 Dwarf Salamander (Eurycea quadridigittata) 

Bufonidae (Toads) 

 Fowler’s Toad (Bufo fowleri) 

 Gulf Coast Toad (Bufo valliceps valliceps) 

Hylidae (Treefrogs and Peepers) 

 Bird-voiced Treefrog (Hyla avivoca) 

Cope’s Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) 

Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) 

Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea) 

 Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirella) 

 Northern Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) 

 Upland Chorus Frog (Pseudacris feriarum) 

 Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans crepitans) 

Microhylidae (Narrowmouth Toads) 

 Eastern Narrowmouth Toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) 

Ranidae (True Frogs) 

 Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) 

 Bronze Frog (Rana clamitans clamitans) 

 Pickerel Frog (Rana palustris) 

 Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) 
Appendices 179

Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish List 

This list contains those species of reptiles and amphibians thought to occur in waters administered by 

the Red River NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Petromyzontidae (Lampreys) 

 Chestnut Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus) 

 Southern Brook Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon gagei) 

Polydontidea (Paddlefish) 

 Paddlefish (Polydon spatula) 

Lepisosteidae (Gars) 

 Alligator Gar (Lepisosteus spatula) 

Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus) 

Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) 

Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus) 

Amiidae (Bowfin) 

 Bowfin (Amia calva) 

Anguillladae (Eels) 

 American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

Clupeidae (Shads and Herrings) 

 Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

 Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense) 

 Skipjack Herring (Alosa chrysochloris) 

Hiodontidae (Mooneyes) 

 Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) 

 Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus) 

Esocidae (Pikes) 

 Chain Pickeral (Esox niger) 

 Grass Pickeral (Esox americanus) 

Sctostomidae (Suckers) 

 Black Buffalo (Ictiobus niger) 

 Bigmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus) 

 Smallmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) 

 Creek Chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) 

 Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) 

 River Carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) 

Spotted Sucker (Minytrema melanops) 

 River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) 

 Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) 

Aphredoderidae Pirate Perch 

 Pirate Perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) 
180 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Cyprinidae (Minnows, Chubs, Shiners, and Carp) 

 Bullhead Minnow (Pimephales vigilax) 

Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus) 

Flathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

Cypress Minnow (Hybognathus hayi) 

 Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus nuchalis) 

Pugnose Minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae) 

Cheek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) 

Silver Chub (Hybopsis storeriana) 

Speckled Chub (Hybopsis aestivalis) 

Bigeyed Shiner (Notropis boops) 

Bluehead Shiner (Notropis hubbsi) 

Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides) 

Ghost Shiner (Notropis buchanani) 

Ironcolor Shiner (Notropis chalybaeus) 

Mimic Shiner (Notropis volucellus) 

Pallid Shiner (Notropis amnis) 

Ribbon Shiner (Notropis fumeus) 

Steelcolor Shiner (Notropis whipplei) 

Taillight Shiner (Notropis maculatus) 

Weed Shiner (Notropis texanus) 

Blackfin Shiner (Cyprinella venusta) 

Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) 

Redfin Shiner (Lythrurus umbratilis) 

Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) 

 Goldfish (Carassius auratus) 

 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) 

Ictaluridae (Catfish, Bullheads, and Madtoms) 

 Blue Catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) 

 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 

Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) 

Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas) 

 Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) 

 Yellow Bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) 

 Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus) 

 Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) 

 Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus) 

Tadpole Madtom (Noturus gyrinus) 

Cyrinodontidae (Topminnows) 

 Blackspotted Topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus) 

Blackstripe Topminnow (Fundulus notatus) 

Golden Topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus) 

 Starhead Topminnow (Fundulus notti) 

Peociliidae (Livebearers) 

 Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) 
Appendices 181

Atherinidae (Silversides) 

 Brook Silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) 

Percicthyidae (Temperate Basses) 

 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) 

 White Bass (Morone chrysops) 

 Yellow Bass (Morone mississippiensis) 

Centrarchidae (Sunfish, Bass, Crappie, and Allies) 

 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus samloides) 

Spotted Bass (Micropterus punctulatus) 

Bantum Sunfish (Lepomis symmetricus) 

 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 

 Dollar Sunfish (Lepomis marginatus) 

Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus ) 

 Longear Sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) 

 Orangespotted Sunfish (Lepomis humilis) 

 Redear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) 

 Spotted Sunfish (Lepomis punctatus) 

 Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) 

 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) 

 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) 

