DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

FRANKLIN, MADISON, AND TENSAS PARISHES, LOUISIANA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

January 2009 
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5

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

 ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 5

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6

Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 7

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 10

Oil and Gas Activities ................................................................................................................. 10

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................16

Loss of Bottomland Hardwoods and Fragmentation ......................................................... 16

Encroachment of Invasives ............................................................................................... 17

Altered Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 20

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

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

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 22

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 22

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 23

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23

Water Quality and QuanTity .............................................................................................. 23

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 26

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 26

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................34

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 49

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 49

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 50

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 50

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 61

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 63

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 63

Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 63

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 64

Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 65
ii Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 66

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 66

Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 66

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 67

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 67

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 68

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 68

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 68

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 74

Resource Protection and Management ............................................................................ 93

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 101

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 108

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 111

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 111

Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 111

Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 111

Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 113

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 114

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 114

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 114

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 115

Partnership and Volunteers Opportunities ............................................................................... 115

Volunteers ....................................................................................................................... 115

Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................... 116

Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 116

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 117

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 117

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 119

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 119

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 119

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 120

Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 120

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 120

Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 120

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 121

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 123

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 125

Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 125

Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 125

Alternative A – Current Management (No Action Alternative) ......................................... 125

Alternative B – Custodial Management........................................................................... 126

Alternative C – Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) ................................... 126
Table of Contents iii

Features Common to All Alternatives ....................................................................................... 127

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................ 140

Visitor Services Focus ..................................................................................................... 140

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 141

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 141

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 141

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 141

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 141

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 142

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................142

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 142

Refuge Revenue-sharing ................................................................................................ 143

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 143

Summary of Effects .................................................................................................................. 143

Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 143

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 144

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 144

Species of Concern ......................................................................................................... 145

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 146

Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 147

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 154

Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 154

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 154

Human Resources .......................................................................................................... 155

Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ........................................ 155

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 156

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 156

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 156

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 157

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 157

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 157

Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .......................................... 157

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 158

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 158

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 159

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 159

Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 159

Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ............................................................................... 160

Biological Review Team .................................................................................................. 160

Visitor Services Review Team ........................................................................................ 160

Other Contributors .................................................................................................................... 161
iv Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 163

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 170

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 173

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 179

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 193

Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 198

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 199

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 211

Use: Wildlife Observation And Photography ........................................................................... 213

Use: Environmental Education And Interpretation .................................................................. 214

Use: Field Trials ...................................................................................................................... 218

Use: Boating ............................................................................................................................ 221

Use: Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management ................................................................... 224

Use: Trapping .......................................................................................................................... 226

Use: All-Terrain Vehicle Use ................................................................................................... 228

Use: Cooperative Farming Program ........................................................................................ 231

Use: Research Studies............................................................................................................ 233

Use: Horse/Mule Special Use ................................................................................................. 234

Use: Fire Management ............................................................................................................ 237

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 241

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 247

Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 247

Mammals That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ................................................................ 255

Reptiles That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR .................................................................. 257

Fish That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ......................................................................... 259

Amphibians That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ............................................................. 262

Plants That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ..................................................................... 263

Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species & Natural Communities ........................................ 290

APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 293
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, Tallulah, Louisiana. ................................................. 2

Figure 2. Mineral Extraction and Activities on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................... 12

Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem ..................................................................................... 15

Figure 4. Tensas River Watershed. .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 5. Reforestation on Tensas River National Wildilfe Refuge ..................................................... 27

Figure 6. Moist-soil and wildlife cropland units on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. ................ 29

Figure 7. Current Public Use on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 54

Figure 8. Proposed Visitor Services on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ............................... 102

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Tensas River NWR Habitat Types ........................................................................................ 26

Table 2. Water Management Units at Tensas River NWR ................................................................. 30

Table 3. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Area Economy, 2005 ....................................................... 50

Table 4. Tensas River NWR: 2006 Recreation Visits ......................................................................... 55

Table 5. Tensas River NWR: Visitor Recreation Expenditures ........................................................... 56

Table 6. Tensas River NWR: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits .................. 57

Table 7. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Local Economic Effects of Recreation Visits .................... 59

Table 8. Duck-energy Days per acre of Selected Foraging Habitats .................................................. 73

Table 9. Browse Survey Results Tensas River NWR ......................................................................... 79

Table 10. Summary of Projects .......................................................................................................... 115

Table 11. Tensas River NWR Step-down Management Plans .......................................................... 116

Table 12. Comparison of Management Alternatives for Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ....... 129

Table 13. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative, Tensas River NWR ............................ 148
vi Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for 

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Tallulah, Louisiana, (Figure 1) 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. This Draft CCP/EA 

describe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ (Service) proposed plan, other alternatives considered, 

and their effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to federal and state 

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

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

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

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

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

System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is 

consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

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

management actions on and around the refuge; 

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

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and 

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

capital improvement needs. 

This Draft CCP/EA will also address the purposes for which the refuge was established; and these are: 

y Preservation and development of the environmental resource; 

y Conserve the diversity of fish and wildlife and their habitat; 

y Conservation and development of wildlife and natural resources; 

y Development of outdoor recreation opportunities; 

y Interpretive education; and 

y Conserve fish and wildlife that are listed as endangered species or threatened species. 
2 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Tensas River NWR, Tallulah, Louisiana 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Service traces its roots to 1871 and to the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved 

with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of 

Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and to 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. 

On June 30, 1940, the Bureau of Fisheries and Bureau of Biological Survey combined to create the 

Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior. The name was changed to the Bureau 

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds, endangered species, 

certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife research activities. 

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

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

lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska. 

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

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

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

administers the Endangered Species Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally 

significant fisheries; conserves and restores wildlife habitat; and helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of 

dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) 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 Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation 

for the 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 guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act 

states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 
4 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

y Fulfill requirements of CCPs that are prepared for each unit of the Refuge System; 

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

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

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

y Allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses. 

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

NWR, 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 once-abundant herds. The drought 

conditions of 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 began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, 34.8 million people visited refuges, most to observe wildlife in their natural 

habitats (Caudell and Carver 2007). Their spending generated almost $1.7 billion in sales in regional 

economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 27,000 people were employed, 

and $542.8 million in employment income was generated. About 82 percent of total expenditures are 

generated by non-consumptive activities on refuges. Fishing accounted for 12 percent and hunting 6 

percent. Local residents accounted for 13 percent of expenditures while visitors coming from outside 

the local area accounted for 87 percent (Caudell and Carver 2007). The above results include refuge 

visitation in the contiguous United States. Spending and employment by the refuges themselves, 

payments in lieu of taxes, commercial activities on refuges, and many other economic effects of 

refuges on local economies were not considered in this analysis. 

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 and that Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity 

for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs. 

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 the 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the 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. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System 

and management of the Tensas River NWR are provided in Appendix C. 

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; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation 

between Tensas River NWR and other partners. Examples of partners include the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Tensas 

River NWR Friends Association, 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 a 

use 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 mandates set forth in the 

Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

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

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

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

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

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

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

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

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

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

planning and management. 

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 Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and 

protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and 

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

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

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

judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an 
6 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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

and outside the Service. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP. 

This Draft CCP supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Partners in Flight Plan, the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, and the Northern American Waterbird 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 to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives 

include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, and the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. NAWMP’s 

goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. 

Canada and the United States signed the NAWMP in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of 

waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994 making it a truly continental effort. The NAWMP is a partnership of 

federal, provincial/state, and municipal governments; non-governmental organizations; private 

companies; and many individuals all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of 

migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. NAWMP’s 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. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) is a critical 

ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America. Tensas River NWR provides 

important foraging and resting (sanctuary) habitats within the MAV for these waterfowl and serves an 

integral role in a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort of the NAWMP. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight (PIF) Plan, 

the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based landbird conservation 

planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds, 

primarily non-game landbirds. Non-game landbirds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This PIF 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

The PIF Plan formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation Regions that set 

conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Habitats found on Tensas River 

NWR and associated bird species that are considered a priority in the MAV (BCR 05) include 

(Twedt et al., 1999): 

1. Bottomland hardwood forest: ivory-billed woodpecker, swallow-tailed kite, Swainson’s 

warbler, cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and northern parula, 

2. Secondary growth: painted bunting and Bell’s vireo, and 

3. Moist cleared land: shorebirds and waterfowl. 

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. 

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

This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall shorebird habitat as possible to meet the goal 

of 520 hectare of fall habitat in Louisiana (Helmers 1992). 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 (Wilson 2000). 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This 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 (Hunter and Golder, In prep). 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. The LDWF is charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and 

endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources and approximately 1.4 million 

acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates the state wildlife 

conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management 

areas. The state’s participation and contribution throughout this Draft CCP/EA planning process 

provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of 

fish and wildlife in the State of Louisiana. A vital part of the CCP’s process is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate. 
8 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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

The components or steps of the CWCS are: 

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. 

The CCP for Tensas River NWR was developed with the cooperation of LDWF and incorporates 

many elements of the Louisiana CWCS. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

National wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, 

birds, fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. They also play a vital role in conserving endangered 

and threatened species. Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, 

and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education programs. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

When the first European settlers arrived in the Mississippi Delta, over 25 million acres of seasonally 

flooded bottomland hardwood forests carpeted the Mississippi Valley. Now less than 5 million acres 

remain in many scattered areas. In an effort to conserve the largest privately owned tract of 

bottomland hardwoods remaining in the Mississippi Delta, Congress authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to establish the Tensas River NWR by Public Law 96-285 on June 28, 1980. Tensas River 

NWR was established for various purposes: 

“For the preservation and development of the environmental resources ... to conserve the diversity of 

fish and wildlife and their habitat ... for the conservation and development of wildlife and natural 

resources, the development of outdoor recreation opportunities, and interpretative education,” and “to 

give special consideration to management of the timber on the refuge to insure continued commercial 

production and harvest compatible with the purposes for which the refuge is established and the 

needs of fish and wildlife which depend upon the dynamic and diversified hardwood forest” (94 Stat. 

595, dated June 28, 1980); 

“For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] “for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms 

of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956)]; 

“For conservation purposes” [7 U.S.C. 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)]; 

“To conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or 

(B) plants” [16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)]. 

Tensas River NWR consists of 74,622 acres in fee title and 195 acres in easement. It is located in 

the Tensas Basin in northeast Louisiana approximately 60 miles southeast of Monroe, Louisiana, and 

25 miles southwest of Vicksburg, Mississippi. The refuge area encompasses portions of Madison, 

Tensas, and Franklin Parishes. The office/visitor center and maintenance facilities on the refuge are 

located approximately 12 miles southwest of Tallulah, Louisiana (see Figure 1). 

Most of the refuge lands were acquired from Chicago Mill and Lumber Company holdings. The main 

purchase area, locally referred to as the Singer Tract, was used as a source for the wood in old 

Singer sewing machines and framing for the cars of the 1920s and 1930s. 
10 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge was acquired through a joint effort of the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) to mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources associated with six flood control projects 

under construction or being planned in this portion of the state. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act that calls for the wildlife resource to be considered along with other values associated with water 

resource development projects recommended the mitigation lands. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Designation and management of natural areas is delegated to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of October 15, 1966. Research natural areas 

and public use natural areas are administratively designated, modified, or abrogated by the Director. As 

discussed below, there are several areas throughout the refuge totaling 9,075 acres that will be proposed 

in this Draft CCP/EA as public use natural areas. 

Public use natural areas exemplify relatively undisturbed ecosystems that are available for public use 

with certain restrictions for protecting the integrity and significance of the areas. Such an area must 

possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting an element of the natural heritage of 

the nation. Only the Refuge System fosters this designation. There are two objectives for public use 

natural areas. These are (1) to assure the preservation of a variety of significant natural areas for 

public use, which, when considered together, illustrate the diversity of the Refuge System’s natural 

environments; and (2) to preserve for the future valuable environments that are essentially 

unmodified by man. 

While the refuge promotes, where possible and compatible, public use and enjoyment of the natural 

resources available on the refuge, there are areas that are closed to the public. The Greenlea Bend 

is such an area. This area consists of agricultural fields interspersed with moist-soil areas. They are 

closed to the public in order to provide sanctuary for neotropical migratory birds, migratory waterfowl, 

deer, the threatened Louisiana black bear, and other wildlife. 

The Greenlea Bend “Closed Area” was initiated by the public when it was determined that the entire 

unit would be managed for crops and moist soil in order to provide a sanctuary for waterfowl. At the 

time, it supported large flocks of wintering waterfowl. As a waterfowl sanctuary, it performed in that 

function spectacularly. Its role as sanctuary for the other species is questionable. Since its heyday, a 

variety of factors has led to a drastic decline in waterfowl use of the refuge. One factor was a desire 

to fulfill large-scale habitat needs and reduce forest fragmentation for the benefit of forest-dependent 

neotropical songbirds. In order to reduce this fragmentation, much of the Greenlea Bend agricultural 

area was replanted with bottomland hardwoods. This reforestation program reduced the desirability 

of the habitat for many waterfowl species. 

When “Wilderness Area” or Stutz Field was an agricultural waterfowl sanctuary, it was closed to the 

public. Later, it was reforested but remained closed to public access. In 2005-06, it was opened to 

all access except waterfowl hunting and deer hunting with modern firearms. Deer hunting was 

allowed as a management tool to reduce the size of the deer herd in this area due to overbrowsing of 

the replanted trees and the excessive rubbing damage to young trees by rutting bucks. 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

Mineral rights were not actively obtained when the refuge was acquired. Since private interests hold 

most subsurface mineral rights within the refuge, mineral exploration and production activities can 

most likely occur anywhere on the refuge; however, most of the oil and gas exploration on Tensas 

River NWR occurred prior to its inception in 1980. Currently, only seven of the original 96 wells 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

drilled are in production (Figure 2). Most (82) of the wells that were drilled have been properly 

plugged and abandoned. Twenty-eight of these were productive wells that were properly dismantled 

after their oil reserves were exhausted, and 54 were dry holes (determined not productive at time of 

drilling). Four of the remaining wells are listed in the "shut-in" status. A shut-in well is not producing 

and either has mechanical problems down hole or is not economically feasible to produce 

hydrocarbons. Most of the shut-in wells on Tensas River NWR have been shut-in for many years. 

Shut-in wells can be a problem because wells that have received no attention after long periods of 

time can become potential environmental threats. Pressure can build up down hole, and if not 

released, the pressure can cause blowouts. These blowouts can have major negative environmental 

implications because hydrocarbons and highly saline water can be released into the surrounding 

environment. Two additional wells are actively used for saltwater disposal. Well #183567 formerly 

operated by D. G. Hamilton has been abandoned and is listed by the State of Louisiana as orphaned. 

An additional five wells were permitted but never drilled. 

Tensas River NWR currently has one transmission pipeline owned by Ashland Pipeline Company. 

The transmission line crosses approximately two miles of refuge land and moves products off the 

refuge. The refuge also has 12 flow lines that transport products from wells to production facilities 

across approximately ten miles of refuge land. 

As the surface owner, Tensas River NWR has the right to require any old, out-of-use equipment and 

wells that are not in production to be removed so that sites can be returned to wildlife habitat and the 

threat of environmental contamination minimized. 

 

Tensas River NWR requires all spills of any quantity be reported to the refuge, so proper cleanup can 

be accomplished. It is imperative that documentation of any release onto refuge property be 

maintained in case it is relevant in the future. In some cases, once a mineral lessee is aware of a 

landowner's concerns, problems will be addressed. In other cases, it may take persistence and 

perseverance to have the refuge's surface returned to use as habitat. Good communication with the 

mineral lessee is the key to working toward site restoration. 

There have been some recent requests to perform exploratory drilling on the refuge. Natural gas 

exploration and production activities involve a number of operations, including, but not restricted to, 

seismic testing; surveying; site clearing; well drilling; road and pipeline construction; maintenance of 

wells, pipelines, and other above-ground facilities; periodic meter reading and inspections; and wellplugging operations. Any drilling activity will require refuge approval as will any extraction processes 

that require surface alteration such as pipelines. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

The refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the MAV (Figure 3). The MAV consists of 

approximately 25 million acres of alluvial floodplain south of the Mississippi River’s confluence with the 

Ohio River. Prior to European settlement, this was the greatest bottomland hardwood forest on Earth and 

was subject to massive annual flood events from the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These forested 

wetlands were the main wintering area for mid-continent mallards, wood ducks, and other waterfowl 

species. Flood control and deforestation for agriculture began more than 100 years ago. Today, less 

than 25 percent of the region remains forested, and flooding has been reduced by about 90 percent. 

Despite these changes, the region still winters large numbers of waterfowl, estimated at about nine 

percent of the continental duck population. 
12 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 2. Mineral extraction and activities on Tensas River NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

The Tensas River NWR is a part of a larger system of national wildlife refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper 

Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, and Handy Brake) and state wildlife management areas in north 

Louisiana that are focused on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwoods. 

Together with a number of properties under easement/contract through the Wetland Reserve 

Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other reforestation activities, the refuge is part of a 

125,000-acre block of bottomland hardwood forest. There are only five or six other forest blocks 

exceeding 100,000 acres in the MAV, which makes this an important and unique area, particularly for 

forest breeding birds and other species requiring large forest blocks to meet their habitat needs. 

Along with the national conservation plans noted in Chapter I above, Tensas River NWR has the 

opportunity to contribute to several regional plans. Some regional plans include the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan, the 

Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan, the American Woodcock Management Plan, the Northern 

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, and the Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

These ecosystem-wide efforts guide Service and state efforts in such areas as wetland forest 

management, endangered species management, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation in 

order to enhance, restore, and conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types 

associated with bottomland hardwoods. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) Plan. The LMRE includes the alluvial plain in 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. The 

drainage basin and tributaries of the Tensas River, which include Tensas River NWR, are a part of 

the West Gulf Coastal Plain upland section of the LMRE. The LMRE serves as a primary wintering 

habitat for mid-continent 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 flood control projects and to conversion to agriculture. 

Each unit, including the LMRE, is represented by an ecosystem team, which has developed its own 

biologically based strategy. The ecosystem team for this unit consists of representatives from all of 

the Service's field units (national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, law enforcement, 

Ecological Services offices, and Fishery Resources offices). The team developed eight goals that 

this Draft CCP/EA will consider and promote when establishing refuge goals and objectives to ensure 

that the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem conservation and integrity. These goals are: 

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

LMRE; 

y Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE; 

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

and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE; 

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

with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE; 

y Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries; 

y Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management; 

y Enforce natural resource laws; and 

y Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE. 
14 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird 

Conservation Plan is a subset of the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Because this 

physiographic area was historically a nearly contiguous bottomland hardwood forest and because the 

majority of the bird species of highest concern are dependent on forested wetlands, bottomland 

hardwood forest is the habitat of greatest concern in the MAV. One of the goals of this plan is to 

increase the size of contiguous blocks of bottomland hardwood forest in order to improve the 

breeding success of many wetland forest dependent species of concern. 

Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The Louisiana black bear is a “listed” species considered 

“Threatened” in its range. Recovery plans are prepared by the Service to delineate reasonable 

actions that are believed to aid in efforts to recover and/or protect listed species. The objective of the 

Service’s recovery plan is the delisting of the Louisiana black bear. The criteria for achieving delisting 

are: (1) at least two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins; (2) 

establishment of immigration and emigration corridors between the two subpopulations; and, (3) 

protection of the habitat and interconnecting cooridors that support each of the two viable 

subpopulations used as justification for delisting. The Tensas River NWR bear population is vital to 

this species recovery. 

Black Bear Conservation Committee Restoration Plan. This plan is used in conjunction with the 

Service’s Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The goal of this plan is to restore the Louisiana black 

bear to suitable habitat within its historical range. The priorities of this plan are to put the resource 

first, to find common ground for building coalitions while avoiding confrontations, to replace emotion 

with credible science, and to have a strong commitment to black bear restoration and management. 

American Woodcock Management Plan. Woodcock trends in the United States have been 

declining annually for the last 15 years in spite of 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 (USFWS 1990). 

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

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

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. The initiative’s goal is to restore northern bobwhite 

populations, range-wide, to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres 

in 1980. The 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 two special objectives, which the refuge will consider during the 

development of this Draft CCP/EA: 

y 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 and other conservation plantings, such as shrubs and forbs; and 

y 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

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

Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. This program will 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 Tensas River 

NWR an important part of actions to be taken in Tensas River Watershed ecoregion. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

In order to prepare a CCP that will establish goals and objectives on how to manage this refuge 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. That review developed the following list of concerns: 

y Loss of bottomland hardwoods and fragmentation; 

y Encroachment of invasives; and 

y Altered hydrology. 