 Flier (Centrarchus macropterus) 

 

Elassomatidae (Pigmy Sunfish) 

 Banded Pigmy Sunfish (Elassoma zonatum) 

Percidae (Darters and Allies) 

 Scaly Sand Darter (Ammocrypta vivax) 

 Western Scaly Darter (Ammocrypta clara) 

 Bluntnose Darter (Etheostoma chlorosomum) 

Creole Darter (Etheostoma collettei) 

Cypress Darter (Etheostoma proeliare) 

Goldstripe Darter (Etheostoma parvipinne) 

Harlequin Darter (Etheostoma histrio) 

Mud Darter (Etheostoma asprigene) 

 Redfin Darter (Etheostoma whipplei) 

 Slough Darter (Etheostoma gracile) 

 Speckled Darter (Etheostoma stigmaeum) 

 Swamp Darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) 

 Blackside Darter (Percina maculata) 

 Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) 

 Dusky Darter (Percina sciera) 

Logperch (Percina caprodes) 

 Ouachita Darter (Percina ouachitae) 

 River Darter (Percina shumardi) 

 Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) 

 Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) 

 

Sciaenidae (Drums) 

 Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) 
182 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Woody Plant List 

This list contains those species of woody plants thought to occur on lands owned by the Red River 

NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Aceraceae (Maples and Elders) 

 Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 

 Boxelder (Acer negundo) 

Agavaceae (Yuccas) 

 Adam’s Needle (Yucca filamentosa) 

Anacardiaceae (Sumac, Poison Ivy, and Allies) 

 Shiny Sumac (Rhus copallinum) 

 Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra) 

 Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron redicans) 

 Chittimwood (Sideroxylon lanuginosum) 

Annonaceae (Pawpaws) 

 Dwarf Pawpaw (Asimina parviflora) 

 Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) 

Araliaceae (Arelias) 

 Devil’s Walkingstick (Arelia spinosa) 

Arecaceae (Palmettos) 

 Palmetto (Sabal minor) 

Aristolochiaceae (Pipevine) 

 Dutchman’s Pipevine (Aristolochia tomentosa) 

Asteraceae (Saltbush and Allies) 

 Saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia) 

 New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus americanus) 

Aquifoliaceae (Holly and Allies) 

 American Holly (Ilex opaca) 

 Carolina Holly (Ilex ambigua) 

 Deciduous Holly (Ilex deciduas) 

 Youpan (Ilex vomitoria) 

Betulaceae (Alder, Birch, and Allies) 

 Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata) 

 River Birch (Betula nigra) 

 Blue Beech (Fagus grandifolia) 

 Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 
Appendices 183

Bignoniaceae (Trumpet Creeper and Allies) 

 Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans) 

 Cross Vine (Bignonia capreolata) 

 Southern Catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) 

Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle, Arrowwood and Allies) 

 Coral Honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) 

 Japanese Holeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) 

 Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum) 

 Rusty Blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum) 

 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 

 Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) 

Celastraceae (Strawberrybush) 

 Strawberrybush (Evonymus americana) 

Clusiaceae (St. Andrew’s Cross and Broombush) 

 St. Andrew’s Cross (Hypericum hypericoides) 

 Broombush (Hypericum prolificum) 

Cornaceae (Dogwoods) 

 Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) 

 Rough-leaf Dogwood (Cornus drummondii) 

 Swamp Dogwood (Cornus foemina) 

 

Cuppressaceae (Red-cedar) 

 Eastern Red-cedar (Juniperus virginiana) 

Ebonaceae (Persimmon) 

 Persimmon (Diospyrus virginiana) 

Ericaceae (Blueberrys) 

Elliot’s Blueberry (Vaccinium elliotti) 

Large Cluster Blueberry (Vaccinium virgatum) 

Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) 

Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum) 

Euphorbiaceae (Tallow Trees) 

 Chinese Tallow Tree (Triadica sebiferum) 

Fabaceae (Locust, Redbud, and Allies) 

 Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) 

 Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) 

Water Locust (Gleditsia aquatica) 

Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 

American Wisteria (Wisteria frutescens) 

Coralbean (Erythrina herbacea) 

False Indigo (Amorpha spp.) 

 Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) 

 
184 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fagaceae (Oaks and Allies) 

 Black Oak (Quercus velutina) 

 Blackjack Oak (Quercus marilandica) 

 Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagodafolia) 

 Delta Post Oak (Quercus similes) 

 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 

 Nuttall Oak (Quercus texana) 

Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 

 Post Oak (Quercus stellata) 

 Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii) 

Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata) 

 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 

 Water Oak (Quercus migra) 

White Oak (Quercus alba) 

 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 

 Allegheny Chinquapin (Castanea pumilla) 

 American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) 

Grossulariaceae (Sweetspire) 

 Sweetspire (Itea virginica) 

 

Hamamelidaceae (Sweetgum and Witch Hazel) 

 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 

 Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) 

 

Hippocastanaceae (Buckeyes and Azeleas) 

 Red Buckeye (Aesculus pavia) 

 Hoary Azalea (Rhododendron canescens) 

Juglandaceae (Walnut, Hickory, and Pecan) 

 Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba) 

 Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica) 

 Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) 

 Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) 

 Sweet Pecan (Carya illinoiensis) 

 Black Hickory (Carya texana) 

 Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) 

Lauraceae (Sassafras and Spicebush) 

 Sassafras (Sassafras albidium) 

 Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) 

Loganiaceae (Jessemine) 

 Carolina Jessemine (Gelsemium sempervirens) 

Magnoliaceae (Magnolia) 

 Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) 

Meliaceae (Chinaberry Tree) 

 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 
Appendices 185

Moraceae (Mulberry and Allies) 

 Red Mulberry (Morus rubra) 

 Osage-orange (Maclura pumifera) 

Myricaceae (Waxmyrtle) 

 Waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifica) 

Nyssaceae (Blackgum and Tupelo) 

 Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) 

 Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) 

 

Oleaceae (Ash and Allies) 

 Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 

 White Ash (Fraxinus americana) 

 Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) 

Fringetree (Chioanthus virginicus) 

 Swamp Privet (Forestiera acuminata) 

Pinaceae (Pines) 

 Loblolly Pine (Pinus echinata) 

 Shortleaf Pine (Pinus taeda) 

Platanaceae (Sycamore) 

 American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 

Polygonaceae (Eardrop Vine) 

 Lady’s Eardrop Vine (Brunnichia ovata) 

Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn) 

 Carolina Buckthorn (Frangula caroliniana) 

 Rattan Vine (Berchemia scandens) 

Rosaceae (Plum, Hawthorn, and Allies) 

 Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) 

Chickasaw Plum (Prunus angustifolia) 

 Mexican Plum (Prunus mexicana) 

 Cockspur Hawthorn (Cretageous crus-galli) 

Green Hawthorn (Cretageous viridis) 

 Mayhaw (Cretageous opaca) 

 Parsleyhaw (Cretageous marshallii) 

 Blackberry (Rubus argutus) 

 Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) 

Rubiaceae (Buttonbush) 

 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 

Rutaceae (Toothache Tree) 

 Toothache Tree (Zanthoxylum clava-hercules) 

 Trifoliate-orange (Poncirus trifoliate) 

 
186 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Salicaceae (Willow and Cottonwood)

 Black Willow (Salix nigra) 

 Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 

Sapotaceae (Bumelia) 

 Gum Bumelia (Bumelia langinose) 

Schizaeaceae (Climbing Fern) 

 Japanese Climbingfern (Lygodium japonicum) 

Scrophulariaceae (Princesstree) 

 Princesstree (Paulownia tomentosa) 

Simarubaceae (Tree-of-Heaven) 

 Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) 

Smilacaceae (Green briar and Allies) 

 Fiddleleaf Greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) 

 Sawbriar (Smilax glauca) 

 Common Greengriar (Smilax rotundifolia) 

 Upland Bamboo Vine (Smilax smallii) 

 Red Berry Greenbriar (Smilax walterii) 

Stracaceae (Snowbells) 

 Large Snowbell (Styrax americanum) 

 Small Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius) 

 Two-winged Silverbell (Halesia diptera) 

Symplocaceae (Sweetleaf) 

 Sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria) 

Taxodiaceae (Cypress) 

 Baldcypress (Taxosium distichum) 

Ulmaceae (Elm and Hackberry) 

 American Elm (Ulmus americana) 

 Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia) 

 Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra) 

 Winged Elm (Ulmus alata) 

 Water Elm (Planer aquatica) 

 Southern Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) 

Verbenaceae (Beautyberry) 

 American Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) 

Vitaceae (Wild Grapes and Allies) 

 Peppervine (Ampeopsis arborea) 

 Heart-leaf Peppervine (Ampeopsis cordata) 

 Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) 

 Summer Grape (Vitis aestivalis) 

 Gray Grape (Vitis cinerea) 

Muscadine Grapes (Vitis rotundifolia) 
Appendices 187

Appendix J. Consultation and Coordination 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed action that were presented in the Draft CCP/EA. It lists the 

meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The Draft CCP/EA for Red River National Wildlife Refuge was written with the participation and 

assistance of refuge and Service staff; the Mangi Environmental Group, a Service contractor; and the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The planning process itself began in January 2006, 

with the formation of a refuge planning team; a notice of intent to develop the Draft CCP/EA had 

earlier been published in the Federal Register. 