LOSS OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS AND FRAGMENTATION 

The entire 25-million-acre MAV was once a floodplain forest of primarily oak-gum-cypress cover 

types. It has been estimated that 20 million acres of these bottomland hardwood forests have now 

been lost, and the remaining forests are in thousands of fragments throughout a changed landscape. 

The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for agricultural and 

flood control purposes. 

Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a 

tremendous effect on biological diversity and integrity and the environmental health of the MAV. Vast 

areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments ranging in size from 

very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained many of the 

original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest 

fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches. Species endemic to 

the MAV that have become extinct, threatened, or endangered include the red wolf, Florida panther, 

ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, and Louisiana black bear. 

This unique, though highly fragmented, ecosystem is important to hundreds of wildlife species and 

native plant communities. Bottomland hardwoods and associated wetlands support substantial 

wintering populations of a number of waterfowl species and are a primary migration corridor for 

significant numbers of dabbling ducks. Bottomland hardwoods are also a high priority for nesting 

habitat for neotropical migratory birds, breeding habitat for area-sensitive birds (dependent on large 

contiguous blocks of hardwood forest), and necessary habitat for spring migratory birds upon 

completion of their Gulf of Mexico crossing. 

Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian 

species most adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive; those 

that depend on forest interiors; those that have special habitat requirements, such as mature forests 

or a particular food source; and those that require good water quality. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Due to fragmentation, the forest edge and the brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird common in 

agricultural areas) are now closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds. 

The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds rather than 

building a nest of its own. Because the cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive, nestling 

cowbirds often out-compete host species nestlings. This results in poor reproductive success and 

declining populations of forest interior nesting species. Increasing the size of contiguous forest core 

areas is an important goal in supporting the breeding success of forest interior nesting species. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forest tracts 

surrounded by agricultural lands – such is the case with the Tensas River NWR. Intensive agriculture 

has removed most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. 

The loss of connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife 

between tracts and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. These lost 

connections also result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and 

reestablishing travel corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as the 

threatened Louisiana black bear. 

ENCROACHMENT OF INVASIVES 

Non-native or invasive plants can alter the function of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat, 

displacing native species, and changing carrying capacity by reducing native forage production, 

lowering plant diversity, and increasing soil erosion and soil sedimentation. 

Two specific invasive and nuisance plant species are of concern in varying degrees throughout the 

refuge because of their potential negative impacts to resource management: 

 Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) and 

 Trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliate). 

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 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 horticulturalists, 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 non-native 

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. Chinese 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. It can also be potentially 

harmful to animals and humans, because its berries and plant sap contain toxins. 

Trifoliate orange: This hardy invasive shrub also comes from China. It is a popular ornamental 

because of the colorful flowers and small bitter fruit. It is becoming a problem in many parts of the 

refuge were it out-competes with native species that are more beneficial to wildlife. It spreads easily 

and develops into thick masses of plants. Like Chinese tallow, this tree exhibits the classic traits of 
18 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

most non-native 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. 

Along with the two specific invasive species noted above, there is another refuge concern regarding a 

number of invasive aquatic species. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and 

reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for 

the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the 

introduction of invasive (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening 

the viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic 

vegetation important to aquatic systems and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents 

recreational use. 

There are two invasive and nuisance wildlife species that are of concern in varying degrees 

throughout the refuge because of their potential negative impacts to resource management: 

y Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) and 

y Beaver (Castor canadensis). 

Feral Hogs: Many believe the first introduction of feral hogs was by Spaniards in the southeast 

United States in the early 16th century (Nowak 1991). Others suggest Christopher Columbus 

released eight animals in the West Indies. Hernando de Soto later released progeny of these into 

Florida in 1539 (Towne and Wentworth 1950). Regardless of when and who introduced feral hogs 

into the United States, their distribution has expanded to include 23 states. Mackey (1992) 

suggested a minimum population estimate of 2 million animals in 1992. In addition to range 

expansion by feral hogs from early introductions, Louisiana was one of many states that allowed 

livestock free-range practices. We can safely assume that many of Louisiana’s feral hogs are 

descendants of free-range animals. 

Feral hogs have been implicated in damaging a wide variety of natural resources and private 

property. Feral hogs’ damage to sensitive plant communities, wildlife, water quality, livestock 

predation, forestry, spread of disease, agricultural crops, Louisiana black bear, and competition for 

available food with other native wildlife species is well documented (Miller 1993). 

Although Tensas River NWR currently does not have a damage problem due to feral hogs, it would 

benefit the refuge to have a management plan available to eliminate or reduce damage as it occurs. 

Feral hogs have expanded their range to include several other refuges, management areas, forests, 

and private lands in Louisiana. It is a reasonable assumption that the refuge will experience 

problems in the near future, and if not properly managed, this invasive species has the potential of 

causing extensive damage to native wildlife, habitat, and agricultural resources. 

There are both positive and negative aspects to this feral hog population. 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 considered more of an added selling feature than a problem. 

However, it may be shortsighted to consider only the positive aspects of this multi-faceted animal. 

There are numerous reports of severe problems with feral hog activities occurring in parks, 

recreational areas, national seashores, refuges, wildlife management areas, and forest districts 

across the United States. 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 a number of areas 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

y Feral hog populations cause damage to field crops. The varieties 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 (i.e., 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. 

y Feral hog populations compete with resident deer, Louisiana black bear, 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. Oak mast is also an important 

food source for deer and turkey. When feral hogs actively compete for mast food, resident 

deer and turkey may enter the winter with deficient fat reserves. 

y 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, other animals may avoid a wallowed-out watering hole. However, during 

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

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

through both direct contact and by contaminating drinking water. 

y 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, prolific, destructive, and widely spread throughout the area to be ignored. This 

introduced animal must be recognized as an invasive species that requires proper management to 

ensure the well-being of native plants and wildlife species on the refuge. 

Beavers: As long as beavers occur where there is no negative impact on a significant cultural, natural 

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

beavers just as it would any other natural resource, according to Refuge System policies and regulations. 

However, beaver numbers need to be kept in check through active refuge management. 

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 (Novak 1987): 

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

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

y Flooding that damages economically valuable habitat or protected (threatened or endangered) 

plants; 

y Damming of drainage structures such as culverts, bridges, spillways, and ditches that protect 

facilities and developments; 

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

y Tree cutting near roads, parking lots, or other facilities that damage or threaten property, or 

creates a safety hazard. 
20 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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 the natural drainage system of the 

Tensas Basin with its numerous tributaries. Hundreds of drainage structures must be maintained to 

preserve cultural features, to protect facilities, and to provide safe transportation for the public. At the 

same time, natural features and processes and the benefits accruing to the refuge from increased 

beaver activity must be conserved and protected. Balancing these complicated and sometimes 

competing concerns will be a difficult but necessary task for refuge management. 

ALTERED HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast amounts of bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, there have been 

significant alterations in the regions hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, 

flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation as well as degradation to aquatic systems from 

excessive sedimentation and contaminants (Figure 4). 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands 

and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on 

topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to 

forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Manga and Kirchner 2000). 

Tensas River NWR was subject to the annual overflow of the Mississippi River and its tributaries prior 

to the construction of levees after the flood of 1927. That portion of the Tensas River that passes 

through the refuge was cleared and snagged as part of a Corps project in the mid-1900s. While it is 

heavily contaminated by agricultural wastes in the form of silt and pesticides, this portion of the 

Tensas River has never been straightened or channelized. These large scale, man-made 

hydrological alterations have changed the natural spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout 

the entire MAV. In addition, these alterations have reduced both the extent and the duration of 

annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on 

the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. 

In view of the hydrologic changes, it is difficult to fully emulate and reconstruct the structure and 

functions of a natural forested wetland in the MAV. Restoration of wetland functions is especially 

difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, 

vegetation, and animal complexes and processes (Gregory et al., 2003). 

Another outcome of the above-cited hydrologic alteration is the siltation of aquatic ecosystems. 

Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of 

deforestation and hydrologic alteration. The clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies 

are now filled with sediments, which greatly reduce their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the 

non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining 

aquatic resources. 

Hydrologic alterations have also basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created 

oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and 

restoration of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations 

associated with flood control and waterborne navigation. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Figure 4. Tensas River watershed 
22 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Northeast Louisiana is in a subtropical, transitional climatic region that is affected alternately by cold, 

dry air flowing southward and by warm, moist air flowing northward. Changes in direction of flow 

frequently bring significant, and sometimes abrupt, weather changes. Temperatures recorded at 

Tallulah, Louisiana, show extremes of -12°F to 113 °F. The average annual temperature is around 

65 °F. Annual mean humidity is about 72 percent. 

Wind speed is usually less than 10 miles per hour, but gusts may exceed 40 miles per hour during 

thunderstorms. 

Precipitation occurs on average about two days out of seven on an annual basis. Annual 

precipitation averages about 51 inches of rain per year. Snowfall is relatively rare but may 

occasionally occur and accumulate several inches. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

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

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

system, corresponding to the modern Mississippi River, has persisted here at least since the Gulf of 

Mexico began to form (Saucier 1994). 

The Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago, began with a warming trend 

where the sea covered almost the entire Tensas River basin. In the early Eocene epoch, which 

began about 54 million years ago, the land began to build up again as the continental ice sheets 

advanced. However, this trend was reversed during the late Eocene when a second advancement of 

the sea occurred. With the sea as far inland as Tensas Parish, the last cycle began in the early 

Oligocene Epoch (38 to 23 million years ago). In Miocene time (23 to 5 million years ago), the sea 

level dropped and sedimentation began to extend the land toward the Gulf of Mexico. 

The topography of this refuge generally varies from 75 feet to 55 feet above mean sea level. The 

greatest variation in elevation occurs along the Tensas River where the elevation can range from a 

high of 75 feet at the top bank to a low of 55 feet in the associated depressional slough. The Tensas 

River gradients range from 0.7 foot/mile in the north to 0.2 foot/mile near the mouth. The alluvial 

flood plain of the Tensas River Basin forms the backdrop for all the physical and biological processes 

that shape the watershed (Figure 4). Topography of the area is typical of the MAV, with channel 

meanders and natural levees, lakes, swamps, and bayous providing slight local relief. These 

landforms create a diverse physical and ecological region. 

SOILS 

Most of the soils in the area are clayey in nature and are poorly drained; however, these soils are 

high in natural fertility and are well-suited to row crops, pasture, and hardwood forests. The soil, 

primarily Sharkey and Tensas-Sharkey associations, shrinks and cracks severely when dry and 

swells when rewetted. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

HYDROLOGY 

The dynamic and changing character of the Mississippi River dictated much of the hydrologic 

character of the Tensas River Basin (Figure 4). The youngest pre-modern course of the Mississippi 

River can be traced along the Tensas River southward to Black River. Tensas River and Black River 

unite and drain southeastward through a crevasse channel. However, backwater areas adjacent to 

the rivers will tend to flow north. The Red River enters this meander belt and continues to the 

Atchafalaya River, which is a major distributary of the Mississippi River. 

The Tensas River Basin is unique in that natural levees along the riparian zone lie in the highest 

ground in the Basin. This causes drainage water to run parallel to streams for many miles or into 

backwaters before actually entering the stream and river water channels. Wetlands and back 

swamps then become the vegetation filtering areas for pollutants and nutrients. Bayous, channels, 

streams, and rivers direct the flow of water across the landscape and are dominant features in the 

Tensas River Basin (Townsley 1996). 

The refuge contains several lakes, bayous, and intermittent streams and is seasonally flooded over a 

considerable acreage by rainfall and overflow. The smallest lake is less than an acre, and the largest 

lake is approximately 200 acres. Water levels fluctuate annually with high water generally occurring 

in the spring and winter. Low water generally occurs during summer and fall. Much of the refuge is 

shallowly inundated during the wet season, particularly after extended heavy rains. A water control 

structure formerly used to impound water in the Judd Brake Unit of the refuge is now inoperable and 

the dam is cut down to a very low level. 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality receives protection under several provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and the Prevention ofOf Significant Deterioration Program. Particulate 

matter, including dust, is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that can be breathed into 

the lungs. In areas of the refuge, dust associated with dirt from roadways, fields, construction sites, 

paper industry, utilities, and other combustion sources as well as soot from open burning may all 

contribute to particulate matter. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set standards for particulate matter along with 

other possible air contaminants such as ozone. Louisiana has built upon these federal air quality 

standards and now has ambient air quality standards that are more stringent and comprehensive 

than 47 other states. Air quality in Louisiana has improved over the last 20 years. The state 

maintains a statewide air-monitoring network to determine if an area’s ambient air quality is within 

criteria pollutant standards (i.e., in attainment) or if it exceeds any of the state’s standards (i.e., in 

non-attainment). There was only one 5-parish non-attainment area in 2004 as opposed to 20 in 

1984. The parishes encompassing the Tensas River NWR (Franklin, Madison, and Tensas) have 

always achieved attainment. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

The Tensas River has an approximate drainage area of 309 mi2

 at the USGS gauging station near 

Tendal, Louisiana. The river can vary substantially in discharge with monthly averages ranging from 

10 to over 2000 ft3

/s. Average monthly flows tend to be at its lowest in August and September with 

higher flows occurring during the winter months. 
24 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The Tensas River Basin is a target watershed of several EPA environmental studies including the 

Nonpoint Source Management Program, EPA Region 6, and Gulf of Mexico Program. The Nonpoint 

Source Management Program has identified the Tensas River Basin as an impaired watershed due to 

nutrient loading from agricultural practices. Due to the unique hydrology of the basin described above, the 

wetlands and backswamps have become the vegetation filtering areas for pollutants and nutrients. 

The Tensas River is thought to be one of several remnant channels of the Mississippi River (Saucier 

1994). This theory is supported by the fact that the meander belt width is much larger than would be 

expected for a river with its current discharge. The decreased discharge associated with the changed 

course of the Mississippi River suggests that the Tensas River has been slowly aggrading over time. 

Whether the stream had reached stable dimensions prior to deforestation in the region is not known and 

is beyond the scope of this document, but the fact that smaller meanders have not yet developed suggest 

that some natural aggradations may still be occurring. This is further supported by the lack of symptoms 

associated with normal channel migration or degradation including mass wasting or hydraulic erosion of 

stream banks, exposed fine roots of trees, and development of mid-channel bars. 

The aquatic habitats of the Tensas River Basin have been heavily impacted by sediment and 

agrochemical runoff due to intense drainage, extensive clearing of bottomland hardwoods, and 

agricultural production. Contaminant surveys in the Tensas River Basin have documented elevated 

levels of organochlorine pesticides, particularly DDT and toxaphene, in fishes and sediments. Those 

pesticides were used in soybean and cotton farming throughout the basin from the 1940s to the 

1970s. DDT and toxaphene have been consistently present in fishes collected from main stem and 

backwater areas, including the Tensas River NWR. 

Despite its ban in 1973, levels of DDT and its derivatives in the Tensas River Basin have not 

decreased in the time frame they have been studied. Exposure to contaminated sediment from 

continual inputs of contaminated soil and point source discharges are likely a major factor 

contributing to elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides in the fishes of the Tensas River. By 

contrast, fishes in the lakes on and adjacent to the refuge that are only periodically exposed to 

Tensas River overflow exhibit consistently lower levels of organochlorine residues in their tissues 

than those found in fishes that inhabit the main stem (Schultz 1991). 

Ware and Roan (1970), Parr and Smith (1976), and Gambrell and Patrick (1985) indicated that 

anaerobic bacteria could degrade significant amounts of DDT and toxaphene in wet soils and 

sediments by means of reductive dechlorination. This is believed to occur in the Tensas River, 

as evidenced by equal average amounts of products resulting from the degradation of DDT 

(Landry and Killebrew 1983). 

Edwards (1966) suggested that the average time for concentrations of DDT to be reduced by 95 

percent was 10 years. Beyer and Krynitsky (1989) found that, after treating experimental plots 

with DDT, DDE levels increased until the third year and then decreased with a calculated half-life 

of 5.7 years. Gambrell and Patrick (1985) suggested that levels of DDT and its derivatives in 

agricultural soils of the Lake Providence watershed should decline to about 30 to 40 percent of 

then current levels within ten years. If the degradation occurred at the suggested rates and no 

further contamination is entered the system, fish tissue levels should have been well below those 

found in later studies. However, levels found in fish did not decline significantly during the 19-

year period fish were studied after DDT was banned in1973, which is probably due to further 

inputs from contaminated soils. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

DDT possesses known carcinogenic, teratogenic, xenotoxic, and mutagenic properties, and is very 

persistent in the environment (McCabe and Sandretto 1985). DDT acts as a synthetic estrogen by 

binding to and activating estrogen receptors (McLachlan et al., 1992; Colburn and Clement 1992). 

Pesticides that function as endocrine system disrupters, such as DDT and toxaphene, cause thyroid 

dysfunction in birds and fishes; reduced fertility in vertebrates; decreased hatching and birth defects 

in turtles, birds, and mammals; metabolic abnormalities and male emasculation/feminization in fishes, 

birds, and mammals; and defeminization/masculinization in female fishes and birds (Colburn and 

Cement 1992). 

A potential point source that may be contributing to the elevated levels of toxaphene and DDT in the 

Tensas River is the East Carroll Parish Prison Farm, located adjacent to the headwaters of the 

Tensas River. Beginning in July 1984, highly contaminated soils (ranging up to 3,930 ppm toxaphene 

and 4,560 ppm DDT) were excavated from Byerley Airport and the adjacent recreation area and 

hauled to the East Carroll Prison Farm (Gambrell and Patrick, 1985). On the prison farm, the 

contaminated soils were disked three times to a depth of 20 cm. Anecdotal information indicates that 

the area south of the East Carroll Prison Farm was used as a solid waste landfill for disposal of 

empty/used agricultural pesticide containers. 

Of pesticides currently permitted, atrazine may be the most widely used herbicide in corn and 

sorghum production. Atrazine has recently been recognized as causing deformities in amphibians. 

The use of atrazine is widespread within the drainage area of Tensas River NWR. The refuge should 

monitor its levels in the watershed and its impacts to the environment. 

The pesticide naled is used extensively to control mosquitoes suspected of transmitting the West Nile 

virus. Naled is toxic to aquatic life and is suspected to be harmful to birds. Little is known about this 

pesticide, and tests for its harmful effects are technically complex and expensive. Since West Nile 

virus is not just limited to birds and horses, but now includes humans, naled and possibly other 

pesticides may be brought into use in the interest of human health and at the cost of ecological 

impacts under the rules of the current public health emergency. 

Mercury is a common topic in fish contamination. Long-lived piscivorous fishes are typically the 

targets of concern. Fish cannot purge their body burdens of mercury like birds and mammals, so they 

bioaccumulate the mercury in their organs and flesh, especially the fillets (muscle tissue) typically 

consumed by man. Most mercury contamination is from atmospheric depositions. Some depositions 

are naturally occurring, and some are from man-caused sources like coal burning power plants and 

incinerators. Mercury is also associated with meters used to monitor gas production prior to the 

1970s. Often the mercury was handled carelessly, and significant amounts could be found in the soil 

below the meters. Reportedly, wells on Tensas River NWR were primarily oil wells, not gas wells, 

and did not use these types of meters. However, contamination from off-refuge sites is possible. 

Runoff from upstream landowners not only contains contaminates but also contributes to siltation of 

the Tensas River, its tributaries, and other bodies of water. Implementation of agricultural best 

management practices and precision farming techniques in the Tensas River Basin could help reduce 

siltation as well as nutrient and pesticide loading. Surrounding upstream landowners and farmers 

should be encouraged to use filter strips to limit agricultural runoff. The recent reforestation efforts, 

both on and off the refuge, will help improve water quality, especially in tributaries like Lick Bayou, but 

cooperation from upstream farms and landowners will be essential if the Tensas River is to one day 

run clear again. 
26 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Tensas River NWR currently provides a mix of various habitat types including bottomland hardwood 

forests, hardwood reforestation areas, open field-moist-soil areas, and open field-cropland (Table 1). 

Table 1. Tensas River NWR habitat types 

 

Habitat Type Coverage (acres)* 

Established Bottomland Hardwood Forest 58,855 

Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation areas 11,000 

Open Field – Cropland 475 

Open Field – Moist-Soil areas 907 

Open Water Wetlands 500 

Roads 145 

* Approximate acreages depicted. Additional surveys needed for exact amounts. 