In December 2005, in preparation for the comprehensive planning process, a team of biologists 

conducted a comprehensive biological review for the refuge. Participants in the biological review 

were drawn from the refuge and the Service, including specialists from the Ecological Services, 

Realty, and Planning divisions; the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service; Northwestern 

Louisiana University; Louisiana State University; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Red 

River Waterway Commission; and Mangi Environmental Group. 

Also in 2005, refuge and Service personnel met to conduct a visitor services’ review. The information 

and recommendations in both the biological and visitor services’ reports proved a valuable “point of 

departure” for the authors of this CCP. Subsequently, the refuge hosted public scoping meetings on 

May 15 and 17, 2005, and began an outreach campaign through various media to collect ideas and 

concerns from all stakeholders. 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The following individuals comprised the core planning team: 

Brett Hunter, Refuge Manager, Red River NWR, FWS 

Lindy Garner, Planning Biologist (former), FWS 

Tina Chouinard, Natural Resouces Planner, FWS 

George Chandler, Project Leader, FWS 

Gypsy Hanks, Wildlife Biologist, FWS 

Michael Renfrow, Private Lands Biologist, FWS 

Gay Brantley, Visitor Services, FWS 

Randy Williams, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (contractor) 

INTERDISCIPLINARY PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

Many individuals supported the planning process with participation on the biological review team, 

visitor services’ review team, and additional special topic discussions. Their information provided 

additional biological support for developing the objectives found in this CCP. Some members are 

internal to the Service and provided additional policy guidance and support for the objectives’ 

development phase as well. 
188 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Review Team 

Steve Gabrey, Associate Professor, Northwestern State University 

Jim Ingold, Professor, Louisiana State University-Shreveport 

Lawrence Hardy, Director Emeritus, Louisiana State University-Shreveport 

Jerry Daigle, State Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Tom Edwards, WHM Biologist, Division of Migratory Bird Management, FWS 

Paul Bruckwicki, Contaminants Biologist, Caddo Lake NWR, FWS 

Jack Culpepper, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Lafayette Ecological Services, FWS 

Steve Smith, District Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Michael Renfrow, Private Lands Biologist, North Louisiana Refuges, FWS 

Jim Mangi, Environmental Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. 

John Pitre, District Biologist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Steve Hebert, District Supervisor, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Karen Kilpatrick, Project Leader, Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, FWS 

James Seales, Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Ed Trahan, Forester, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

John Simpson, Administrative Forester, Bayou Cocodrie NWR, FWS 

Ken Guidry, Executive Director, Red River Waterway Commission 

Bob Strader, Biologist, Migratory Bird Office, FWS 

Ken Clough, Realty Specialist, Migratory Bird Realty Office, FWS 

Randy Wilson, Biologist, Migratory Bird Office, Lower Mississippi Joint Venture, FWS 

Joe Conti, Biologist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Jan Dean, Fisheries Biologist, Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, FWS 

Gypsy Hanks, Wildlife Biologist, North Louisiana Refuges, FWS 

Brett Hunter, Refuge Manager, Red River NWR, FWS 

Lindy Garner, Natural Resource Planner (former), North Louisiana Refuges, FWS 

George Chandler, Project Leader, North Louisiana Refuges, FWS 

Visitor Services Review Team 

Garry Tucker, Visitor Services and Outreach, FWS, Southeast Regional Office 

Gay Brantley, Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Byron Fortier, FWS, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Cultural Resources Expertise and Support 

Richard Kanaski, Southeast Regional Archaeologist, Savannah National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Other Contributors 

In addition to the above-listed core and extended planning team members, a number of other 

individuals and groups contributed to the CCP. These included local citizens and representatives 

from agencies, as well as those from non-governmental organizations, such as the local chapter of 