Bottomland Hardwood Forests

There are approximately 11,000 acres of forest less than 30 years old (Figure 5), 6,000 acres of 30-

60-year old timber, and 53,000 acres of 60-plus-year old timber. Eighty percent (56,000 acres) of the 

refuge is composed of the sweetgum/willow oak/Nuttall oak forest type, 20 percent 

sugarberry/American elm/green ash (12,600 acres), and minor amounts of overcup oak/bitter pecan 

and cypress brake timber types. The majority of the refuge is in a closed-canopy condition. 

The bottomland hardwood forests here can be classified into three primary habitat types: 

1. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) - Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 

2. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) - American Elm (Ulmus Americana) - Green Ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica) 

3. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) - Water Hickory (Carya aquatica) 

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 bald cypress. 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 are greenbrier, peppervine, and redvine. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 5. Reforestation on Tensas River NWR 
28 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Forest openings within the above forest types provide early successional and forest-edge habitat for 

wildlife ranging from the Louisiana black bear to the indigo bunting. Such habitat is utilized for 

foraging, nesting, escape, and various other wildlife requirements. Currently about 4 percent of the 

refuge’s forested areas can be described as open. Road rights-of-way and administrative areas 

presently account for the majority of these openings with the remainder generally being abandoned 

oil well sites or logging landings averaging 1.5 acres in size. 

Sugarberry – American Elm – Green Ash: The type species sugarberry, American elm, and green 

ash together constitute a plurality of the stocking. Hackberry replaces sugarberry in the northern part 

of the range. Major associates include water hickory; Nuttall, willlow, water, and overcup oaks; 

sweetgum; and boxelder. Other associated species are cedar and winged elm, blackgum, 

persimmon, honeylocust, waterlocust, red and silver maple, American sycamore, and eastern 

cottonwood. The type is found throughout the southern forests from east Texas to the Atlantic, from 

the Gulf Coast to southern Illinois. It is found within the floodplains of the major rivers. The type is 

usually located in transitional areas between the sweetgum-willow oak type, which occupies higher 

elevations, and the overcup oak--water hickory type, which occurs at the lower elevations. It 

occupies low ridges, flats, and sloughs in first bottoms; terrace flats and sloughs; and occasionally 

new lands or fronts. Rarely does it occur on maltreated terrace ridges. It may be found on clay or silt 

loam soils, and it tends to be long term in the successional scale. The type species are all shade 

tolerant when small and reproduce readily. All three, but especially green ash, sprout prolifically. 

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 possibly greenbier (Smilax spp.). Panicum (Panicum spp.), asters, 

annual grasses, and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) may occur in openings within the stand. 

Open Fields (Cropland and Moist-Soil Management Areas) 

At one time, the refuge was cooperatively farming over 1,000 acres, leaving about 25 percent of the crop 

in the field for wildlife, mostly waterfowl, and actively managing about 1,100 acres of moist-soil units 

(Figure 6; Table 2). Peak waterfowl populations reportedly reached 250,000 ducks and commonly 

exceeded 100,000 ducks (excluding wood ducks) and 10-15,000 geese. In recent years waterfowl 

populations have peaked at about 10,000 ducks (excluding wood ducks) and very few geese. 

The refuge contains two farming units – Greenlea Bend and McLemore’s. Greenlea Bend is located 

in the northern part of Judd Brake Unit of the refuge and McLemore’s is located in the southern part 

of Fool River Unit. The original total farmable acreage for both areas was much greater than they are 

today. The farmable acres for both units have been drastically reduced by a combination of 

reforestation and/or the creation of moist-soil areas. 

Both units were farmed intensively prior to purchase of the refuge. Either cotton or corn was 

grown on the ridge areas with soybeans being grown in the lower, more marginal areas. 

Drainage ditches were dug throughout both units with little or no soil conservation practices in 

place. Immediately following fall harvest, the ground was disked and prepared for spring 

planting. No winter cover crops were planted. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Figure 6. Moist-soil and wildlife cropland units on Tensas River NWR 
30 Tensas River Na

Table 2. Water management units at Tensas River NWR 

Common 

Name 

Water 

Containment Habitat Type Cover Type Acres Hectares Year Created 

Chapman #1 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 96.2 38.9 1991 Chapman #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 22.5 9.1 1992 Ezell #1 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 19.7 8.0 1988 Ezell #2 & #3 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 39.1 15.8 1988 Ezell #4 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 30.0 12.1 1988 Ezell #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 11.1 4.5 1988 Greenlea #1 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 27.2 11.0 1985 Greenlea #2 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 15.6 6.3 1985 Greenlea #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 92.1 37.3 1986 Greenlea #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 17.9 7.2 1988 Greenlea #7 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 16.8 6.8 1986 Greenlea #8 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 25.5 10.3 1984 Greenlea #9 Complete Open Aquatic Open Aquatic 70.4 28.5 1987 Greenlea #10 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 96.5 39.0 1987 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Common 

Name 

Water 

Containment Habitat Type Cover Type Acres Hectares Year Created 

Greenlea #11 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 16.4 6.6 1986 Greenlea #12 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 48.7 19.7 1984 Greenlea #13 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.3 5.0 1984 Greenlea #14 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 8.2 3.3 1986 Greenlea #16 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.0 4.9 1985 Greenlea #18 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 27.4 11.1 1985 Greenlea #19 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 7.9 3.2 1985 McLemore 2 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.2 4.9 1999 McLemore 3 Partial Cropland Corn 18.2 7.4 1999 Stutz #1 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 82.1 33.2 1986 Stutz #2 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 48.4 19.6 1986 Stutz # 3 Partial Moist-soil Moist-soil 52.7 21.3 1986 Stutz #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 39.9 16.2 1986 Stutz #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 26.7 10.8 1986 Total 993.6 
32 Tensas River Na

Forested UnitsChapman #2 Partial Woody Vegetation Reforested 34.9 14.1 1992 Chapman #3 Partial Woody Vegetation Reforested 23.3 9.4 1992 Greenlea #15 Partial Woody Vegetation Reforested 62.3 25.2 1985 Greenlea #17 Complete Woody Vegetation Hardwoods 17.6 7.1 1985 McLemore 1 Partial Woody Vegetation Reforested 6.0 2.4 1999 Geenlea #20 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 17.0 6.9 1995 Greenlea #3 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 11.6 4.7 1985 Total 172.6 Partial Units Ezell #6 Partial Woody Vegetation Reforested 19.1 7.8 1988 Greenlea #6 Complete Woody Vegetation Forested Swamp 71.1 28.8 1986 Total 90.3 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Currently, both fields are actively managed to provide a diversity of habitat, primarily for waterfowl, 

through a combination of grain crops and moist-soil management areas. The ridge and swale 

topography of the farmed areas lends itself to moist-soil management, and a number of water control 

structures are now in place to take advantage of this fact. 

Open Water Wetlands 

The backwater sloughs, lakes, and bayous of the refuge provide habitat for a great diversity of 

aquatic life including fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mollusks. Although water quality is the Tensas 

River has been degraded be agricultural drainage, the meandering character of the river has been 

preserved. The Tensas River is the only major stream in the Louisiana Delta that has not been 

extensively altered by channelization. It meanders snake-like throughout much of its watershed with 

river bends almost coming together in places. Some of the tributary streams have been ditched in 

sections to provide drainage for agricultural areas. 

The ridge and swale topographies of the Greenlea, Wilderness (aka Stuttz), Ezell, and Chapman 

areas lend themselves to moist-soil management. Water control structures on these areas of the 

flashboard riser type allow independent water control of each of the above-cited units. Water 

management on these moist-soil units allows for good production of preferred waterfowl foods. The 

units are disked on a rotational basis to control Sesbania and promote beneficial wetland plants. 

Flooding of a portion of the moist-soil units in the summer assists shorebird migration. Several moist 

areas in each unit are provided water throughout the summer to provide habitat for shorebirds and 

marsh and wading birds as well as wood duck broods. 

Invasives and Pest Control 

Until recently, invasive plants have not been a large problem on the refuge. As a routine part of 

general forest management practices, foresters eliminated scattered clumps of such invasives as 

Chinese privet, mimosa, and tree-of-heaven. Two species that are beginning to move into the area 

are on the radar as potentially becoming a refuge problem: Chinese tallow and trifoliate orange. Both 

species are rapidly increasing and unless controlled may pose a threat to wetland and upland 

habitats. These species can cause large-scale ecosystem disruption by replacing native vegetation. 

This reduces native species diversity, which in turn has a negative impact on wildlife. They can 

quickly become the dominant plant in disturbed areas and invade bottomland forests. 

Fire Regime 

Fire is a natural phenomenon that has played a critical role in the ecosystem dynamics of the natural 

communities within North Louisiana. Before wildfire suppression strategies were implemented, 

naturally caused and anthropogenic fires likely burned thousands of acres of mostly upland habitat in 

northern Louisiana each year. Low intensity fires occurred on average in 3- to 5-year intervals. 

With differences in elevation and moisture gradients, these frequent fires maintained a mosaic of 

vigorous and diverse plant communities in various stages of post-fire succession and provided a wide 

variety of habitat types and conditions for wildlife. 

Higher elevations of the bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge have experienced some lowintensity fire events during extended drought conditions. These occurrences were probably rare and 

played little, if any, long-term role in affecting plant species composition. In general, fire is viewed as 

detrimental to hardwood forest communities. 
34 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Special Designation Areas 

The Greenlea Bend and Wilderness Field areas are closed to the public. This area consists of 

agricultural fields interspersed with moist-soil areas. It provides a sanctuary for neotropical migratory 

birds, migratory waterfowl, deer, the threatened Louisiana black bear, and other wildlife. 

WILDLIFE 

Species of Special Concern 

Extinct or endangered species formerly of the area include the red wolf, Florida panther, and ivorybilled woodpecker. Prior to recent reported sightings in Arkansas, the last confirmed sightings of the 

ivory-billed woodpecker were in forests now included in Tensas River NWR and is the area where the 

noted biologist James T. Tanner studied and wrote accounts of the species. Panthers are 

occasionally reported, but their existence has not been verified. The Louisiana black bear, which was 

listed as a threatened species on January 7, 1992, ranges throughout Tensas River NWR. The 

Bachman warbler may be a rare transient or possibly uses the refuge during its breeding season. 

Other species of concern that may occur on the refuge are the alligator snapping turtle, the Ouachita 

map turtle, and two species of bats (Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern myotis), and, as a 

group, freshwater mussels. 

Bald eagle: The bald eagle has officially been removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered 

Species as of August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. Bald 

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. Bald 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 at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. 

Louisiana black bear: 

Life History 

The Louisiana black bear is one of 16 subspecies of the American black bear. The black bear is a 

large, bulky mammal with long black hair and a short, well-haired tail. The facial profile is blunt, the 

eyes are small, and the nose pad is broad with large nostrils. The muzzle is yellowish brown with a 

white patch sometimes present on the lower throat and chest. Although weight varies considerably 

throughout their range, adult males generally weigh from 300-500 pounds and adult females 

generally weigh from 150-300 pounds. 

Human encroachment on bear range, dwindling bottomland hardwood habitat, and the lack of 

available biological information for bear management were factors that prompted a petition to list the 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as an endangered subspecies. Bears once 

occurred throughout southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and eastern Texas. Habitat modification, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

particularly clearing for agriculture, has fragmented and reduced suitable habitat by more than 80 

percent in the MAV. The Service initiated a research project in late November 1987 to determine the 

status of the black bear in the Tensas River Basin. This information contributed to the Louisiana 

black bear being listed as threatened in 1992. 

The Louisiana black bear was listed as threatened in the Federal Register on January 7, 1992 (57 FR 

568), due to the reduction in population size resulting from extensive habitat loss (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). Simultaneously, other free-living black bears within the historic range of the 

Louisiana black bear were listed as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to the Louisiana 

black bear. The Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear on 

December 2, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 63560); however, on May 6, 2008, the Service withdrew 

its 1993 critical habitat proposal and published a new proposal in the Federal Register, which is 

currently in the review process. Proposed critical habitat included forested habitat within the Tensas 

River Basin, the Atchafalaya River Basin, and the Lower Iberia-St. Mary Parish area. 

Though classified as a carnivore by taxonomists, black bears are not active predators and only prey 

on vertebrates when the opportunity arises. Most meat eaten by black bears is consumed as carrion. 

Bears are best described as opportunistic feeders, as they eat almost anything that is available; thus, 

they are typically omnivorous. Their diet varies seasonally and includes primarily succulent 

vegetation during spring, fruits and grains in summer, and hard mast such as acorns and pecans 

during fall. Bears utilize all levels of forest for feeding. They can gather foods from tree tops and 

vines but also grub in fallen logs for insects. The growth rate, maximum size, breeding age, litter 

size, and cub survival of black bears are all correlated with nutrition. 

The use of agricultural crops by bears to supplement foods available within forested habitats can 

greatly reduce the size of an adult female bear’s home range. For example, the diets of bears within 

the Deltic area have been found to consist of 49 percent agricultural crops (Anderson 1997) and 

average home range size for adult females (1,764 acres) is half that of adult female home ranges 

within the Coastal subpopulation (i.e., the smallest size among the remaining 3 subpopulations). 

Black bear population densities of 10 southeastern populations range between 0.26 and 15 bears per 

square mile. Bear densities are specifically influenced by age and sex, season of the year, food, 

cover, and security quality within the habitat (Pelton 2000). 

Black bears do not truly hibernate but go through a dormancy period termed “carnivoran lethargy” a 

period of torpor that helps them survive food shortages and severe weather during the winter. In 

warmer climates, such as in Louisiana, bears can remain active all winter (Taylor 1971). Bears may 

enter dens between October and early January depending on latitude, available food, sex and age, 

and local weather conditions (Pelton 1982). Adult females generally enter the den first, followed by 

subadults and adult males. Females with cubs generally are the last to leave the den. 

Female black bears become sexually mature at three to five years of age. Breeding occurs in 

summer and the gestation period for black bears is seven to eight months. Delayed implantation 

occurs in the black bear; blastocysts float free in the uterus and do not implant until late November or 

early December (Pelton 1982). Cubs are born in winter dens at the end of January or the beginning 

of February. Although litter sizes of three to four cubs do occur, the normal litter size is two. Cubs 

stay with the sow through summer and fall and den with them the second winter. The young disperse 

in spring or summer, prior to the female’s period of estrus (Pelton 1982). Estrus starts when the 

female becomes physiologically capable of reproducing again. However, not all females produce 

cubs every other winter; reproduction is related to the bears’ physiological condition (i.e., female 

bears that do not reach an optimal weight or fat level do not reproduce). 
36 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Average age at first reproduction varies widely across black bear studies; however, most reports 

involve bears between 3 years and 5 years of age. Estimates of the average age at first reproduction 

are not available for Louisiana bear populations. However, individuals birthing at three years of age 

have been recorded in Upper Atchafalaya and Coastal subpopulations, Weaver (1999) reported that 

all adult females (greater than or equal to four years old) in the Tensas River Basin subpopulations 

(i.e., Tensas and Deltic) had evidence of previous lactation or were with cubs. No litters with more 

than three cubs have been recorded for any Louisiana population. Estimates of the interval between 

births are not currently available for the Louisiana bear subpopulations and are assumed to be two 

years. However, observational data from bears within Deltic tracts suggest the interval between 

successive births may be greater than that expected (Anderson 1997). 

Louisiana black bears use a variety of den types, including ground nests, hollow trees, and brush 

piles. Generally, adult males and subadults use ground dens with greater frequencies than adult 

females. Tree dens may be an important component for female reproductive success in areas 

subject to flooding (Hellgren and Vaughan 1989). Den trees located in cypress swamps would 

appear to increase the security (e.g., decrease the disturbance) of bears utilizing these dens 

compared to ground dens. However, the availability of den trees does not appear to be a limiting 

factor (Weaver and Pelton 1994). Trees large enough and sufficiently mature to contain usable 

cavities are almost always found in places inaccessible to logging (Marchinton 1995) or are left 

standing due to their low economic value. Brushpile nests and open nests were located in thick 

vegetation, usually in areas logged within the past one to five years. Brushpile dens are created by 

felled tops and other logging slash. Open ground nests and nests under brushpiles are scooped out 

depressions that are bare or lined with vegetation bitten off around the nest (Weaver et al., 1990). 

Corridors providing cover may facilitate the movement of bears through agricultural lands in the 

Tensas River Basin, particularly when bears reside in fragmented tracts of forest (Weaver et al., 

1990). According to Marchinton (1995), telemetry locations and visual observations indicated that 

wooded drainages were important travel corridors for movement between forested tracts. 

Remoteness is an important spatial feature of black bear habitat. In the southeastern United States, 

remoteness is relative to forest tract size and the presence of roads. Examples of remoteness 

important for suitable black bear habitat include a tract of timberland 0.5 mile from well-maintained 

roads and development (Rudis 1986) and a forested tract of more than 2,500 acres (Rudis 1986). 

Forest tract size and the number of roads reflect the likelihood of human disturbances, which can limit 

habitat suitability and use (Brody and Pelton 1989). 

High-quality cover for bedding, denning, and escape is of great importance as forests become 

smaller and more fragmented, and as human encroachment and disturbance in bear habitat 

increases (Pelton 1986). Black bears are adaptable and opportunistic, and can survive in close 

proximity to humans if afforded areas of retreat that ensure little chance of close contact or visual 

encounters. The thick understory found in bottomland hardwood forests provides high-quality escape 

cover. Escape cover is considered especially critical because fragmented habitats put the bear 

populations in closer proximity to humans. 

Black bears will forage close to human establishments for garbage; pet and livestock feed; and 

human foods, especially during times of low availability of natural food sources (Rogers 1976). 

Bears, particularly habituated bears, searching for food may destroy property or even enter houses or 

storage areas. Foraging for human food sources is most likely to occur soon after bears emerge from 

their dens in the spring because of the stress of the winter dormant period and the lack of natural 

foods. Nuisance activity is correlated to the availability of natural food sources. During years of hard 

mast failure, nuisance activity may be more pronounced. Once a bear has become habituated to 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

human food, particularly garbage, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to control the nuisance 

behavior. The most effective mechanism to reduce nuisance behavior and human/bear conflicts is to 

eliminate attractants. In the long-term, this is also the most cost-effective approach. 

Bear mortality has been attributed to natural and human causes. Natural causes include disease, 

cannibalism, drowning, poor maternal care, and climbing accidents. Human-induced mortality 

includes hunting, trapping, poaching, vehicle collisions, electrocution, depredation/nuisance kills, 

disturbance (causing den abandonment), and accidents associated with research activity. Road 

access can increase the chances of people or dogs disturbing maternal dens in winter (Rogers and 

Allen 1987). Cubs are dependent on the sow for warmth and food; human disturbance of denning 

females has resulted in cub mortality from abandonment (Elowe and Dodge 1989). 

Pace et al., (2000) evaluated known black bear mortality in Louisiana between 1992 and 2000. Vehicular 

collisions were the most common cause of mortality, accounting for 45 percent of verified losses. 

Poaching was the second most common cause of death, with at least 12 bears illegally shot. Sixty-five 

percent of known mortalities occurred in the coastal subpopulation (the majority of which were adult 

females), 24 percent from Tensas River Basin subpopulations (the majority of which were males) and 11 

percent from the Upper Atchafalaya Basin subpopulation. Pace et al., (2000) concluded that 

anthropogenic causes of mortality are taking a relatively large toll on the coastal subpopulation in terms of 

absolute numbers and because adult females represent a high proportion of that mortality. Similarly, 

female losses in the Upper Atchafalaya Basin are very high, relative to estimated population size. 

Bear activity revolves mainly around the search for food, water, cover, and mates during the breeding 

season. Home ranges of bears, particularly females, appear to be closely linked to forest cover 

(Marchinton 1995). Beausoleil (1999) estimated maximum home range for Deltic bears to be 1,729 

and 1,038 acres for males and females, respectively. Maximum home range estimates for Tensas 

River NWR bears were 81,396 and 13,072 acres for males and females, respectively (Weaver 1999). 

Status and distribution 

The Louisiana black bear originally inhabited the forests of Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and eastern 

Texas, but extensive land clearing primarily for agricultural purposes has reduced its habitat by more than 

80 percent. The species is now restricted to three core populations: (1) the Tensas River Basin 

population, consisting of two subpopulations one (Tensas) located on Tensas River NWR and 

surrounding lands south of I-20, and another (Deltic) on four small disjunct forested tracts owned by the 

Murphy family (formerly known as the Deltic Timber Corporation) north of I-20; (2) the Inland or Upper 

Atchafalaya River Basin (Upper Atchafalaya Basin) subpopulation, in the upper Atchafalaya River Basin, 

primarily within the Morganza Floodway and the upper reaches of the Atchafalaya Floodway in Pointe 

Coupee Parish; and (3) the Coastal subpopulation, located primarily south of U.S. Highway 90 and west 

of the lower Atchafalaya River and Delta in St. Mary and Iberia Parishes. In general, this subspecies is 

believed to be stable to increasing. 

Louisiana black bears were assigned subspecies status by Merriam (1893) based on skull 

morphometrics taken from five samples collected in Morehouse Parish in northeastern Louisiana. 

Nowak (1986) concurred with Merriam’s designation after examining skulls collected in Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and the Big Thicket area of northeastern Texas. The historic range of the Louisiana 

black bear is believed to include all of Louisiana, eastern Texas, southern Arkansas, and the 

southern half of Mississippi (Hall 1981). All three extant subpopulations in Louisiana fall within the 

historic range of the Louisiana black bear. Surveys around the mid-1900s indicated that 80 to 120 

bears remained in Louisiana divided equally between a population along the Tensas River and 

another in the Atachafalaya Basin region (Nowak 1986). 
38 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

During the period 1964 to 1967, the LDWF released 163 American black bears (Ursus americanus 

americanus) from Cook County, Minnesota (Cook County bears). One hundred thirty-two bears were 

released into the Morganza Floodway, and 31 bears were released into Tensas and Madison 

Parishes in northeastern Louisiana. The releases were in the areas currently occupied by the Upper 

Atchafalaya Basin and Tensas River Basin subpopulations. It is believed that, at the time of the 

release, native bears had long since disappeared from the Upper Atchafalaya Basin, but that native 

bears occupied the Tensas River Basin (Nowack 1986). Novak (1986) speculated that few of the 

bears released in northeastern Louisiana remained within the vicinity of release and survived, and the 

introduction was considered unsuccessful. The introduction in the Upper Atchafalaya Basin, 

however, achieved limited success. This is possibly because of the much larger number of animals 

released and because no native bears were established in the area (Nowak 1986). The coastal 

subpopulation was not included in the restocking effort and appears to have suffered genetically from 

a recent bottleneck (Triant 2001). 

The Tensas River NWR has always supported a population of this species. At the time of listing, the 

refuge and the adjacent state-owned Big Lake Wildlife Management Area comprised about 80 

percent of the contiguous bottomland hardwood system within the Tensas River Basin (Weaver et al., 

1990). Another subpopulation of bears exists on the privately owned Deltic (or Murphy) properties, 

located within the Tensas River Basin north of the refuge on four primary bottomland hardwood tracts 

and several smaller forested tracts scattered throughout the area. The Deltic and refuge 

subpopulations are commonly referred to as the Tensas River subpopulation. In the early 1990s, 

there was not believed to be any interchange between these two subpopulations which are separated 

by I-20 and agricultural lands. 

Habitat restoration efforts since listing now provide a habitat connection between these two 

subpopulations, and there is indirect evidence that exchange is occurring. The refuge has been a 

focus of bear research since listing. An outgrowth of that research has been the development of 

refuge management practices that have been successful in increasing the population of black bear on 

the refuge and for bear habitat in general (Weaver et al., 1992). That research also supported the 

inclusion of a special rule at the time of listing that exempted normal forest management activities that 

supported a sustained yield of timber products and wildlife habitats from the take provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. That research demonstrated that normal forest management activities 

were compatible with Louisiana black bear needs and were not considered a threat to the species. 

As restoration efforts progress, bear populations, and consequently the number of complaints 

involving bears, will increase. It is essential that the public’s concerns regarding problem bears be 

addressed in a timely and professional manner. Prompt responses to problem bear complaints and 

public education will foster support for recovery of the Louisiana black bear. 

Several population estimates have been presented for the different populations of the Louisiana black 

bear. Currently, there are two research projects whose primary objectives are to estimate Louisiana 

black bear populations in the Tensas/Deltic tracts and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. Final results 

from these studies are expected to produce the most current and precise population estimates for 

these two bear populations. Field data collection will be complete in summer of 2008 and 2009 for 

the Tensas/Deltic and Pointe Coupee projects, respectively. 

Recently completed surveys of dietary patterns of bears on Tensas and the Deltic tracts indicate that 

bears on Tensas feed on relatively few prey items annually compared to bears on Deltic. During summer 

and fall, diets were substantially more diverse on Deltic. Blackberries, acorns, corn, and palmetto fruit 

were the most important food items represented in bear diets on Tensas. Notably, more than 70 percent 

of the volume found in 96 scats recovered on Tensas during fall was comprised of corn, acorns, and 

palmetto fruits. On Deltic, this equivalent volume was distributed among six prey items, including 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

important soft mast species such as French mulberry (Callicarpa americana) and muscadine (Vitis spp.). 

Benson (2005) reported that occurrence of deer in bear diets on Tensas was always less than 9 percent 

frequency of occurrence (total occurrences of a prey item relative to occurrences of other prey) during 

2003-2005. The major occurrences were corn, acorn, palmetto, and beetles, which indicated they were 

the most frequently preyed upon items. Although concerns may exist from hunters that bears are 

negatively affecting deer populations on Tensas, these results suggest that depredation of deer by bears 

is infrequent and deer are not an important prey of bears on Tensas. 

Benson (2005) reported that female bears on Deltic maintain substantially smaller home ranges than 

females on Tensas. This is not surprising given the fragmented nature of the Deltic tracts. Bears by 

default must maintain relatively small home ranges if they inhabit the Deltic tracts consistently. Mean 

annual home range size (12 km2

) on Tensas fell well within the range reported in the literature for other 

southeastern black bear populations. Notably, females with newborn cubs maintained similar spring 

home ranges on Tensas and Deltic, which indicates the lack of plasticity in space use for females with 

maternal responsibilities during early spring. From the standpoint of habitat selection, female bears on 

Tensas selected swamps and regenerating forests at multiple spatial scales, whereas females on Deltic 

selected higher sites (not subjected to annual or persistent flooding) within the forest. The strong 

selection for regenerating habitats on Tensas is likely a function of relatively limited availability of early 

successional forest patches on Tensas, which is attributable to very limited forest management during the 

past decade. Parturient females on both Tensas and Deltic used tree dens more frequently than ground 

dens, whereas non-parturient females used both den types with equal frequency. 

A number of potential implications to black bear behavior (movements, space use, habitat and den 

selection, diet) are discussed in Benson (2005). To summarize the most salient points, it is clear that 

black bears in the Tensas River Basin exhibit a relatively high degree of plasticity in behavior, as 

evidenced by the numerous ecological differences in bear behavior noted between Tensas and 

Deltic. This bodes well for continued, long-term viability of bears in the region. However, a number of 

conservation concerns and priorities is evident. Past forest management, or lack thereof, on the 

refuge has resulted in a closed-canopy forest condition lacking important mid- and under-story 

components and the quality foraging resources found in those components. This is substantiated by 

the lack of diversity in diets on Tensas and the strong selection for regenerating habitats that are 

present in the area. Future forest management strategies that create more diverse forests, increase 

the availability of understory vegetation, and maintain consistent availability of early successional 

forest communities on Tensas would benefit the bear population. However, it should be noted that 

mature forests and swamps were particularly important to habitat selection by bears on Tensas, 

which suggests that maintaining expanses of these habitats is important. 

Results of den selection analyses suggest a number of potential land management scenarios that 

would benefit denning ecology of bears on Tensas. Benson (2005) reported a relatively high reuse of 

tree dens on Tensas with almost all denning attempts occurring in mature bald cypress. This 

suggests that tree den availability may be low, as reuse is often used as a surrogate for estimating 

den availability. Conserving currently suitable tree dens on Tensas should be a priority. 

Furthermore, 34 percent (13 of 38) of dens on Tensas during 2003-2005 were ground dens, most 

occurring in isolated patches of early successional habitat. This suggests that ground denning 

comprises a substantial portion of den attempts on Tensas, mandating efforts to manage appropriate 

ground denning habitat. For instance, forest harvest operations could leave logging debris piled in 

topographically higher areas to provide suitable ground dens. A current research project being 

conducted by Dr. Michael Chamberlain at Louisiana State University is more thoroughly evaluating 

den ecology on Tensas and will provide a model for predicting sites likely to receive greatest den use 

for both tree and ground denners. This model should be applied to existing land cover maps of 

Tensas to help guide forest management strategies over the long-term. 
40 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Although black bears will often increase space use during early and middle fall to locate suitable 

foraging resources, several females on Tensas exhibited movements warranting further 

consideration. Across females, most typically displayed fall movements that provided opportunities 

for using cornfields distributed throughout and around Tensas. Notably, several females essentially 

shifted their entire home range and vacated broad areas of Tensas to reach these concentrated 

foraging resources. It is likely that increasing the availability of foraging resources through improved 

forest management will reduce the likelihood of this scenario. Future research should assess how 

changing forest management affects bear behavior. 

Raccoon hunting during spring has the potential to disturb black bears during the critical late denning 

period when females and cubs are exiting dens. Potential exists to evaluate effects of raccoon 

hunting on bear behavior (movements, space use) given the relatively large number of radio-marked 

female bears on Tensas. Using radio-telemetry to assess bear movements relative to disturbance 

created during nighttime raccoon hunting activities would be valuable and should be explored. Any 

studies such as this must consider the potential adverse effects to bears before they are begun. 

Because female bears are slow to occupy new habitats, a cooperative effort was begun in 2001 to 

establish a new black bear subpopulation in Louisiana. Initial attempts for this project originated on 

the Refuge in 1998 when a female bear and cubs were relocated from the Deltic properties and 

placed in an artificial den to the southern end of the refuge. An additional female and cub were 

relocated from Deltic to Buckhorn Wildlife Management Area in 1999. The success of those efforts 

led to the long-term repatriation project that is ongoing today. Leveraging funding and personnel and 

pooling resources, the LDWF, Black Bear Conservation Committee, Louisiana State University, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Wildlife Services, University of Tennessee, the Service’s 

Louisiana Ecological Services Office, and Tensas River, Lake Ophelia, and Bayou Teche NWRs have 

cooperated to successfully move 36 female bears and their 82 cubs to unoccupied forests since 

2001. Those relocated females have produced a total of11 litters with 31 cubs since 2005. The bear 

populations on Tensas and Deltic have been used for repatriation efforts since 2002 (Deltic properties 

used sparingly during 2001). As part of the repatriation project, 12 females have been relocated from 

Tensas with their newborn cubs, and released on the Lake Ophelia NWR and Three Rivers Wildlife 

Management Area. Results of the repatriation project to date are summarized in Benson (2005). 

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 

commercial harvests target adults. Nest depredation by raccoons, skunks, opossums, and fire ants 

also harm the population to a significant degree. Although individual turtles have been seen on the 

refuge, it has no good estimate of the alligator snapping turtle population. 

Ouachita map turtle: A requirement of a Corps water project is continued maintenance of flood 

control measures including removal of snags and standing timber from the Tensas River to improve 

drainage in Madison Parish. About 10 years ago, the Fifth Louisiana Levee District tried to force the 

affected parishes to follow through on that requirement. Madison Parish did not conduct any 

maintenance downstream from I-20. Ouachita map turtles and other turtles depend on snags for both 

basking platforms and habitat structure. This important habitat component should be protected to the 

fullest extent possible. 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat: Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is the least studied bat in the eastern United 

States (Harvey et al., 1999) and is federally designated a species of special management concern 

(USFWS 1999). The bat is associated with bottomland hardwoods, and since this habitat has 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

decreased, many biologists are concerned about the status of the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Many 

states consider them to be either threatened or endangered; however, Louisiana has no official 

designation for them. These bats have been found on nearby D’Arbonne NWR, roosting in stands of 

high density, very large, old, and hollow tupelo trees mixed with large bald cypress and some elm on 

the outer edges (Gooding and Langford 2004). Because these bats are sensitive to disturbance 

(Clark 1990), they will need to be considered in forest management decisions and habitat objectives if 

they are discovered to roost on Tensas River NWR. 

Southeastern myotis: Southeastern myotis is also associated with riparian areas and/or bottomland 

hardwoods and is listed as a federal species of special management concern. They are often 

captured in mist-nets more than big-eared bats, but their populations are thought to be declining as 

well. Southeastern myotis roost in caves (Harvey 1992) in the northern part of their range, but little is 

known about their roosting habits where there are no caves, such as Louisiana. 

Freshwater mussels: Freshwater mussels are one of the most imperiled groups of animals in North 

America. Currently, 70 mussel species are listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, and a number of others are candidates or potential candidates for 

protection. The Tensas River historically supported upwards of 40 species of freshwater mussels, the 

most diverse mussel community in the State of Louisiana. Today, the refuge continues to support 

dense assemblages of at least 29 species of mussels and provides an important refuge for 

maintaining mussel biodiversity in the streams of the Louisiana Delta (Hartfield, not published) (See 

Appendix I). While no threatened or endangered freshwater mussel species are currently known to 

inhabit the refuge, current residents may be reclassified as such. The potential also exists to 

introduce species in peril to suitable habitat on the refuge. 

Other Resident Wildlife 

Waterfowl 

The MAV is a critical ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America 

(Reinecke et al., 1989). Species that are known to utilize the refuge include northern pintail, bluewinged teal, green-winged teal, mallard, gadwall, American widgeon, and northern shoveler. 

Additionally, the refuge provides migratory and resident habitat for wood duck. Tensas River NWR 

provides important foraging and resting habitats within the MAV for these waterfowl and contributes 

important regional resources to an international habitat management effort known as the NAWMP, 

which seeks to return waterfowl population to levels observed during the 1970s. Most waterfowl use 

on the refuge occurs in the Greenlea Bend, Judd Brake, and Lake Nick areas. 

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 Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) was selected and organized to 

plan conservation efforts that would provide sufficient waterfowl habitat in the MAV to ensure 

adequate winter survival and body condition for spring migration and nesting. To quantify winter 

habitat requirements, the factors limiting waterfowl populations were identified, and the LMVJV 

assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit populations in the MAV (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

At one time, the refuge was cooperatively farming over 1,000 acres, leaving about 25 percent of the 

crop in the field for wildlife, mostly waterfowl, and actively managing about 1,100 acres of moist-soil 

units. Peak waterfowl populations reportedly reached 250,000 ducks and commonly exceeded 

100,000 ducks (excluding wood ducks) and 10-15,000 geese. With reduced staff and high deer 

populations, much of the agricultural production has been lost and management of moist-soil units 
42 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

has been less intensive. In recent years, waterfowl populations have peaked at about 10,000 ducks 

(excluding wood ducks) and very few geese. 

Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forestlands of the southern United States, including 

Tensas River NWR. Preferred habitats include forested wetlands; wooded and shrub swamps; treelined 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 nest using available natural cavities and nest boxes throughout the refuge. Another cavitynester, the hooded merganser, breeds on the refuge, and has been documented using wood duck nest 

boxes. Brood survival is higher in situations where nests are closer than one mile to water. Due to 

conversion of forestlands to urban sprawl and agriculture; forestry practices; and competition for nest sites 

from a host of other species, natural cavities are considered to limit reproduction (Davis 2001). Nest 

boxes are commonly used to supplement natural cavities and increase local production of wood ducks, 

but box programs are not an end to all nesting problems. They require time to clean and repair at least 

annually. Production can be increased by more frequent checks and cleaning of boxes, but this must be 

weighed against other time constraints. During the review, refuge staff indicated that the boxes have not 

been adequately maintained, and they did not know where or how many boxes were on the refuge. 

Production is presumed to be relatively low. The refuge had an active program of approximately 125 nest 

boxes, and box utilization and wood duck production was quite high during the 1990s. 

The presence and distribution of wintering waterfowl on the refuge depends primarily on water levels 

and mast crops. Low water levels favor dabblers. This is not only because it is attractive for feeding, 

but also because off-refuge areas are usually dry at that time, which cause birds to seek the 

permanently flooded areas and low, flooded fields on the refuge. As water levels increase and the 

backwater floods the uplands, mallards and other dabblers begin using the flooded timber. When 

open water in the open field and moist-soil areas become more deeply flooded, diving ducks are 

attracted to the invertebrate food source on the submergent vegetation. 

Waterfowl use of the refuge during the breeding season is limited due to the southern latitude. Wood 

ducks nest using the many natural cavities available in bottomland hardwood forests. In addition, 

wood duck boxes are located throughout the refuge to provide additional nesting habitat. 

Marsh and Wading Birds 

During the last several decades, overall loss of freshwater emergent wetlands has been underway as 

development pressures increase. The king rail, in particular, is thought to have declined dramatically 

from inland areas and is now considered to be a species in potentially deep conservation trouble 

away from coastal areas. The least bittern is likely also suffering from freshwater wetland losses in 

recent decades. All the other priority marshbirds that could be found at Tensas River NWR require 

tall emergent vegetation as part of their habitat. Breeding populations of pied-billed grebe and 

American coot are considered of regional conservation interest. The king rail is of highest concern 

among marshbirds, followed by least bittern and purple gallinule. 

Tensas River NWR provides excellent habitat for breeding and wintering colonial wading birds. 

Shallow water areas found on the refuge provide critical foraging opportunities for long-legged wading 

birds. Great blue herons, cattle egrets, little blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, yellow-crowned 

night herons, white ibises, black-crowned night herons, green-backed herons, and anhingas use the 

refuge’s sloughs, bayous, flooded timber, scrub/shrub, and open fields at different times of the year 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

depending upon the water levels. When water is coming off the refuge in late spring, wading bird 

concentrations are high, as they capitalize on trapped fish and crawfish. Several rookeries are active 

throughout the refuge. 

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species 

During the year, black-necked stilts, killdeer, pectoral sandpipers, common snipe, dowitchers, greater 

yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, upland sandpipers, spotted sandpipers, and several peep species have 

been documented utilizing moist-soil units on the refuge. The Danny Ezell Farm Services Agency 

(FSA) tract and the Chapman, Wilderness, and Greenlea fields on the refuge provide the majority of 

the shorebird habitat at the Tensas River NWR. Greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, dowitchers, 

and killdeers are the most common of this group. Several species of sandpipers are usually 

observed during the spring and fall migration. 

Raptors 

The red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, northern harrier, barred owl, screech 

owl, great-horned owl, and Mississippi kite are common residents or visitors to the refuge. The 

largest raptors found on the refuge are bald and golden eagles, which are occasional winter visitors. 

Roger Tory Peterson found the only documented nest of a peregrine falcon in Louisiana in 1942 on 

what is now refuge land. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

The establishment of the Tensas River NWR can be considered significant by its contribution to the 

welfare of passerine birds alone. The area serves as a critical migration corridor and island in the 

vast Mississippi Delta sea of agriculture. Nesting mourning doves use the refuge as well as migrating 

birds that inhabit the agricultural fields and refuge roads within the refuge boundary. In addition, as 

discussed above in this Draft CCP/EA, forest fragmentation has had a dramatic negative impact on 

the breeding success of many neotropical migratory birds that need large contiguous tracts of 

forested land to avoid nest predation by the brown-headed cowbird (Twedt et al., 2006). Acquiring 

land within the acquisition boundary of the refuge and reforesting that land is a major management 

goal of the refuge. One of the key purposes of this acquisition and reforestation effort is aimed at 

increasing the core breeding area for forest-dependent neotropical migratory birds. 

Louisiana State University ornithologists and refuge personnel have compiled a refuge bird checklist. 

This checklist is the result of extensive fieldwork by research wildlife biologist Wylie Barrow and 

wildlife professor Dr. Robert B. Hamilton from 1983 to 1995. 

Resident Landbirds 

Resident landbirds nesting on the refuge include northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, tufted 

titmouse, blue jays, eastern bluebirds, Carolina wren, and American crow. 

American woodcocks are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the 

eastern United States. Tensas River NWR is within the Central Region used for administrative 

management. Woodcock populations in this region have declined 19 percent since 1968 probably 

due to land use changes associated with land conversion and the maturing of forest habitats. 
44 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan was completed. It set 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 (USFWS 1990). 

Woodcock are closely tied to earthworms as their major food resource and other special habitat 

conditions (Krementz and Jackson 1999). 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 but 

relatively open ground-story below. Typical cover includes privet, cane, and briars that result from 

openings in the canopy. The scrub/shrub and dense bottomland hardwood habitats created to 

benefit priority forest interior nesting birds (Swainson’s warbler, cerulean warbler, etc.) and Louisiana 

black bears will also provide good daytime cover for the American woodcock. 