The Nature Conservancy and the Red River Refuge Alliance. These contributors participated in the 

scoping meetings or provided input at various stages of the planning process. 
Appendices 189

Appendix K. Budget Requests 

Project Number Project Description Cost Estimate 

($1000’s) 

SAMMS2006417897 Rehab Flume Ditch Road 

SAMMS2006549868 Rehab Sklar Road 

SAMMS2006549870 Rehab Barrow Pit Road 

SAMMS2006549877 Dredge Ditch 
190 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 191

Appendix L. Land Protection Plan 

Acquisition boundaries are administrative lines delineating areas in which the Fish and Wildlife 

Service may consider negotiations with willing owners for acquisition of an interest in land. Lands 

within a refuge acquisition boundary do not become part of the refuge unless and until a legal interest 

is acquired through a management agreement, easement, lease, donation, or purchase. Lands 

within an acquisition boundary are not subject to any refuge regulations or jurisdiction unless and until 

an interest is acquired. Land interests are acquired from willing sellers/owners only. Any landowner 

who is within an approved acquisition boundary, even though the surrounding parcels may have been 

purchased by the Service, retains all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land 

ownership. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to access, hunting, vehicle use, control of 

trespass; the right to sell the property to any other party; and the responsibility to pay local real estate 

or property taxes. 

Currently, Red River NWR is proposing to expand its refuge boundary to include lands adjacent to 

the Headquarters Unit, Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit, and Lower Cane River Unit. 

Acquiring these lands would resolve significant boundary issues and also provide additional 

habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. In addition, these lands would provide for 

additional public use and access. 

The Red River NWR is within the Red River Valley located along the Red River Waterway in Caddo, 

Bossier, Red River, Natchitoches, and De Soto Parishes. The current acquisition boundary is 

approximately 50,000 acres, of which 9,788 acres are currently owned in fee title. The approved 

acquisition boundary includes five focus areas for acquisition: Wardview, Headquarters, Bayou Pierre, 

Spanish Lake Lowlands, and Lower Cane River (Figure 1). Upon full attainment, the established refuge 

will consist of a complex of five separate refuge units. The five units were selected based on their natural 

resource values, management potential, restoration possibilities, hydrologic/watershed influences, 

partnership opportunities and proximity to development (current and projected). 

The proposed expansion includes 87 acres at the Headquarters Unit in Bossier Parish (Figure 2); 

1,413 acres at Spanish Lake Lowlands in Natchitoches Parish (Figure 3); and 1,938 acres at Lower 

Cane in Natchitoches Parish (Figure 4). The proposed expansion areas are adjacent to existing 

refuge acquisition boundary. 

The Red River has a narrow floodplain, averaging 6-8 miles in width. Historically, the Red River 

Valley was forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub swamps. Clearing 

occurred for small farms during the Louisiana Purchase. During the 1960s, most of these farms were 

converted to pine forests and pastures. 

The Headquarters Unit is characterized by a mosaic of habitats that includes a pecan grove on the north 

end of the property, old pastureland that is progressing toward a shrub type habitat, and a backswamp 

area that includes an oxbow lake. The 87 acres outlined within the scope of the expansion is currently 

active pastureland that will provide a great opportunity for reforestation in the future. 

The Spanish Lake Lowlands unit is a low-lying wet area characterized by fallow fields, wet 

pasture lands, and row crop agriculture. Excellent migratory bird habitat is present and 

outstanding opportunities exist for reforestation projects. Partnerships have already been 

developed with The Conservation Fund and energy companies for carbon sequestration projects. 
192 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

The approximate 1,413-acre addition to the unit is primarily early successional bottomland 

hardwood reforestation projects that will provide excellent migratory bird habitat and act as a 

buffer from nearby rural development. 

The Lower Cane River Unit sits approximately 20 miles south of Natchitoches, Louisiana, and is 

immediately adjacent to the Red River. The majority of the 1,938-acre expansion area is in row crop 

agricultural production. This area is broken into several large fields separated by sparse hedge rows, 

small bayous, roads, and irrigation canals. The area also has a few widely dispersed blocks of 

timber. If included in the acquisition area, the new area will provide a great opportunity for future 

reforestation and active management for migratory birds through moist-soil management and 

cooperative farming agreements. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

To date, there have been two comprehensive archaeological surveys on the refuge; however, no 

properties have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 14 of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, require the Service to evaluate the effects of any of its actions on cultural 

resources (e.g., historic, architectural and archaeological) that are listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with these regulations, the Service has coordinated 

the review of this proposal with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office. 