At dusk, some portions of the woodcock population move to open or brushy fields to forage and 

conduct courtship activities throughout the night. These habitats include agricultural fields that were 

not disked in fall and sparse grasslands that may have received a low intensity fall burn to create 

patchy openings of exposed soil interspersed between grass clumps one to three feet in height. The 

grassland areas provide habitat preferred by other priority species (e.g., northern bobwhite, 

dickcissel, and other grassland birds). 

Wild turkey declined throughout the area in the early 1900s due to over-hunting (Vangilder 1992). 

The Tensas River NWR was not as heavily hit by this decline. In fact, the refuge was used as a 

source for captured turkey in the 1980s that were released on other refuges and wildlife management 

units in the local area. Tensas River NWR continues to have a robust turkey population, and most 

refuge habitats are considered suitable for this resident game bird. With that said, turkeys are not a 

priority species for forest management on the refuge, and, as such, their numbers may not be 

consistently maintained at optimum levels. However, much of the management that occurs for nongame birds and other priority wildlife does provide benefits to turkeys as well. 

The dates of the turkey season follow the state framework. From 1985 through 2002, the refuge held 

a 30-day season. Since 2003, the season was reduced to 16 days in an effort to maintain a 

consistent population of adult gobblers. 

Turkey populations can fluctuate in any habitat due to a combination of factors other than the habitat 

itself. A disease outbreak, such as pox or blackhead, can cause as much trouble in good habitat as 

in bad. In fact, an infectious disease will usually do more damage in a dense turkey population than 

in a sparse one (Williams 1981). Weather conditions, especially during the spring nesting season, 

can determine reproductive success, regardless of habitat quality. Thus, weather can be a major 

limiting factor on turkey numbers. Wetter than normal weather during May and drier than normal 

summers adversely impact turkey production. 

Timber management, on a selective basis, can benefit turkeys by increasing the diversity and 

availability of foods in the form of hard and soft mast as well as grasses, sedges, and forbs. Nesting 

habitat is often improved by selective timber harvests by providing more ground cover for nest 

concealment. Removal of more than 50 percent of the overstory degrades turkey habitat in the shortterm by causing in extremely dense undergrowth that is generally avoided by turkeys. Forest 

management objectives for the priority wildlife species on the refuge will, in most cases, provide 

positive or neutral benefits to turkeys. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Mammals 

Although an inventory has not been conducted, forty-four species of mammals are known or likely to 

occur on the refuge (Appendix I). White-tailed deer are the only big game on the refuge. Furbearers 

found on the refuge include Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, river otter, beaver, mink, 

nutria, and muskrat. Gray fox, red fox, coyote, and bobcats are also present. Both eastern cottontail 

and swamp rabbits inhabit the refuge. Fox and gray squirrels are found on the refuge, with fox 

squirrels in the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the dense forests. 

White-tailed Deer: Tensas River NWR’s bottomland hardwood ecosystem is well known for 

producing some of largest white-tailed deer in Louisiana. When the refuge was first established in 

1980, deer were excessively abundant. This abundance of deer led to high hunter success and gave 

Tensas River NWR a reputation as premier public hunting area. Members of the public remember 

those days well. Hunters who were familiar with the property before it was established as a refuge 

have complained that the refuge allows too large of a harvest, which they believe has caused the lack 

of deer the public see now. Many hunters have requested that harvest be reduced to increase deer 

populations to their former levels. Various user groups have blamed each other of over-harvesting 

and have requested restrictions on available hunting days and quotas on hunts. Conflicting user 

groups include bow hunters verses gun hunters and local hunters verses south Louisiana hunters. 

At the time the refuge was being purchased, the hardwood forest was heavily logged. This allowed 

plenty of sunlight to reach the forest ground, providing abundant browse for deer to eat and cover for 

them to hide. Additionally, adjacent lands were being cleared for agriculture, displacing deer onto the 

refuge. The surrounding lands were planted in agricultural crops supplementing deer forage. 

Policies of the hunt clubs that managed the land before the refuge acquired it prohibited the 

harvesting of females, keeping the total population at very high numbers. This combination of 

improved deer habitat on the refuge, reduced cover and supplemental food surrounding the refuge, 

and an unbalanced sex-ratio harvest resulted in the very high deer density for which Tensas River 

NWR became famous. 

This decline in deer populations can be attributed to a number of causes. Public comment on the 

issue has ranged from habitat competition from feral hogs to impacts from a growing Louisiana black 

bear population. A recent cursory examination of habitat quality index for deer indicate that a 

reduction in the quality of preferred deer habitat is probably the primary cause for population decline. 

Since the formation of the refuge, logging has been minimal. The forest canopy has been closing in, 

allowing less light to penetrate to the floor and limiting the amount of browse available to deer for food 

and cover. The high grading of timber harvest before acquisition left the refuge with fewer oaks to 

produce hard mast for food. Much of the land in and around the refuge has been replanted with hard 

mast hardwood species. While in the long run these will produce high quality food for deer and other 

species, they are slow growing and currently provide only cover and limited browse for deer. The 

reforestation of agricultural lands may have reduced the current available food for Tensas River 

NWR’s deer herd. 

From a biological perspective, herd health evaluations by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease 

Study in 1983 revealed herd health problems due to high abdominal parasite count values (~1,500 to 

more than 4,000) and high levels of pathogenic parasites, which are indications of an overpopulated deer 

herd when the refuge was established. The poor health of the resident deer herd was evident in the data 

collected from hunter check stations. For the first three years of refuge-managed hunts, adult male deer 

weights averaged 154 pounds, and bucks with eight points or better antlers accounted for 23 percent of 
46 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

adult males harvested. In 1984, the first year of large-scale hunting, only 6 percent of year-and-a-half-old 

males had antlers with three or more points. Deer harvest in the refuge gun hunts was very high in the 

1980s with a peak in 1987 of 2,017 deer harvested in one season. 

With control of the deer population in the 1990s, average adult buck weights remained above 180 

pounds and often approached 200 pounds. Check station data indicated overall herd health 

remained high and the population appeared stable. However, since 2000, adult buck weights have 

declined along with the recent decline in harvest during the gun hunt. The average weight of an adult 

buck harvested between 2000 and 2003 was 175 pounds. While these weights are not as low as 

those of deer from the 1980s, the decrease is disturbing since it appears to correspond with a decline 

in population levels. 

For safety reasons, gun hunting has only been allowed on the refuge in mature forest. From 1985 to 

1994, the available acreage remained at 50,000. In 1994, it increased to 55,000 with the purchase of the 

McLemore Unit. In contrast, the overall acreage of the refuge has been steadily increasing with the 

purchase of agricultural lands that are then planted with bottomland hardwood seedlings. While this land 

does not immediately provide ideal deer habitat, it should be considered when managing the refuge deer 

herd. These areas are popular with the bow hunters because the more than 5-year-old stands provide 

excellent cover for deer. When we consider the decline in the deer harvested during the gun hunt in the 

context of the increased acreage under management of the refuge, the decline is dramatic. The result is 

that the number of acres needed to produce a harvested deer has increased over time. 

Despite the decline in harvest during the lottery gun hunt, the total harvest of deer on the refuge has 

remained high, with an average of 1,122 deer harvested annually. The refuge has only recently 

operated check stations during the muzzleloader season. Since opening muzzleloader check 

stations, reporting of deer from muzzleloader hunts has risen dramatically. It is unclear how much of 

the increase of reported deer from muzzleloader hunts is due to the reporting of formerly unrecorded 

harvest and how much is due to increased popularity, accuracy, and efficiency of muzzleloader 

weapons. Poor records for muzzleloader and bow harvests in 1998 and 2000 further complicate 

analysis of trends. 

A common misconception of hunters is that the recovery of the Louisiana black bear is responsible for the 

decline in the deer population on the refuge. Bears are blamed for preying on the newly born fawns. 

Rumors of bear scat full of fawn hooves are common and create hostile attitudes of hunters toward the 

restoration of bear populations. No evidence is present at this time to indicate that bears have a negative 

impact on the refuge deer population. Louisiana black bears, while classified as carnivores, are not active 

predators and rarely prey on vertebrate animals. They would be more appropriately described as 

omnivores or opportunistic feeders, feeding primarily on vegetation (hard and soft mast) and insects. If a 

bear does feed on animal matter, it is usually in the form of carrion that it has happened across. Evidence 

that bears are not feeding heavily on fawns can be seen in the McLemore tract, which has the densest 

population of bears. Here lactation rates of adult female deer were higher from 2000-2002 than the 

average rates across the refuge. Bear do compete with deer for similar food such as hard/soft mast, 

succulent vegetation, and corn crops. However, the dependence of bear on similar habitat as deer 

should only emphasize the need to improve such habitat on the refuge to protect the bear population from 

a similar decline that we are seeing in the deer population. 

The primary native predators on deer were historically the red wolf and the Florida panther, both of 

which have been extirpated for over 50 years. Panthers are regularly reported in the vicinity of the 

refuge, but no credible evidence has been found of their existence. The only remaining population of 

the subspecies that once existed here is isolated in the southern tip of Florida. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

The predators that have filled the void in the ecological niche are coyotes and bobcats. Coyotes 

were not found in this region previous to the extirpation of the red wolf. The removal of wolves 

provided an opportunity for their establishment. Coyotes are not nearly as efficient predators on deer 

as wolves and likely have no effect on healthy deer. Coyotes benefit the herd by removing sick, 

wounded, and genetically inferior deer from the population. There may be predation on young deer, 

but it is unlikely to negatively affect the population. Bobcats are native to this area and much smaller 

than the once dominant panthers. They have made a comeback in the state and are now common 

on the refuge. Like coyotes, they are too small to impact healthy adult deer and likely have a minimal 

impact on fawns. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Amphibian management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global amphibian 

declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat appear to be the primary factors in 

the declines. This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for its survival, and it serves as 

an important indicator of overall environmental health. As a wetland habitat, Tensas River NWR is 

important for reptiles and amphibians. Despite the dominance of these creatures on the landscape, 

little is known about their populations on the refuge. Surveys of breeding anurans have been 

conducted by Sammy King and Susan Walls (USGS, Lafayette, Louisiana) (Lichhtenberg et al., 2004) 

but no comprehensive list of reptiles and amphibians has been created. In addition, because there is 

currently no monitoring of reptile and amphibian populations, their response to habitat management is 

unknown. Due to their susceptibility to environmental degradation and recent global population 

declines, amphibians are a priority taxa to be monitored both as indicators of environmental health 

and for the protection of their populations. With extensive historical and current use of pesticides 

known to be harmful to amphibians in the surrounding watershed, amphibians need to be monitored 

for health and deformities. 

Currently timber harvest is used to open the forest canopy in order to allow sunlight to penetrate to 

forest floor and encourage the growth of understory vegetation. It is suspected that such conditions 

will benefit reptile and amphibian populations. However, the most important reptile and amphibian 

habitats lie within streamside management zones and other aquatic transition zones currently 

protected from timber harvest. While timber harvest restrictions may be important in protecting water 

bodies from erosion, habitat may suffer due to understory suppression. A combination of selectively 

girdling trees to create standing snags and felling trees into water bodies to create turtle basking 

platforms and increase aquatic habitat structure may produce the desired effects of timber 

management. This would enhance habitat not only for reptiles and amphibians but also all refuge 

resources. Further discussion and research is needed. 

Alligators play an important role in the ecosystem at Tensas River NWR. As a top predator and in 

moderate to high densities, they contribute to limiting populations of problematic species such as 

beaver and raccoons in local situations, and are adapted to regulating their own populations. Larger 

individuals will eat smaller ones when densities become high. 

Because alligators are potentially dangerous and contact between alligators and humans occurs on 

the refuge, it is critical that the public be informed in how to avoid problem encounters. The majority 

of problem alligators are created when people feed wild alligators. Alligators quickly loose their fear 

of humans when fed and often are unable to distinguish between the food and its provider. Signs 

need to be posted around public areas, especially fishing piers, warning people not to feed or harass 

alligators. Rules need to be enforced. In cases where alligators do lose their fear of people and act 

aggressively, they need to be removed for public safety. Cooperation with the state nuisance 

alligator program will ensure that alligators removed will be utilized to their full potential. 
48 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish 

The Improvement Act recognizes fishing as one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

These uses, “where compatible with the Refuge System mission and purposes of the individual 

refuges” are considered “legitimate and appropriate public uses ... through which the American public 

can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife” and shall receive “priority consideration in refuge 

planning and management.” The Improvement Act further states that, “In administering the System, 

the Secretary shall.... provide increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlifedependent recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in 

traditional outdoor activities, such as hunting and fishing....” 

The Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008) details specific actions and tactics that 

will be implemented over the next five years to meet national goals and objectives supported by the 

Service’s Fisheries Program Vision of the Future (2002). Other documents and/or legislation 

pertaining to the importance of aquatic species management and the associated role of the Service 

are numerous. They include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; National Recreational Fisheries Policy 

- 1988; Action Plan for Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems - 1994; and Recreational 

Fishery Resources Conservation Plan - 1996. 

The Tensas River NWR has several lakes and bayous that can be accessed for fishing opportunities. 

Fishing is allowed year-round on the refuge and is in accordance with state regulations. Annual 

water intake from a natural flood regime makes it difficult to efficiently manage a sport fishery. 

Typically, river overflows can provide a natural stocking of the fishery through fish immigration. Sport 

fish, carp, buffalo, and other fishes benefit from overflows. The Baton Rouge Fish Resource 

Coordinators Office (FRCO) does not recommend significant expenditures on the lakes with such 

influences. However, Rainey Lake and a special use pond do not receive floodwaters from the river 

and merit some attention. 

Rainey Lake is approximately 30 acres and is isolated from agricultural runoff and backwater 

flooding. Largemouth bass, bluegill, redear, crappie, and other species are present, but the carrying 

capacity of the lake is adversely affected by excessive aquatic vegetation. Previously managed as a 

moist-soil unit, the special use pond is approximately 27 acres. It was constructed in 2000 and 

stocked in 2000 and 2001. However, the lake experienced a leak in 2003, and repair attempts were 

made that same year. Though it was speculated that the repairs failed, water levels have increased 

with rainfall and remained fairly stable this summer. Sometimes microbial activity and organic matter 

and fine sediment accumulation can seal leaks, and this may be the case here. The Baton Rouge 

FRCO staff does not recommend that this pond be abandoned or returned to a purely moist-soil 

management regime. Tensas River NWR already has approximately 900 acres of moist-soil unit 

management areas, and this pond contains ample shallow water shoreline areas and adjacent moistsoil for bird usage under present conditions. The pond should continue to be monitored for seepage 

and maintenance should be performed as necessary to ensure adequate water depths for sport fish. 

An aspect of aquatic resource management where both wildlife and the public can benefit is the 

incorporation of crawfish production in a portion of the moist-soil management units. One of the 

areas visited in spring 2005 was inhabited by crawfish though the density did not appear high. If soil 

hardness is adequate and there are water supply and drainage structures, crawfish production is 

possible in moist-soil areas where water depths of 12 to 18 inches exist in portions of the units. 

Water regimes for both activities are quite similar (i.e., draw-down in early summer, refill in fall). Rice, 

sorghum, and other crops promote maximized crawfish yields but voluntary, moist-soil vegetation can 

provide satisfactory results. Besides feeding on growing vegetation, crawfish consume aquatic 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

invertebrates and detritus. The Baton Rouge FRCO staff recommends the implementation of 

crawfish culture in approximately ten percent of the area managed for moist-soil vegetation, provided 

that the above criteria of water manipulation, depth, and hardness exist. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Register of Historic Places, established by Congress in 1966, is the nation’s official list 

of significant historic properties. The National Register recognizes five basic types of historic 

properties: historic buildings such as plantation houses, courthouses, or log cabins; historic structures 

such as old bridges, lighthouses, or forts; historic districts such as old residential or commercial 

neighborhoods; historic sites such as battlefields or Indian mounds; and historic objects such as old 

steamboats or fire engines. It is important to note that not every historic site or old building or 

neighborhood is eligible for the National Register. Properties must have some kind of significance: 

properties that are closely associated with an important person, event, or development; buildings that 

are architecturally significant because they are important examples of a particular style or type or a 

method of construction; and properties that are archaeologically significant because the remains yield 

information about the nation’s history or prehistory. Generally, properties are not placed on the 

National Register if they are less than 50 years old; if the period of their historical significance is less 

than 50 years old; or if they have been significantly altered. 

Each state has a historic preservation office, which is responsible for nominating buildings, sites, 

districts, etc., to the National Register. In Louisiana, the Division of Historic Preservation administers 

this program, which is part of the Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation 

and Tourism. None of the Tensas River NWR sites are known to be eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places at this time, and they will not be designated as scientific sites. 

Official designation as scientific sites, as part of the planning process, also carries the risk of alerting 

illegal artifact collectors to the location of these sites. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979 specifically prohibits making available to the general public the location of any archaeological 

site if such notification may create a risk of harm to the site. 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office records show up to 22 known archaeological/cultural 

sites on the refuge proper. These include prehistoric Indian sites (consisting mainly of mounds, shell 

lens, middens, or prehistoric artifacts) as well as historic 19th century sites, including the remains of a 

plantation, an old gin site, and numerous cisterns. There is one documented mound site located 

within the McLemore farm field unit; however, its exact location is not now known due to the fact that 

the entire area has been extensively farmed and no obvious mound sites are present. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Table 3 shows the area economy. The area population decreased by 5.6 percent from 1995 to 2005, 

compared with a 2.9 percent increase for the State of Louisiana and an 11.4 percent increase for the 

United States as a whole. Area employment decreased by 0.5 percent from 1995 to 2005, compared 

with the State of Louisiana showing an 11.4 percent increase and the United States a 17.0 percent 

increase. Area per capita income increased by 6.3 percent over the 1995-2005 period, while the 

State of Louisiana declined by 2.1 percent and the United States increased by 13.2 percent. 
50 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Area Economy 2005 

(Population and Employment in 000’s; Per Capita Income in 2006 dollars) 

Parish

Population Employment Per Capita Income

2005 

Percent 

change 

1995-2005 2005 

Percent 

change 

1995-2005 2005 

Percent 

change 

1995-2005 

Madison LA 12.5 -7.1% 4.9 2.7% $18,823 6.6%

Richland LA 20.4 -1.8% 8.2 -3.4% $21,541 2.0%

Franklin LA 20.4 -6.4% 9.0 2.7% $20,691 6.7%

Tensas LA 6.1 -11.8% 2.5 -7.1% $21,987 10.0%

Area Total 59.4 -5.6% 24.5 -0.5% $20,761 6.3%

Louisiana 4,507.3 2.9 % 2,461.2 11.4 % $24,664 -2.1 %

United States 266,278.4 11.4 % 174,249.6 17.0 % $34,471 13.2 %

Source: Caudill and Carver 2007 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge is still involved in an active land acquisition program. Efforts are targeted at acquiring inholding property within the official refuge acquisition boundary in order to expand the core area of the 

refuge. Land acquisition efforts are intended to contribute to the goals of the NAWMP and LMVJV. 

Privately owned lands within the acquisition boundary of Tensas River NWR will be targeted for 

acquisition for incorporation into the Refuge System. Sources of federal funds for land acquisition include 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the In-holding and 

Emergency Fund. Additional assistance will be sought through partnerships with non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), such as The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and The 

Conservation Fund, and through partnerships with private companies involved in carbon sequestration. 

The current refuge acquisition boundary encompasses 95,725 acres. To date, the Service has 

acquired 74,622 acres (this includes 195 acres of easements). The remaining 21,103 acres includes 

scattered medium-to-large ownerships (thousands of acres) and numerous smaller ownerships 

ranging in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. These inholdings are distributed 

throughout the refuge. Acquisition of these remaining inholding properties will provide significant 

biological benefits by increasing the size and continuity of refuge lands; and, will greatly facilitate 

refuge management by incorporating these properties into surrounding contiguous blocks of refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

lands. Currently, a multi-year project is underway which combines federal, non-governmental 

organizations (The Trust for Public Land), and corporate funding to acquire approximately 11,000 

acres through a carbon sequestration partnership. Through this partnership, the lands were acquired 

by The Trust for Public Land over a 3-year period from 2004 through 2006. Portions of the property 

were then reforested under the direction of the Service with funding from corporate partners, then 

conveyed to the Service for incorporation into the refuge. To date, 8,225 of the 11,000 acres have 

been acquired, reforested, and conveyed to the Service. The remainder is expected to be reforested 

and conveyed to the Service in the next one to two years. This carbon sequestration project, and 

others, such as the GoZero program administered by The Conservation Fund, can serve as models 

for future land acquisition partnerships as opportunities arise in the future. 

While expansion of the refuge within the approved acquisition boundary is an important 

consideration, cooperation with private landowners on a watershed basis is critical to any overall 

management strategy that hopes to truly impact, in a positive way, wildlife conservation. Most of the 

land in the MAV is privately owned. Thus, private lands must play an important role in the restoration 

and maintenance of native biodiversity in order to achieve the goals and objectives of national and 

regional plans, such as the NAWMP and Partners in Flight: Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird 

Conservation Plan. In an effort to address those objectives, the Service established a private lands 

program known as Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW). Through this program, the Service provides 

technical assistance and delivers financial assistance programs to private landowners. The Migratory 

Bird Field Office, co-located at Tensas River NWR, is responsible for providing technical assistance 

through the PFW Program in northeast Louisiana. 

The Regional PFW Program limits landowners to $25,000 of financial assistance per year. In the 

MAV, most projects involve the restoration of hydrology and hardwood reforestation. Vegetation on 

up to 30 percent of the area can be manipulated to maintain successional stages other than what 

would be expected to come in naturally. For example, up to 30 percent of the area could be 

managed for moist-soil management. The program favors projects located adjacent to refuges, in 

priority bear zones, and within Forest Bird Conservation Areas. 

The Louisiana Waterfowl Project is a partnership with other conservation organizations to provide 

water control structures to private landowners who traditionally will flood harvested cropland and 

moist-soil areas in the winter period (November 15 through February 28). The program provides 

significant benefits for wintering waterfowl and water quality. 

Other agencies, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies such as the Farm 

Services Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), have large programs 

that will restore wetland habitats in the MAV. The NRCS administers the Wetland Reserve Program 

(WRP). This is a popular program that restores croplands to wetlands by restoring hydrology and 

reforestation and then protects these areas through the acquisition of 30-year and perpetual 

easements. There are over 200,000 acres of WRP easements in Louisiana. A significant amount of 

this acreage is manageable water for waterfowl. The Service and partners play an important role in 

developing ranking criteria, evaluating sites, and working with private landowners to manage and 

maximize wetland values. 

The FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provides 50 percent cost 

share to reforest wetland and highly erosive sites in the MAV. The program is competitive and 

qualifying lands are placed under a 15-year contract. Various other programs are also available. 
52 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

One of the highest priority recommendations from the biological review was the proposed Tensas/Big 

Lake Forest Core WRP Special Project Initiative developed and promoted by the Migratory Bird Field 

Office in Jackson, Mississippi, the LDWF, and the NRCS District Conservationist for Madison Parish, 

Louisiana. The area is in excess of 125,000 acres and includes Tensas River NWR (65,000 acres); Big 

Lake Wildlife Management Area (20,000 acres); numerous tracts restored and/or protected through the 

WRP and CRP; and other agricultural lands. There is within this large complex of habitats a 21,000-acre 

area generally dominated by agriculture that lies between the two units of Tensas River NWR and serves 

to fragment the area into two forest blocks. The southern half of this agricultural block is locally known as 

Hunter’s Bend. About 3,000 acres within Hunter’s Bend is being proposed for inclusion in this special 

project. About 7,500 acres in the Hunter’s Bend area either was already forested or is being reforested 

through WRP and CRP. The remaining 11,000 acres of agricultural land immediately north of the 

proposed WRP Special Project area is being acquired from Chicago Mill and restored to forested 

wetlands for carbon sequestration through an agreement between The Trust for Public Lands, Entergy, 

and the Service. The carbon project is in its third year of restoration work. Due to infrastructure impacts 

and unusual repair costs associated with Hurricane Katrina, Entergy, Inc., the original project-funding 

partner, has fallen behind in its support of the project. The Trust for Public Land remains committed to the 

project and is working to find other partners. 

Completion of the carbon project and the proposed WRP special project would contribute significantly to 

solving several ecological problems. These include defragmenting a large forested area; restoring the 

ecological integrity of the area; providing continuous forest cover along both banks of nearly 50 miles of 

the Tensas River; and developing a 125,000-acre block of forested wetlands important to a suite of forest 

breeding landbirds of highest conservation priority. The ivory-billed woodpecker and American swallowtailed kite both require large, contiguous forested blocks to support viable populations. A number of other 

high-priority birds of continental conservation concern that require large, contiguous blocks (more than 

10,000 acres) of forested wetlands to reduce nest predation and parasitism and provide habitat necessary 

to support viable breeding populations will also benefit significantly from reduced fragmentation of this 

forest complex. These species include Bachman’s warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), cerulean warbler 

(Dendroica cerulea), prothonotary warbler (Prothonotaria citrea), and Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis 

swainsonii). The threatened Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) would also benefit from 

the expansion of natural habitat in the area as its population continues to expand. Significant positive 

benefits to water quality in the Tensas River are expected. 

Competition for private landowners to get into the USDA’s WRP is increasing as a result of the failing farm 

economy and the increasing value of restored wetlands for recreational purposes. The Service and other 

partners, working with NRCS and private landowners, became aware that some of the landowners within 

the proposed special project area applied or were interested in applying to the WRP. Relatively small 

landowners own much of the area with potential hydrologic restoration extending across property 

boundaries. Because of this limitation and other factors, some of the individual tracts on these farms are 

not scoring high enough for those landowners to get their intentions accepted in the program. 

Consequently, the best probability for ensuring the restoration and protection of a block of land in this area 

is through a special project. In the winter of 2005-06, Service private lands biologists (Strader and Dolan), 

Madison Parish Soil and Water Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public 

Lands, and the Louisiana Black Bear Conservation Committee coordinated with the Madison Parish 

District Conservationist in identifying a 3,000-acre special WRP project area. Nearly all 3,000 acres were 

enrolled and accepted in the program (pending appraisals, etc.) during the 2006 sign-up period. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

VISITOR SERVICES 

Tensas River NWR recognizes and provides the six-priority wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, 

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

(Figure 7). Hunting and fishing continue to be the largest public use programs on the refuge, but nonconsumptive uses, such as hiking, nature observation, and environmental education, are growing in 

popularity. An important next step in visitor services at the refuge is completion of paving of Quebec 

Road all the way from Highway 80 to the refuge headquarters. Another plan calls for access to the 

refuge from Interstate 20 north of the refuge by constructing an Interstate exchange at Quebec Road. 

Visitor Orientation 

The refuge headquarters has an adequate visitor center and serves as a point of information about 

the refuge. It is open weekdays from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. Refuge brochures, state hunting and fishing 

regulations’ pamphlets, and other Service brochures are available in the foyer. 

Signs

There is a well-maintained entrance sign at some of the entry points onto the refuge. Plans include 

ensuring that every major entry point has a well-maintained entrance sign. 

Kiosks

The refuge has acquired new kiosk panels that are more open and inviting to the public. There are 

brochure boxes at all major entrances to the refuge to provide visitors with a Public Use Regulations 

Brochure and provide a place for hunters to leave the Bag Check Cards. There are no trailhead 

kiosks at any of the parking areas or trails. 

Boundary Signs

The refuge boundaries are properly marked. Some of the older faded signs will need to be replaced. 

On the Wildlife Drive, there is a confusing Closed Area sign that should be placed in a different spot. 

Directional Signs

There are directional signs on Interstate 20, in Tallulah, Louisiana, and at other major intersections 

directing visitors to the refuge. Most of these signs, however, are green signs with white lettering and 

not quickly recognized as federal/state recreational signs. In addition, none of the signs have 

distance information on them. Visitors exiting the interstate need to know that the refuge is several 

miles from the interstate to allow them to decide if they have time to visit or not. 

Regulatory Information

Some regulatory information (guns must be in case, fill out bag check card) is on brown signs at the 

entrances/exits of the refuge. There are also signs for No ATVs (all-terrain vehicles), Trail Closed, No 

Vehicles Beyond this Point. These signs are not posted consistently throughout the refuge. The 

primary method of communicating regulations is through the Public Use Regulations Brochure. All 

visitors are supposed to read the brochure, sign the permit on the front of the brochure, and have it in 

their possession while on the refuge. This is similar to the way Hunting and Fishing Permits are done 

on most refuges, but at Tensas River NWR, this brochure is intended for all visitors. Currently, it is 

not clearly communicated to all visitors that they must have a Public Use Regulations 

Brochure/Permit while visiting the refuge. 
54 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Current public use on Tensas River NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Roads and Parking

The main roads coming into the refuge (Quebec Road and Mill Road) are maintained on a regular 

basis, but because of flooding problems, there are times when both roads are impassable. The 

refuge does not have a consistent way of letting visitors know when the roads are impassable until 

the visitors have driven all the way out to the refuge. It is approximately nine miles from Highway 80 

to the refuge office on Quebec Road. Currently, about three miles are paved. Funds have been 

designated for the paving of an additional one to two miles, but the paving has not begun. This still 

leaves over four miles of the main entrance into the refuge unpaved and at times impassable. 

Parking areas on the refuge (except for the visitor center parking) are all gravel parking lots. 

Brochures

All brochures are produced using the Service Graphic Standards. The general brochure provides 

information about the refuge resources, management, and visitor opportunities. It needs to be 

revised to better target the intended audience. The Public Use Regulations Brochure needs to be 

revised to address all uses. It currently looks like a hunting and fishing brochure, which can cause 

confusion to visitors. 

Audiovisual Program

The only audiovisual program the refuge has is a copy of a program viewed on public television more 

than 20 years ago about the community effort to create the refuge. 

Visitors to Tensas River NWR enjoy a variety of non-consumptive activities, hunting activities, and 

freshwater fishing (Table 4). The most popular activity was big game hunting. “Other wildlife 

observation” includes photography. In FY 2006, 94 percent of visits were by residents (74,206 visits). 

Table 4. Tensas River NWR: 2006 Recreation Visits 

Activity Non-Residents Residents Total 

Non-Consumptive:

Nature Trails 90 1,410 1,500 

Observation Platforms 30 970 1,000 

Birding 650 12,350 13,000 

Other Wildlife Observation 750 14,250 15,000 

Beach/Water Use 0 0 0 

Other Recreation 0 0 0 

Hunting:

Big Game 1,750 33,250 35,000 

Small Game 900 8,100 9,000 

Migratory Birds 240 1,760 2,000 
56 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Activity Non-Residents Residents Total 

Fishing:

Freshwater 184 2,116 2,300 

Saltwater 0 0 0 

Total Visitation 4,594 74,206 78,800 

Table 5 shows recreational visits to Tensas River NWR resulted in nearly $2.7 million in visitor 

recreation expenditures in FY 2006. Hunting and non-consumptive activities generated the majority 

of expenditures, while freshwater fishing resulted in just two percent. 

Table 5. Tensas River NWR: Visitor Recreation Expenditures 

(in 2006 $,000) 

Activity Non-Residents Residents Total

Non-Consumptive:

Birding $8.2 $779.3 $787.5 

Other Non-Consumptive $5.3 $499.7 $504.9 

Total Non-Consumptive $13.5 $1,279.0 $1,292.5 

Hunting:

Big Game $18.3 $870.8 $889.1 

Small Game $5.0 $365.4 $370.4 

Migratory Birds $2.7 $45.1 $47.8 

Total Hunting $26.0 $1,281.4 $1,307.4 

Fishing:

Freshwater $1.8 $61.7 $63.4 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Activity Non-Residents Residents Total

Saltwater ― ― ―

Total Fishing $1.8 $61.7 $63.4 

Total Expenditures $41.2 $2,622.1 $2,663.3 

Table 6 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with refuge visitor spending. Total final 

demand associated with recreational visitor spending was $3.6 million. This is the total monetary 

value of economic activity generated in the local county area by recreational visitors. In turn, this final 

demand generated 51 jobs, $1.0 million in employment income, and $481,100 in total tax revenue for 

Louisiana and the United States. 

Table 6. Tensas River NWR: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits 

(in 2006 $,000) 

Non- Residents Residents Total 

Final Demand $279.6 $3,285.4 $3,565.0 

Jobs 4 47 51 

Job Income $76.5 $947.3 $1,023.8 

Total Tax Revenue $34.4 $446.7 $481.1 
58 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 7 shows total economic effects (total recreation expenditures plus net economic value) 

compared with the refuge budget for 2006. For an individual, net economic value is that person's 

total willingness to pay for a particular recreation activity minus his or her actual expenditures for that 

activity. The figure for economic value is derived by multiplying net economic values for hunting, 

fishing, and non-consumptive recreation use (on a per-day basis) by estimated refuge visitor days for 

that activity. This figure is combined with the estimate of total expenditures and divided by the refuge 

budget for 2006. The $1.59 means that for every $1 of budget expenditures, $1.59 of total economic 

effects are associated with these budget expenditures. This ratio is provided only for the purpose of 

broadly comparing the magnitude of economic effects resulting from refuge visitation to budget 

expenditures and should not be interpreted as a benefit-cost ratio. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Table 7. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Local Economic Effects of Recreation Visits 

(in 2006 $) 

FY 2006 

Budget Expenditures

Net 

Economic Value

Total Economic Effects 

Per $1 Budget 

Expenditure

Tensas River 

NWR $2,893.6 $2,663.3 $1,939.3 $1.59 

Hunting

Hunting in the Tensas NWR swamps continues to provide hunters with a quality hunting experience. 

Before the refuge was created, only members and guests of private hunting clubs were privileged to 

hunt the area. Today, all hunts are open to the general public. There continues to be substantial 

interests in all hunts. Prior to each hunting season, a meeting with the LDWF is held to establish 

goals and season dates. 

Of the 82,000 annual visits to Tensas River NWR, approximately 90 percent of them are to hunt. Of 

the 74,622 acres on the refuge, all but 2,600 acres are open to public hunting, and the majority of that 

is hunted during the lottery guided youth and wheelchair hunts. Hunting activities allowed on the 

refuge include deer-archery; deer-youth; deer-modern firearms; deer muzzleloader; turkey; squirrel 

and rabbit; raccoon; woodcock and snipe; ducks and coots; and incidental species, including coyote, 

beaver, raccoon, skunk, and opossum. 

The deer-modern firearms hunt is a quota hunt. Hunters must send in an application for one of the 

two hunts and if selected purchase a $12.50 permit. In recent years, the number of applications has 

dropped from highs of over 10,000 to less than 4,000. It is believed that the main reason there has 

been a decrease in interest is that hunters are not seeing the number of deer they have in the past, 

and this may be because the habitat on the refuge is changing. 

For the modern firearms and the muzzleloader hunts, the refuge runs deer check stations staffed by 

refuge personnel and volunteers to collect biological data. There are ten check stations at all major 

exits from the refuge. For all hunts, the hunter is required to report harvest information on a green 

Hunter Information Report Card, which is located at self-clearing check stations at main exit points. 

 

For the youth deer hunt, the refuge provides stands and guides for the youth. Hunters under 16 

years of age must possess proof of completion of an approved hunter safety course and be 

accompanied at all times by an adult 21 years of age or older. 

ATVs are allowed on designated trails during hunting season. An ATV user permit is required, and 

the permit must be permanently affixed to the ATV used on the refuge. The permit may be 

purchased at the visitor center or by mail for $10. The refuge does have several trails for ATVs for 

hunters with disabilities. Hunters with disabilities must have a Physically Challenged Hunter Program 

Permit issued by the LDWF or be 60 years of age or older to operate an ATV on one of these 

specially designated trails. Currently, in the way the regulations are stated, there is no 

accommodation for hunters with disabilities once they ride the ATV down the trail. The regulations 
60 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

state that “Hunting within 150 feet of any public road, designated refuge road, or trails.... is 

prohibited.” The team discussed the need to have a plan in place to accommodate hunters with 

disabilities that will allow them to legally get to an appropriate hunting spot. 

The refuge does allow night hunts for raccoons. Horses and mules are allowed during this hunt. The 

refuge also issues special use permits to coon dog field trials. These are currently allowed at times 

other than the regular raccoon season. 

All visitors to the refuge (including hunters and anglers) are required to have a signed public use 

regulations brochure with them. These are available at the main entry points. 

Lost Brake and Lake Nick continue to be the most popular waterfowl hunting areas with interest 

growing at the McLemore tract primarily due to its easily accessible sloughs. 

Fishing

Sport fishing is open throughout the refuge year-round except in the closed area (Greenlea Bend). 

Though fishing participation is light, fishing for bream, crappie, and bass is excellent. Disabled 

fishermen have access to fishing at Rainey Lake due to a wheelchair accessible fishing pier. 

Wildlife Observation

The refuge does have an auto tour route starting within sight of the office/visitor center. The tour 

route goes by Rainey Lake and is marked with directional signs. However, there are no interpretive 

signs other than one stating that an area had been re-forested in 1987. Wildlife is skittish when 

vehicles drive by, as there is little cover or screening from the road. It does offer a representative 

sample of the refuge’s habitats. The road is wide enough for safely passing vehicles. 

There are two observation towers accessible by the Hollow Cypress Trail (boardwalk) behind the 

visitor center. One is handicapped accessible, and the other is not. The taller one – not handicapped 

accessible – has a handicapped accessible binocular telescope and a tall mounted binocular 

telescope. Both have interpretive panels mounted off the sides. Both look out onto the wildlife drive 

area and Rainey Lake. The boardwalk leading to these overlooks does have a few interpretive signs 

in Plexiglas-covered frames mounted on posts. One more overlook is located off the Rainey Lake 

walking trail called the Cypress Overlook. A fishing pier also along the Rainey Lake Trail offers a 

great view of the lake. The Rainey Lake Trail does have several signs both interpretive (a few 

interpretive signs in Plexiglas-covered frames mounted on posts) and directional with distances 

noted. There is no trailhead sign, total mileage sign, or map of the trail. 

There is one old boardwalk west of the crossroads on Mill Road that leads out to a handicapped 

duck-hunting blind open on one side and boarded with viewing/shooting ports on the other. It is no 

longer used and is falling into disrepair. 

Wildlife Photography

Visitors have many opportunities to take quality photographs while visiting Tensas River NWR. 

Currently, several piers, overlooks, and observation platforms are provided to serve as aids to 

photography. Visitors can photograph wildlife anywhere on the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Wildlife Interpretation/Education

The refuge headquarters/visitor center has a wildlife display and diorama that offer an opportunity for 

environmental education. Signage and kiosks throughout the refuge offer wildlife interpretation to 

visitors. Observation opportunities on the refuge are located at Hollow Cypress Wildlife Trail, the 

Rainey Lake Pier, and along the Tensas River near the refuge headquarters. 

Refuge staff continues to work with the USDA Cooperative Extension Service, The Nature Conservancy, 

LDWF, LDEQ, EPA, and several other partners to implement a summer environmental education 

program entitled Wild Woods Wanderings. This program has received national attention, and several 

states are considering using it as a model for similar programs. 

Environmental education at the Tensas River NWR continues to be a high priority. An Environmental 

Education Center designed to house the refuge’s Environmental Education Program has been added 

to the Master Projects list and now awaits funding. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Staffing

The refuge currently has 12 assigned staff positions: 

Refuge Manager 

Assistant Manager 

Office Assistant 

Law Enforcement 

Maintenance (3) 

Biologist Technician 

Biologist 

Forester 

Park Ranger 

Forestry Technician 

A volunteer program also exists at the refuge. Currently, there is a number of individuals that serve 

as regular volunteers, assisting refuge staff in a variety of efforts. The refuge also has an organized 

Friend’s group, named the Tensas River Refuge Association. 

Funding

Tensas River NWR was allotted $1,030,000 in Fiscal Year 2005-2006. 

Facilities

The refuge headquarters and visitor center is located on the refuge. This facility was built in 1987 

and provides accommodations for the current staff. Office space and storage space needs to be 

addressed in the future. The refuge has one shop compound that stores and maintains vehicles and 

equipment for the refuge. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

By law, the refuge is exempt from paying property tax and instead makes in lieu of payments to 

Franklin, Madison, and Tensas Parishes through the Revenue Sharing Act established by Congress. 
62 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

This program provides a method of collecting monetary receipts from revenue generating activities on 

refuges throughout the nation, pooling them together, and paying them out to counties (parishes) 

containing refuge lands. Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of the following 

formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in 

fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipt collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands 

acquired in fee title within the parish (county). 