The Service believes that the proposed acquisition of lands will have no adverse effect on any known 

or yet-to-be-identified National Register of Historic Places-eligible cultural resources. However, in the 

future, if the Service plans or permits any actions that might affect eligible cultural resources, it will 

carry out appropriate site identifications, evaluations, and protection measures as specified in the 

regulations and in Service directives and manuals. 

All tracts acquired by the Service in fee title would be removed from local real estate tax rolls because 

Federal Government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service 

makes annual payments to local governments in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of 

the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands 

acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the 

lands acquired in fee title. The estimated annual revenue-sharing payment that would be made to 

Bossier and Natchitoches Parishes if all expansion lands are acquired would be approximately 

$25,000 at full entitlement. 

No actions would be taken that would lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for 

the protection of the environment. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Service proposes to acquire, protect, and manage through fee title purchases, leases, 

conservation easements, and/or cooperative agreements from willing sellers. All lands and waters 

acquired would be managed by the Service as the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. The 

objectives of the proposed expansion would be to: (1) provide migrating and wintering habitat for 

migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall objectives of the Mississippi Flyway; (2) provide 

nesting habitat for wood ducks; (3) provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered 

species; and (4) manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for natural wildlife diversity. 
Appendices 193

It is anticipated that funding for this proposal would be provided through the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authority for the use of these 

funds for land acquisition is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Land and Water 

Conservation Act; however, funding would likely come from the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Committee and The Conservation Fund via carbon sequestration credits placed on the agricultural 

portion of the property. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION POLICY 

The Service acquires lands and interests in lands, such as easements, and management rights in 

lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other congressional 

guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlifedependent public use for recreational and educational purposes. These lands include national 

wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, research stations, and other areas. 

The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means, 

such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. When 

land is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the 

minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full 

consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the 

impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. 

The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of 

condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however, 

requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing 

sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the 

property’s appraised market value, as set out in an approved appraisal that meets professional 

standards and federal requirements. The acquisition methods that could be used by the Service 

under this alternative are described as follows: 

1. Leases and Cooperative Agreements 

Potentially, the Service can protect and manage habitats through leases and cooperative 

agreements. Management control on privately owned lands could be obtained by entering into longterm renewable leases or cooperative agreements with the landowners. Short-term leases could be 

used to protect or manage habitat until a more secure land protection method could be negotiated. 

2. Conservation Easements 

Conservation easements give the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their fish and wildlife 

habitat values. Such management precludes all other uses that are incompatible with the Service's 

management objectives. Only land uses that would have minimal or no conflicts with the 

management objectives are retained by the landowner. In effect, the landowner transfers certain 

development rights to the Service for management purposes as specified in the easement. 

 
194 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

Easements would likely be useful when: (1) most, but not all, of a private landowner's uses are 

compatible with the Service's management objectives, and (2) the current owner desires to retain 

ownership of the land and continue compatible uses under the terms set by the Service in the 

easement. Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement 

include: 

Development rights (e.g., agricultural and residential); 

Alteration of the area's natural topography; 

Uses adversely affecting the area's floral and faunal communities; 

Private hunting and fishing leases; 

Excessive public access and use; and 

Alteration of the natural water regime. 

3. Fee Title Acquisition 

A fee title interest is normally acquired when (1) the area's fish and wildlife resources require 

permanent protection not otherwise assured; (2) land is needed for visitor use development; (3) a 

pending land use could adversely impact the area's resources, or (4) it is the most practical and 

economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. 

Fee title acquisition conveys all ownership rights to the Federal Government and provides the best 

assurance of permanent resource protection. A fee title interest may be acquired by donation, 

exchange, transfer, or purchase. 

The Service’s preferred alternative, Alternative 2, will result in the acquisition of up to 3,438 acres of 

wildlife habitat as an expansion of Red River National Wildlife Refuge. This will be accomplished through 

a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and less-than-fee interests (e.g., conservation 

easements and cooperative agreements) from willing sellers. The Service believes these are the 

minimum interests necessary to conserve and protect the fish and wildlife resources in this area. 

The private property has been prioritized for acquisition using the following criteria: 

Biological significance; 

Existing and potential threats; 

Significance of the area to refuge management and administration; and 

Existing commitments to purchase or protect land. 