The refuge provided the following amounts to the parishes in the 2005 – 2006 fiscal year: 

y Franklin Parish - $1,714 

y Madison Parish - $158,546 

y Tensas Parish - $62,277 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

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

wildlife protection; habitat restoration; management of threatened and endangered species; refuge 

administration; public use; and environmental education. 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, 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 raised through this planning process and has 

developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. The 

team identified those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the 

refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Forest Resources: About 80 percent of the forest lands in the MAV have been cleared and converted to 

other land uses, leaving only remnant-forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly 

impacted. This left remnant population that must be managed to meet the refuge purpose and to achieve 

its maximum potential as it relates to landscape level planning. 

The refuge was established in 1980 to conserve one of the largest remaining privately owned 

bottomland hardwood tract in the MAV. Initial acreage purchased from Chicago Mill and Lumber 

Company was 9,000 acres. Their objectives were lumber and box manufacturing, and a selective 

harvest system was used, which tended to high grade the forestry resources. 

Current forest management techniques used on the refuge include a combination of even-aged 

regeneration methods (clear-cutting, seed-tree, shelterwood) and uneven-aged regeneration methods 

(selection, group selection, patch cuts less than 5 acres) in conjunction with thinnings between 

regeneration areas. Management actions roughly follow the bottomland hardwood forest 

management recommendations being developed by the LMVJV Forest Resources Conservation 

Working Group that were developed for the WRP program for the benefit of migratory birds (ivorybilled woodpeckers, songbirds, and waterfowl) and the threatened Louisiana black bear. 

Aquatic Resources: Tensas River NWR is located within the Tensas River Basin. The river is heavily 

contaminated by agricultural runoff (silt and pesticides). The Tensas River meanders through the 

refuge and can cause overflow into a few lakes depending upon water stages. Annual water intake 

from a natural flood regime makes it difficult to efficiently manage a sport fishery. The LDWF does 

not recommend significant expenditures on lakes with such influences. However, although Rainey 

Lake does not receive floodwaters from the river, it does merit some attention. 
64 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Tensas River NWR has several lakes and bayous that can be accessed for fishing opportunities. 

Typically, river overflows can provide a natural stocking of the fishery through fish immigration. Sport 

fish, carp, buffalo, and other fishes benefit from overflows. Fishing is allowed all year on the refuge 

and is in accordance with state regulations. 

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 the Service’s national wildlife refuges. The 

one species of concern, known to occur on the refuge, is the Louisiana black bear. Boersen (2001) 

estimated there were approximately 115 bears on the refuge. Assessing the current population 

abundance of bears is needed to develop and implement effective land management scenarios to 

benefit bears and other local wildlife species on Tensas River NWR. The refuge needs to continue 

recovery efforts to delist the Louisiana black bear. 

Tensas River NWR encompasses much of the former Singer Tract, which had the last documented 

breeding population of ivory-billed woodpeckers. Once thought extinct, the April 2005 announcement 

of the rediscovery of an ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas brings hope of some day reestablishing 

a population in the Tensas River Basin. Current efforts, both on and off the refuge, to reforest 

bottomland hardwood habitat along the MAV provide a chance for this and other wide-ranging 

species to reestablish themselves in their historic range. 

Resident Wildlife: To better understand the biodiversity and environmental health of refuge lands, 

baseline information on wildlife and their habitats must be collected. This 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 Tensas River valley inhabit the Tensas River NWR. The 

refuge assumes responsibility for managing resident wildlife that is dependent on refuge resources. 

Since the formation of the refuge, logging has been minimal. In many areas, the forest canopy 

has become closed, limiting the amount of available browse and reducing carrying capacity of the 

habitat for deer. Results of a recent deer browse survey further point toward the need for active 

forest management. Much of Tensas River NWR now has a closed canopy. This condition 

reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor, which inhibits shade intolerant plant 

growth and regeneration. When the deer population is allowed to remain above the carrying 

capacity of the habitat, overbrowsing suppresses the growth of desirable species and further 

limits regeneration of hard mast trees. 

Not only has the number of deer on the refuge declined in recent years, but also all the major herd 

health indices have been declining since 1999. Harvest data from check stations have shown 

decreases in the weight of adult bucks, decreases in antler development, and decreases in the 

percentage of adult does lactating. A deer herd health check conducted by the Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Laboratory found high parasite loads and concluded the refuge 

deer herd was at or above carrying capacity. Poor heard health conditions will remain until either the 

carrying capacity of the habitat is improved or the herd is reduced to a level the habitat can support. 

Even though herd health and available browse are low, reports from hunters indicate dissatisfaction 

with the number of deer present on the refuge. Efforts to increase the harvest and further reduce 

deer numbers may conflict with what hunters see and want. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Beaver and feral hogs must be controlled for proper bottomland hardwood forest management. 

Beaver populations on the refuge should be managed to prevent areas of prolonged flooding that 

could result in extensive tree mortality. Feral hogs are known to destroy habitat, which results in 

deleterious effects to native species 

Migratory Birds: The MAV is a critical ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in 

North America (Reinecke et al., 1989). Tensas River NWR provides important foraging and resting 

habitats within the MAV for these waterfowl and contributes important regional resources to an 

international habitat management effort known as the NAWMP, which seeks to return waterfowl 

population to levels observed during the 1970s. 

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 organized to plan conservation efforts that would provide sufficient 

waterfowl habitat in the MAV to ensure adequate winter survival and body condition for spring 

migration and nesting. To quantify winter habitat requirements, the factors limiting waterfowl 

populations were identified, and the LMVJV assumed foraging habitat was most likely to limit 

populations in the MAV (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

Neotropical migratory songbirds are a species group of special management concern. The Partners 

in Flight Conservation Plan is currently developing habitat objectives for the refuge for these groups 

of birds. Habitat needed for the most area-sensitive species (interior forest-dependent birds) has 

been established, and objectives are being developed. 

The Tensas River NWR holds one of the last large contiguous blocks of interior forest that is critical to 

the survival of many of these birds. The reforestation efforts underway at the refuge will help to 

expand this much needed habitat. The concern for management is balancing the needs for waterfowl 

(which require more open habitat) with the needs of imperiled songbirds (which require forest habitat). 

This is an important issue that will require input from the public. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Land Protection within the Acquisition Boundary: Land acquisition efforts are intended to contribute to the 

goals of the NAWMP and LMVJV. Privately owned lands within the acquisition boundary of Tensas River 

NWR will be targeted for acquisition and protection. Sources of federal funds for land acquisition include 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Inholding and 

Emergency Fund. Additional assistance will be sought through partnerships with non-governmental 

organizations, such as The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and The Conservation Fund, 

and through partnerships with private companies involved in carbon sequestration. 

The current refuge acquisition boundary encompasses 95,725 acres. To date, the Service has 

acquired 74,622 acres (this includes 195 acres of easements). The remaining 21,103 acres includes 

scattered medium to large ownerships (thousands of acres) and numerous smaller ownerships, 

ranging in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. These inholdings are distributed 

throughout the refuge. Acquisition of these remaining inholding properties will provide significant 

biological benefits by increasing the size and continuity of refuge lands; and, will greatly facilitate 

refuge management by incorporating these properties into surrounding contiguous blocks of refuge 

lands. Currently, a multi-year project is underway which combines federal, non-governmental 

organization, and corporate funding to acquire approximately 11,000 acres through a carbon 

sequestration partnership. Through this partnership, the lands were acquired by The Trust for Public 

Land over a 3-year period from 2004 through 2006. Portions of the property were then reforested 
66 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

under the direction of the Service with funding from corporate partners, then conveyed to the Service 

for incorporation into the refuge. To date, 8,225 of the 11,000 acres have been acquired, reforested 

and conveyed to the Service. The remainder is expected to be reforested and conveyed to the 

Service in the next one to two years. This carbon sequestration project, and others such as the 

GoZero program administered by The Conservation Fund, can serve as models for future land 

acquisition partnerships as opportunities arise in the future. 

Mineral Extraction Activities: There are a number of oil and gas wells within the refuge boundary. Leases 

for resource extraction were retained with private mineral holders when refuge lands were acquired. 

While activity at a number of these well head sites continues, oil and gas activity must be conducted in a 

manner that does not degrade the natural environment of the refuge. Therefore, refuge administration 

must maintain oversight of oil and gas production impacts to the refuge and monitor these activities to 

assure compatible best management practices with oil and gas companies are utilized. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The Improvement Act recognizes wildlife-dependent recreation as a legitimate use of refuges. 

Priority public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in 

planning and management. The Improvement Act clearly states that these uses are to only be 

allowed if they are determined to not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or purposes of the refuge (i.e., must be compatible). Wildlife needs 

must come first and will override public use activities. Therefore, it is important on Tensas River 

NWR that any allowable public uses do not impact the sanctuary and non-disturbance requirements 

of migratory birds (foraging, roosting, nesting, pairing, molting, and rookeries), endangered species, 

and other wildlife. 

Significant issues evaluated in this Draft CCP/EA include the need to increase outreach to local 

communities; to improve and increase wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, hunting, and fishing opportunities; to increase youth activities; to work with and utilize the 

Refuge Association; and to improve access to the refuge. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Interest remains to create an exit off Interstate 20 and pave the road to the refuge. In order to meet 

biological and habitat management needs increased staffing is needed. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the CCP process. The results of that 

wilderness review are included in Appendix H. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. However, 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. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and 

compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlifedependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. These six identified priority wildlife-dependent public uses are therefore 

emphasized in this Draft CCP/EA. 

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

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

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: 

A. Current Management Direction (No Action Alternative) 

B. Custodial Management 

C. Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) 

Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the EA. The Service chose 

Alternative C “Ecosystem Management” as the proposed management direction. 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 proposed alternative will result in an optimization of both its biological program and 

visitor services’ program. Recognizing that it might not be possible to equally pursue and achieve all 

objectives simultaneously because of budgetary and staffing constraints, this alternative stresses the 

principle of optimization rather than maximization of wildlife, habitat, and public use outputs. The 

refuge would continue to furnish benefits to resident wildlife species under Alternative C and would 

aim to increase the refuge’s knowledge base about neotropical migratory songbirds by developing 

and implementing monitoring programs, while continuing to provide habitats for the benefit of 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, nesting colonial waterbirds, and landbirds. The refuge would also 

continue to furnish benefits to “species of concern” such as the Louisiana black bear through 

continued research into the repatriation and recovery program for this species. The refuge will also 

use its resources to create and/or maintain a variety of habitats compatible with historic habitat types 

in the Tensas River Valley. Public use and environmental education would increase from the “NoAction” Alternative A 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 on the 

refuge. This management plan would provide overall, long-term direction and guidance in developing 

and running a larger public use program at Tensas River NWR. 
68 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

VISION 

The Tensas River NWR will be managed to provide for the restoration, enhancement, and conservation of 

a structurally diverse and complex bottomland hardwood forest as an integral component of the LMRE. 

These habitat management efforts will promote healthy native populations and provide functional corridor 

linkages to facilitate migration, promote gene flow, and provide habitat for wide-ranging species. The 

desired results will balance the needs of federal trust species while promoting environmental education, 

interpretation, and other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

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

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

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

with the various strategies. 

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

the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Tensas 

River NWR. With adequate staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the 

Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

Periodic reviews of the progress made towards accomplishing these goals and possible modifications 

should be conducted as advances are made in scientific knowledge affecting the management of fish 

and wildlife resources. This refuge plays a key role in a number of regional, national, and systemwide conservation plans that are referenced in this report. Fulfillment of the following goals, 

objectives, and strategies will contribute significantly to those plans. Some of the following 

recommendations will conflict with ongoing refuge work or with other recommendations. It must 

always be remembered that whenever a management conflict arises, the conflict shall be resolved in 

a manner that first protects the purpose of the refuge and, to the extent practicable, which also 

achieves the mission of the Refuge System. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal A. Manage, restore, enhance, and conserve a structurally diverse and complex bottomland 

hardwood forest and associated habitats that also provide a functional corridor linkage in the MAV. 

Discussion: About 80 percent of the forestlands in the MAV have been cleared and converted to 

other land uses, leaving only remnant forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been similarly 

impacted. This left remnant populations that must be managed to meet the refuge purpose and to 

achieve their maximum potential as it relates to landscape level planning. 

The refuge was established in 1980 to conserve one of the largest remaining privately owned 

bottomland hardwood tracts in the MAV. Initial acreage purchased from Chicago Mill and Lumber 

Company was 9,000 acres, whose objectives were lumber and box manufacturing. A selective 

harvest system was used, which tended to high grade the forestry resources (thus removing the best 

specimens and species from an area). During subsequent acquisitions, 15,000 acres of the Fool 

River Unit was reserved for timber removal. A 16-inch diameter limit was used for timber removal 

associated with the timber reserve. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

The current Forest Habitat Management Plan was written in late 1980s. The plan’s 2000 expiration 

date was extended. It specifies the following goals to assist in meeting refuge goals and objectives: 

y Create habitat conditions beneficial to threatened and endangered species; 

y Leave more than adequate nesting cavities; 

y Increase the amounts and variety of highly valued migratory waterfowl foods by manipulating 

timber stand densities and species composition in areas subject to flooding; 

y Manage the forest to maintain habitat for resident game and non-game species; 

y Provide well-planned timber harvest activities that will complement recreational and wildlife 

needs; 

y Manage the forest resource so as not to decrease the value of any soils, bodies of water, or 

any natural resources already present; and 

y Maintain an over-mature age class with “no cut zones” so as to provide an area for those 

animals that prefer this age class condition. 

This Forest Habitat Management Plan has the refuge broken into 69 compartments, which average 

approximately 1,000 acres each. The plan calls for the inventory of three compartments each year 

and their treatment if deemed necessary from the inventory. It is based on a 15-year entry 

management cycle. There are currently 9,075 acres in administratively chosen no cut zones [McGill 

Bend containing 6,000 acres and Rainey Lake containing 975 acres and Streamside Management 

Zones (SMZs)]. The SMZs call for a 200-foot no-cut buffer along the Tensas River and other 

permanent water bodies. The plan also restricts harvest of any sweet pecan, cypress, or persimmon 

trees. Large den trees or potential den trees will be maintained and protected. 

Current forest management techniques used on the refuge include a combination of even-aged 

regeneration methods (i.e., clear-cutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood) and uneven-aged regeneration 

methods (i.e., selection, group selection, and patch cuts less than 5 acres) in conjunction with 

thinnings between regeneration areas. Management actions roughly follow the bottomland hardwood 

forest management recommendations being developed by the LMVJV Forest Resources 

Conservation Working Group that were developed for the WRP to benefit migratory birds (ivory-billed 

woodpeckers, other songbirds, and waterfowl) and the threatened Louisiana black bear. 

Objective A.1 – Forest Habitat Management Plan: Modify current Forest Habitat Management Plan to 

incorporate guidelines of the LMVJV Forest Habitat Working Group. 

Discussion: The current Forest Habitat Management Plan was due to expire in 2000 and has been 

extended. A new management plan will be needed with the completion of the CCP. It is imperative 

that the current plan be amended to ensure continued management using the latest knowledge until 

the CCP and new Forest Habitat Management Plan is complete. The forest types used in the current 

plan were developed from a regional perspective. 

Strategies: 

y Use current research data and recommendations being developed by the LMVJV Forest 

Resources Conservation Working Group to guide modification of the current forest 

management plan. 

y Restructure compartment boundaries with natural geographical boundaries rather than section 

lines where appropriate. 

y Remove harvest restrictions on sweet pecan, cypress, and persimmon trees. 
70 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

y Continue using forest types consistent with the Society of American Foresters where 

adequate for the refuge and recommend keeping those forest cover type designations. 

y Prescribe timber treatments based on individual stand/forest type conditions from inventory 

data collected. 

y Monitor success of habitat management and restoration activities (i.e., changes in habitat and 

wildlife responses). 

y Continue using Continous Forest Inventory plots that have been in place since the 1960s to 

monitor long-term forest changes (at least every 10 years, 5 years if manpower available). 

y Work at implementing a cooperative research project to compare vegetative and wildlife 

responses within silviculturally treated areas and areas with no treatment. 

Objective A.2 – Reforestation: Modify reforestation efforts to ensure natural hydrology, topography, and 

diversity of tree species are utilized for priority species (e.g., songbirds, black bears, waterfowl, and deer). 

Discussion: The refuge currently has approximately 11,000 reforested acres and can foresee 

another 8,000 acres of reforestation over the next ten years. Past efforts have included direct 

seeding and hand planting of seedlings with a heavy oak component. Current restoration efforts 

commonly use a stocking rate of 302 seedlings per acre. There is considerable interests among 

foresters and biologists to increase both the diversity of trees planted and the number per acre in 

bottomland hardwood restoration. 

Strategies: 

y Open reforestation fields to hunting to help alleviate herbivory problem. 

y Continue to work with partners and companies interested in carbon credits. Continue to 

improve and establish adequate species diversity, adequate stocking and survival rates, and 

sound site preparation practices to ensure successful restoration. 

y Follow reforestation guidelines produced by the LMVJV Forest Resources Conservation 

Working Group. 

Objective A.3 – Invasive Plant Species Management: Identify areas and control methods to reduce 

non-native plants. Implement an aggressive control program to reduce/eliminate invasive vegetation 

with an emphasis on control and reduction of trifoliate orange and Chinese tallow. 

Discussion: Some exotic species exist on the refuge and may benefit from current and future 

management practices. Inventories will need to be made to identify non-native plants, their relative 

abundance, area of occurrence, and the most efficient methods of control. Known species that 

potentially need control are Chinese tallow and trifoliate orange. The Louisiana State University 

Cooperative Extension Service can provide useful information on control methods. 

Strategies: 

y Apply for alternate funding sources to address invasive concerns. 

y Work with adjacent landowners to encourage participation in control efforts. 

y Research/monitor invasive plant responses to control programs. 

Objective A.4 – Water Management Plan: Develop and implement a Water Management Plan to 

include flood and drawdown dates and rotations for management units sufficient to meet the stepdown objectives of the LMVJV guidelines. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Discussion: 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 MAV was selected as one of the wintering habitat focus areas. 

Consequently, the LMVJV decided to work on this focus area and its connection to the NAWMP. 

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 relate the habitat needs 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 MAV (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

Many of these same factors/planning procedures were applied to the West Gulf Coastal Plain 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-days) for: 

(1) the continental duck population goal of NAWMP; (2) multiplied times the proportion of ducks 

typically wintering in the MAV 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 duck-days 

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 duck-days of 

foraging habitat has 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. 

The process of relating habitat objectives for individual management areas to overall habitat 

objectives for the MAV involved several steps. First, habitat objectives were allocated among states 

relative to historic abundance of waterfowl. Then, knowledgeable managers within states determined 

strategies for meeting state habitat objectives by allocating percentages of the objectives to habitats 

with managed or naturally flooded water regimes and habitats on public or private lands. One result 

of this “step-down” process was to clearly define the collective habitat objectives of state and federal 

wildlife areas in the MAV relative to objectives of the West Gulf Coastal Plain, which, in turn, were 

related to the NAWMP. The collective objectives of state and federal wildlife areas then were 

assigned to individual management areas based on waterfowl management capabilities. The 

managed habitats in Louisiana are not currently meeting their objective of over 23 million duckenergy days (DEDs). The deficit, 35,000 acres, must be addressed by creating additional public and 

privately managed habitats, which justifies the need for both improved management capabilities on 

the refuge and a strengthened private lands presence. 

Strategies: 

y For each waterfowl impoundment (moist-soil, cropland, and forested wetlands), establish 

water level gauges and maintain accurate records of management actions, plant response, 

and waterfowl response. 

y Maintain a minimum of 494 acres annually of quality moist-soil habitat (quality defined as 500 

pounds per acre of preferred moist-soil seeds or at least 50 percent cover of desirable moistsoil plants). 

y Provide over 930,000 DEDs of waterfowl foraging habitat. 
72 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

y Strive to increase preferred moist-soil plant production by implementing good management 

practices including timely and slow draw-downs of water levels to maintain moist-soil 

conditions, deep disking, spraying herbicides, mowing, and holding flood through a growing 

season. 

y Monitor moist-soil units at least weekly throughout the growing season and keep records of 

management actions, water levels, and vegetation responses by management unit. 

y Use water as a management tool throughout the growing season to maintain moist-soil 

conditions and irrigate as necessary to promote preferred plant production and eliminate pest 

plants, especially cocklebur and coffeebean. 

y Investigate the feasibility of installing a well on the McLemore Units to facilitate improved 

water and moist-soil management. 

y Utilize wells on newly acquired lands to add moist-soil units to the refuge.