Three categories of land acquisition have been established, with the highest priority being the Priority 

I lands. A description of the lands within each of the three priority groups is given below. Table 1 

summarizes the Service’s land protection priorities and proposed methods of acquisition. 
Appendices 195

Priority Group I 

Anticipated near-term Fish and Wildlife Service acquisitions in the Lower Cane River Unit will result in 

divided ownerships (part of a landowner’s tract within the Service’s acquisition boundary and part 

outside the boundary). The landowners wish to sell their entire tracts to Service. 

Priority Group II 

Anticipated Fish and Wildlife Service acquisitions in the Spanish Lake Lowlands River Unit will result 

in divided ownerships (part of a landowner’s tract within the Service acquisition boundary and part 

outside the boundary). The landowners wish to sell their entire tracts to Service. 

Priority Group III 

The expansion area at the Headquarters Unit is needed to complete a land exchange between the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Bossier Parish for construction of the Arthur Teaque Parkway. 

Table 1. Protection priorities for the proposed expansion and recommended methods of 

acquisition 

Priority Group Number of 

Landowners 

Approximate Acreage Type of Acquisition 

(minimum interest) 

I 2 1938 Fee Title 

II 2 1413 Fee Title 

III 2 87 Fee Title 
196 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 197

Appendix M. Finding of No Significant Impact 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources in 

Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, through the Red River 

National Wildlife Refuge. An environmental assessment was prepared to inform the public of the 

possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

for Red River National Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting 

the preferred alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse 

effects of the action, and a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, 

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting 

information can be found in the environmental assessment, which was Section B of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red River National Wildlife Refuge. 

ALTERNATIVES 

In developing the CCP for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated 

three alternatives: 

Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B: Minimize Management and Public Use 

Alternative C: Optimize Biological Program and Visitor Services (Proposed Action) 

Each alternative is summarized below. 

Alternative A represents no change from current management of the refuge. All refuge management 

actions would continue to provide habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat 

for nesting wood ducks. It would also maintain the current habitat mix for the benefit of other 

migratory birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, and landbirds. The refuge staff would continue existing 

surveys to monitor the long-term population trends and health of resident wildlife. Currently, little 

public use and environmental education programs exist on the refuge. A new headquarters/visitor 

center has been budgeted and would be constructed under all alternatives. 

Alternative B is driven by minimizing funding and staff with fewer habitats and wildlife management and a 

reduced public use program. The biological information would be enhanced and encouraged to develop 

management programs that could be implemented less frequently, yet still accomplish the objectives. An 

intensive inventory of bottomland hardwood forests to define current conditions and monitor natural 

successional changes would be implemented. Management in the bottoms would be limited so that the 

forests would go through natural succession, as defined in a revised habitat management plan. Open 

fields would be allowed to go through natural succession to bottomland hardwood forests, and moist-soil 

units would not be maintained. Invasives’ management would become a priority to establish baseline 

information on location and density. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several biological 

programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. Public use would be 

limited under this alternative, with custodial-level maintenance. 

The primary focus under Alternative C, the proposed alternative, would be to optimize the biological 

and visitor use programs. Under Alternative C, land acquisition, reforestation, and resource 

protection at Red River National Wildlife Refuge would be intensified from the level now maintained in 

the “No Action” alternative. The refuge would expand the approved acquisition boundary to 
198 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

incorporate 1,413 acres in the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit; 87 acres in the Headquarters Unit; and 

1,938 acres in the Lower Cane Unit. Alternative C would provide a full-time law enforcement officer, 

an equipment operator, a maintenance worker, a wildlife biologist, an assistant manager, an 

administrative assistant, and an outdoor recreational specialist. Public use and environmental 

education would increase from the No Action alternative under Alternative C. Within three years of 

CCP completion, the refuge would develop a visitor services’ plan to be used in expanding public use 

facilities and opportunities. This step-down management plan would provide overall, long-term 

direction and guidance in developing and running a larger public use program on the refuge. Federal 

funds are now available to construct a refuge headquarters/visitor center at the Headquarters Unit. 

The new visitor center would include a small auditorium for use in talks, meetings, films, videos, and 

other audiovisual presentations. Alternative C would also increase opportunities for visitors by adding 

facilities, such as photo blinds, observation sites, and trails. 

The Service adopted Alternative C as its preferred alternative as outlined in the CCP. The CCP will 

guide the management direction of the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected 

in the CCP is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlifedependent recreational uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

SELECTION RATIONALE 

Alternative C is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purposes and goals. Implementing the preferred alternative will result in management 

based on sound science for the conservation of a structurally diverse and species diverse bottomland 

hardwood habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. A focused effort will be placed on reducing 

invasive species that are threatening the biological integrity of the refuge. Wintering waterfowl habitat will 

be maintained as important foraging habitat in the open fields and forested wetlands. Baseline 

inventories and monitoring of management actions will be completed to gain information on a variety of 

species, from reptiles and amphibians to butterflies and several species of concern. Several cooperative 

projects will be conducted with universities, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and other 

agencies and individuals to provide biological information to be used in management decisions. When 

compatible, the wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation will be provided and enhanced, 

while achieving the refuge purpose and remaining consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and 

sound biological principles. 

Under the CCP, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the CCP. Habitat management, wildlife population management, 

resource protection, and visitor service activities on Red River National Wildlife Refuge will result in 

increased migratory bird utilization and production; increased protection for threatened and 

endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; bottomland hardwood forest restoration; and 
Appendices 199

enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. These effects 

are detailed as follows: 

1. Duck and shorebird use of the refuge will improve significantly as water management efforts will 

provide dependable flooded habitats to match the migration chronologies of these species. Forest 

breeding birds will benefit from refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and forest management actions. 

Woodcock population numbers and habitat use will be monitored and managed and woodcock use of 

the refuge will be expected to increase. 

2. Migratory bird production will increase by enhancing forest habitat quality for neotropical 

migratory birds, habitat and food availability for wintering waterfowl, and through hydrological 

restoration and reforestation. Forest management practices, such as reforestation, selective 

harvests, and conservation of mature stand components, will benefit nesting and feeding habitat 

for neotropical migratory birds. 

3. Refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and protection will benefit the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. Pallid sturgeon and Interior least tern recovery efforts will be supported by 

cooperative habitat restoration, technical assistance to other private landowners bordering the Red 

River, and through assistance with Service recovery efforts. 

4. The refuge’s habitat mix of croplands, early successional reforestation areas, and bottomland 

hardwood forests, as well as habitat management, will improve food and cover for resident wildlife 

species and enhance wetland communities within the refuge. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public use 

will result in some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife, and user conflicts may occur at 

certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and implementing 

refuge regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of implementing the 

CCP are positive. In the long run, wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the local community. 

6. Implementing the CCP is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as actions will not result in development 

of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor will they result in irrevocable, long-term 

adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust of the CCP is to implement bottomland hardwood forest and 

open wetland restoration within the wildlife communities of the refuge that have been severely 

impacted by actions of previous landowners. Implementing the CCP will result in substantial 

enhancement of forest and open wetland communities and net increases to the Nation’s bottomland 

hardwood forest and open wetland acreage and quality. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 
200 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program will take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat. All hunting activities (e.g., season lengths, bag limits, and number of hunters) 

will be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations 

established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through wildlife 

inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities will be utilized, and public use 

programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the CCP will not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. Essential access to 

private property will be allowed through issuance of special use permits. Future land acquisition will 

occur on a willing-seller basis only, and at fair market values within the approved acquisition 

boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases and/or donations and 

less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements and cooperative agreements) from willing 

sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary will likely come 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue off-refuge stream bank 

riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Acquisition efforts by the Service will result in changes in land and recreational use patterns, since all 

uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land ownership by the Service 

also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. Potential development of 

access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead to minor short-term 

negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site development activities are 

proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act consideration 

during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required mitigation activities will be incorporated 

into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the human environment and to protect fish 

and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources unavailable for 

other programs. 

The CCP is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to 

Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 
Appendices 201

COORDINATION 

The CCP has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. Parties 

contacted include: 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer 

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana 

Quapaw Tribe 

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 

FINDINGS 

It is my determination that the CCP does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact statement is not 

required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), as addressed in 

the environmental assessment, which was Section B of the Draft CCP for Red River National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, pages 113-133) 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 113-133) 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, pages 123-133) 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 
202 Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 113-133) 

SUPPORTING REFERENCES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Red River National Wildlife Refuge, Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and 

Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region. 

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in April and May 2008. Additional copies 

are available by writing: North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 11372 Highway 143, 

Farmerville, Louisiana 71241.