Objective A.5 – Cropland and Moist-soil Management: Develop a Cropland Moist-soil Management Plan 

using cooperative farming to manage, maintain, and establish “hot food” grain crop production on all 

refuge cropland in the floodable portions of wetland units, and maintain all moist-soil areas as directed to 

provide the complex of foods and habitats required by migrating and wintering waterfowl on the refuge. 

Discussion: 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 (e.g., native weed seeds, small grains, 

and invertebrates) required by waterfowl wintering in the MAV. 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 provides a diversity of nutrients for waterfowl’s 

changing 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 duck-use days per acre, whereas moist-soil impoundments are predicted 

to provide 1,883 duck-use days per acre and bottomland hardwoods with a 40 percent red oak 

overstory component are predicted to provide 161 duck-use days per acre (Table 8). 

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 scrub/ 

shrub 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. 

Strategies: 

y Refuge crops should be limited to grains including rice, milo, corn, or millet. 

y Soybeans are not a crop of choice because of the low energetic value to waterfowl. However, 

it should be recognized that unusual circumstances could make soybeans the only available 

choice to achieve specific management goals, and, in this case, soybeans are significantly 

better than no management. 

y Create and maintain preferred nocturnal habitat in wet agricultural fields (not fall disked) and 

wet “old fields” with exposed soil and patchy cover one to three feet in height for woodcock. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Table 8. Duck-energy days per acre of selected foraging habitats 

(Expressed as duck-energy days per acre of dabbling ducks wintering in the LMRJV area. These 

figures were used by the LMVJV in the planning process to develop waterfowl foraging habitat stepdown objectives.) 

 Carrying Capacity 

Habitat Type (duck-energy days/acre) 

 Moist-soil 1,883 

 Unharvested cropland 

 Rice 24,025 

 Soybean 4,716 

 Milo 16,269 

 Corn 25,669 

 Millet 3,292 

 Harvested cropland 

 Rice 139 

 Soybean 37 

 Milo 849 

 Corn 970 

 

 Bottomland Hardwoods 

 30% red oak 115 

 40% red oak 161 

 50% red oak 207 

 70% red oak 299 

 90% red oak 391 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

Objective A.6 – Canebreaks: Utilize Forest Habitat Management Plan to enhance and create 

openings promoting canebrakes through patch cuts and other forest management practices. 

Discussion: A decline in canebrake communities has resulted in a critically endangered ecosystem. 

Historical accounts suggest loss of canebrake habitat has resulted in the extirpation (and perhaps 

extinction) of many species. Thus, canebrake restoration is necessary for maintaining and enhancing 

biodiversity in the southeastern United States. 

Strategies: 

y Allow natural disturbance to maintain and enhance existing canebrake habitat. 

y Use forest habitat management practices and techniques to provide canebrake habitat. 

y Reestablish canebrakes by replanting in appropriate areas. 
74 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective A.7 – Scrub/Shrub: Utilize Forest Habitat Management Plan to allow for early successional 

habitats through patch cuts and other forest management tools. 

Discussion: Scrub/shrub habitats are characterized by low, multi-stemmed woody vegetation in 

young or stunted stages of growth. Such habitats commonly result when mature woodlands are 

disturbed by wind, fire, flooding, or commercial activities such as timber harvesting, farming, or 

maintenance of rights-of-way. The species composition, which is variable, depends on the location 

and length of time since disturbance, abandonment, or management. Scrub/shrub communities can 

be dense and impenetrable or can consist of a mosaic of low woody cover interspersed in 

herbaceous cover. Trees may be present but are widely spaced. 

Well-managed scrub/shrub habitats are critical for birds and the Louisiana black bear. Scrub/shrub 

includes many flowering plants that provide nectar, seeds, and insect foods needed by breeding 

birds. Tall herbs and grasses growing on the edge of shrubland offer shelter and nest sites as well as 

hunting areas for predatory birds such as barn owls and kestrels. 

Strategies: 

y Allow natural disturbance to maintain and enhance existing scrub/shrub habitat. 

y Utilize existing forest management to provide scrub/shrub habitat. 

y Reestablish scrub/shrub by replanting in appropriate areas. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal B. Maintain healthy and diverse populations of endemic fish and wildlife, as well as provide 

habitat for migratory birds. 

Discussion: Because Tensas River NWR is part of the LMRE, the refuge is a component of many 

regional and ecosystem conservation planning initiatives. The MAV is a critical ecoregion for 

migratory birds in North America. Tensas River NWR provides important foraging and resting 

habitats within the MAV for waterfowl, as well as a variety of other migratory birds such as woodcock, 

marshbirds, neotropical songbirds, colonial waterbirds, and wading birds. This area specifically 

contributes important regional resources to an international habitat management effort known as the 

NAWMP, which seeks to return waterfowl species populations to levels observed during the 1970s. 

Objective B.1 – Migratory Waterfowl: Provide the biological framework to support the goals of the 

NAWMP as stepped down through the LMVJV. 

Discussion: 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 and organized to plan conservation efforts 

that would provide sufficient waterfowl habitat in the MAV and to ensure adequate winter survival and 

body condition for spring migration and nesting. In order to ensure the waterfowl duck-energy day 

objectives for Tensas River NWR are being met, biological data on duck response is needed. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Sanctuary

In general, high waterfowl harvest rates and hunting activity make sanctuary an important function of 

national wildlife refuges in Louisiana. However, waterfowl populations and hunting in northeast Louisiana 

and the purpose of this refuge make sanctuary at Tensas River NWR of less importance than other areas. 

Currently, portions of the refuge closed to waterfowl hunting are generally limited to areas east of the 

Tensas River in the Judd Brake Unit and west of the Tensas River in the Fool River Unit. 

The Biological Review Team recommends that sanctuary be maintained only in the Greenlea Bend, 

Stutz, and McLemore Units, as well as other areas where significant effort and expense is used to 

produce food intended to meet objectives for waterfowl foraging habitat. However, special events, 

such as youth hunts, may be exceptions that are desirable to offer on a limited basis in these units. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a system used to improve results by documenting management actions; 

measuring and documenting biological response; and adapting (modifying) management actions to 

improve desired conditions/outcome. It is important that all management actions taken to provide 

waterfowl habitat be recorded, evaluated, and modified to improve efficiency, desired habitat 

conditions, and waterfowl usage. Monitoring performance by estimating and recording seed 

production by water management units and documenting waterfowl response to management actions 

is an essential part of adaptive management on Tensas River NWR and is essential in determining if 

objectives are being met. 

Strategies: 

y For each waterfowl impoundment (moist-soil, cropland, and forested wetlands), establish 

water level gauges and maintain accurate records of management actions, plant response, 

and waterfowl response. 

y Habitat conditions and waterfowl numbers should be correlated to the degree possible to 

determine preferred habitat conditions throughout the winter period. 

y 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 B.2 – Forest-Breeding Birds: Work with partners to contribute productivity, distribution, and 

occurrence data to support source populations of swallow-tailed kites, prothonotary warblers, 

Swainson’s warblers, and other neotropical migratory birds that contribute to the goals of the Partners 

in Flight Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan.

Discussion: Within the MAV, the two greatest issues affecting forest-breeding birds are forest 

fragmentation and poor stand quality. Currently, Tensas River NWR harbors two somewhat disjunct 

forest blocks, each of which exceed 8,000 ha (20,000 acres). Additional forest restoration should 

forge a broader connection between these forest blocks, while focusing on higher priority restoration 

areas that target habitat for forest birds (Twedt et al., 1996) and corridors for black bears (Bowker et 

al., 1995). Additionally, restoration should be considered on lower priority areas that are adjacent to 

existing forest, or on higher elevation ridges and terraces; fill “holes” in existing forest cover; or 

connect large extant forest patches. 

Within patches and without perturbation, such as disturbance caused during active silvicultural 

management or from natural disturbances (e.g., tornadoes), mature forests tend to develop closed 

overstory canopies that impede light penetration into the forest. Limited light penetration results in 

sparse ground, understory, and midstory vegetation. Many forest birds are dependent on dense 
76 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

understory and ground vegetation for nesting, foraging, and escape cover. Thus, silvicultural 

harvests that increase light penetration, while maintaining an overstory canopy, are beneficial to 

many forest bird species of high conservation concern. 

Options for silvicultural manipulation of forest structure are greater when higher value species are 

included with the harvest. However, in addition to limiting understory vegetation, closed overstory 

canopies also inhibit the regeneration of shade intolerant tree species including many high value species 

(e.g., red oaks). Furthermore, mast produced by many of these shade intolerant tree species is critical 

forage for black bears and is consumed extensively by many other species (e.g., wild turkey, blue jay, and 

white-tailed deer). Thus, silvicultural harvests should ensure continued recruitment of shade intolerant 

tree species as future canopy trees as well as increasing understory vegetation densities. 

In addition to promoting understory vegetation development and ensuring recruitment of shade 

intolerant tree species, silvicultural harvest should, where possible (1) encourage development of 

emergent trees that rise above the predominant forest canopy; (2) retain large diameter class (>60 

cm dbh) trees; (3) provide large (>50 cm dbh) standing, dead, or dying trees; (4) contribute coarse 

woody debris to the forest floor; (5) retain small diameter cavity trees (hole diameter <20 cm); and (6) 

retain larger diameter den trees (hole diameter >20 cm). 

Forest restoration on lands currently used for agriculture (i.e., afforestation) should be undertaken to 

return these areas to bottomland forest. Because of differences in seed production, insect 

populations, and growth form, forest birds benefit from a diversity of forest structure. Thus, 

restoration should ensure diversity of tree species. Additionally, colonizing forest birds are dependent 

on vertical structure with reforested areas; thus, restoration should promote rapid development of 

vertical forest structure through use of faster growing trees. Finally, future management options will 

be enhanced if planted trees are marketable. To promote quality timber development, density of tree 

plantings should be greater than 302 stems per acre. Direct seeding should be considered as an 

economical mechanism for increasing stem density. 

Population data for forest dwelling birds are limited for many refuges in the MAV. As such, bird 

population data from Tensas River NWR is critical for establishing baseline populations that can be 

used to assess management actions and compare future habitat conditions. Forest breeding birds 

should be surveyed with point counts using the protocol in Hamel et al. (1996) as modified via the 

LMVJV working group. Point counts should be conducted within management units (stand, 

compartment) distributed throughout Tensas River NWR. Five or six point counts should be 

conducted within a management unit at a minimum spacing of 250 x 250 m. Approximately 30 point 

counts should be conducted once per year with 10-15 points visited per day during the breeding 

season. For one counter, 30 points should take two to three mornings (between dawn and about 10 

A.M.) to complete. Counts should be conducted during May with resultant data reported to the North 

American Point Count Database. Rotate point counts among management units from one year to the 

next, revisiting units every three to five years. Not all management units need be surveyed, but 

surveys should represent all forest habitat types on Tensas River NWR and span the geographic 

extent of the refuge. Point count data should be used to derive estimates of avian density on Tensas 

River NWR and for comparison with established population objectives. For example, an average of 

6-9 pairs of Swainson’s warblers (drier end of the spectrum) or 11-19 pairs of prothonotary warblers 

(wetter end of the spectrum) per 40 ha (100 acres) within optimal habitat would meet breeding 

population objectives. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Because density may not be indicative of healthy bird populations, productivity and survival 

should be assessed. As monitoring nest success to assess population health is costly, 

productivity should be assessed indirectly though continued operation of one or more MAPS 

(Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival) constant effort mist-netting stations. Annual changes 

in the young/adult ratio of captured birds should be monitored for changes (either abrupt or longterm trends) that may warrant additional study. 

Strategies: 

y Inventory populations of forest breeding birds and monitor their productivity. 

y Increase existing acreage of mature forested habitat to attain 40,000 ha (100,000 acres) of 

forest in the landscape centered on Tensas River NWR and associated adjacent lands. 

y Improve forest structure on more than or equal to1,200 ha (more than or equal to 3,000 acres) 

of mature forest annually in concordance with forest management guidelines being developed 

and maintained by the LMVJV Forest Resources Conservation Working Group. 

y Restore sites in concordance with forest restoration guidelines developed and maintained by 

the LMVJV Forest Resources Conservation Working Group. 

Objective B.3 – Louisiana Black Bear: Continue to work towards delisting the Louisiana black bear in 

support of the goals and objectives in the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. 

Discussion: The Louisiana black bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act due to extensive habitat reduction and fragmentation and declining populations. Bears 

once occurred throughout southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and eastern Texas. Habitat modification, 

particularly clearing for agriculture, has fragmented and reduced suitable habitat by more than 80 

percent in the MAV. 

Boersen (2001) estimated there were approximately 115 bears on the refuge. Clearly, assessing 

population abundance of bears over time would be valuable information for developing and 

implementing effective land management scenarios to benefit bears and other focal wildlife species 

on Tensas River NWR. Developing an appropriate long-term monitoring scheme for estimating bear 

density would be beneficial. 

A number of potential implications to black bear behavior (movements, space use, habitat and den 

selection, and diet) are discussed in Benson (2005). To summarize the most salient points, it is clear 

that black bears in the Tensas River Basin exhibit a relatively high degree of plasticity in behavior, as 

evidenced by the numerous ecological differences in bear behavior noted between Tensas and 

Deltic. This bodes well for continued, long-term viability of bears in the region. However, a number of 

conservation concerns and priorities are evident. Past forest management, or lack thereof, on 

Tensas River NWR has resulted in a closed-canopy forest condition lacking important mid- and 

under-story components and the quality foraging resources found in those components. This is 

substantiated by the lack of diversity in diets on Tensas River NWR and the strong selection for 

regenerating habitats that are present in the area. Future forest habitat management strategies that 

create more diverse forests, increase the availability of understory vegetation, and maintain 

consistent availability of early successional forest communities on Tensas River NWR would benefit 

the bear population. However, it should be noted that mature forests and swamps were particularly 

important to habitat selection by bears on Tensas River NWR, suggesting that maintaining expanses 

of these habitats is important. 
78 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Results of den selection analyses suggest a number of potential land management scenarios that 

would benefit denning ecology of bears on Tensas River NWR. Benson (2005) reported a relatively 

high reuse of tree dens on the refuge with almost all denning attempts occurring in mature 

baldcypress. This suggests that tree den availability may be low, as reuse is often used as a 

surrogate for estimating den availability. Conserving currently suitable den trees on the refuge should 

be a priority. Furthermore, 34 percent (13 of 38) of dens on the refuge during 2003-2005 were 

ground dens, most occurring in isolated patches of early successional habitat. This suggests that 

ground denning comprises a substantial portion of den attempts on Tensas, mandating efforts to 

manage appropriate ground denning habitat. For instance, forest harvest operations could leave 

logging debris piled in topographically higher areas to provide suitable ground dens. Current 

research is more thoroughly evaluating den ecology on Tensas River NWR and will provide a model 

for predicting sites likely to receive greatest den use for both tree and ground denners. This model 

should be applied to existing land-cover maps of the refuge to help guide forest habitat management 

strategies over the long-term. 

Although black bears will often increase space use during early and middle fall to locate suitable 

foraging resources, several females on the refuge exhibited movements warranting further 

consideration. Across females, most typically displayed fall movements that provided opportunities 

for using cornfields distributed throughout and around the refuge. Notably, several females 

essentially shifted their entire home range and vacated broad areas of Tensas River NWR to reach 

these concentrated foraging resources. It is likely that increasing the availability of foraging 

resources through improved forest management will reduce the likelihood of this scenario. Future 

research should assess how changing forest management affects bear behavior. 

Raccoon hunting during spring has the potential to disturb black bears during the critical late denning 

period when females and cubs are exiting dens. It is recommended that raccoon hunting not be 

allowed during March and April. Potential exists to evaluate effects of raccoon hunting on bear 

behavior (movements and space use) given the relatively large number of radio-marked female bears 

on the refuge. Using radio-telemetry to assess bear movements relative to disturbance created 

during nighttime raccoon hunting activities would be valuable and should be explored. Any studies 

such as this must be coordinated through the Ecological Services Field Office in Lafayette, Louisiana. 

The bear populations on Tensas and Deltic have been used for repatriation efforts since 2002. 

(Deltic properties were used sparingly during 2001.) These efforts have been dedicated towards 

establishing a viable population of black bears in the east-central portion of Louisiana. As part of the 

repatriation project, 12 females have been relocated from Tensas River NWR with their newborn cubs 

and released on the Lake Ophelia NWR and Three Rivers Wildlife Management Area. Results of the 

repatriation project to date are summarized in Benson (2005). 

Strategies: 

y Use previous and current research to assist in directing timber management activities on the 

refuge to promote preferred target species habitat. 

y Continue to coordinate bear related research and other activities throughout northeast 

Louisiana. 

y Retain den and potential den trees for the Louisiana black bear. 

y Continue support and assistance with LSU, University of Tennessee, LDWF, and the Black 

Bear Conservation Committee regarding repatriation efforts. 

y Conduct public education and outreach on living with bears to the local community and 

coordinate as necessary with other agencies in these efforts. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

y Continue support and assistance with USDA Wildlife Services and LDWF with nuisance bear 

situations. 

y Coordinate with University of Tennessee researchers and the Ecological Services Field Office 

in Lafayette, Louisiana, for upcoming raccoon field trials (could potentially be done during gun 

hunts as well) in an attempt to quantify disturbances, if any, to bears associated with raccoon 

hunting. 

y Develop and perform statistically valid population estimates (DNA/hair traps) every 5 years.

y Coordinate with Lafayette Ecological Service Field Office and Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development officials to identify potential problem areas as we recover 

bears.

Objective B.4 – White-tailed Deer Management: Encourage active forest habitat management that 

results in enhanced habitat for deer, and control deer populations such that deer herd health is 

maintained at a high level while providing a quality deer hunting experience. 

Discussion: Since the 1990s, logging on the refuge has been minimal. In many areas, the forest 

canopy has become closed, limiting the amount of available browse and reducing carrying capacity of 

the habitat for deer. Results of a recent deer browse survey further point toward the need for active 

forest management. On April 19 and 20, 2005, the Service and LDWF biologists measured woody 

plant availability and utilization on thirty-three 5 feet wide x 100 feet long transects (Table 9 denotes 

the results). Broad coverage of the refuge was attempted with transects located in representative 

habitat types. In addition to woody browse species, herbaceous plant use was recorded, and 

canopy, midstory, and ground cover densities were noted. In this study, total woody browse species 

observed were 33, and the average number of plant species per transect was 15. In addition, the 

average number of plant species browsed per transect was seven, and the average number of plants 

browsed per transect was 22. 

Table 9. Browse survey results, Tensas River NWR 

Species Present Plants Present Plants Utilized Percent Utilization 

Rattan 183 59 32

Celtis sp. 195 100 51

Swamp dogwood 16 10 63

Crataegus sp. 37 14 38

Ash 63 15 24

Deciduous holly 87 34 39

Mulberry 17 5 29

Water oak 72 22 31

Willow oak 66 17 26

Nuttall oak 11 1 9

Smilax sp. 372 241 65

Ulmus sp. 228 89 39

Vitis sp. 43 7 16
80 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Overall, woody browse plant diversity is somewhat low. The range of woody plants that can occur 

generally is 30 to 50 species. Of the 33 browse plants recorded on the survey, an average of 15 per 

transect (45 percent) are available. This fairly low average is indicative of a closed canopy. A range 

of 10 to 30 plants browsed per transect is considered to be normal and indicates good utilization of 

available browse. An average of 22 plants browsed per transect is recommended. This index 

indicates the need for sustained either sex harvest. Browse pressure on indicator and especially 

desirable woody species was moderate to high. Of the 13 indicator species recorded, eight had more 

than 30 percent utilization. This index again points to the need to prevent increased or to reduce 

current deer browsing pressure to promote regeneration of desirable forest plant and tree species. 

Older browsing (before the current growing season) not recorded on transects was in evidence as 

well. Preferred species (ash, oak, mulberry, and hackberry) were continually observed that revealed 

several years of being heavily browsed. 

By continuing to implement the refuge’s Forest Habitat Management Plan, particularly as it 

relates to providing habitat needs of priority forest-dwelling non-game birds, conditions will be 

enhanced for maintaining a healthy deer population as well. Such active management will 

provide a diversity and abundance of understory, midstory, and overstory stand components (i.e., 

complex forest stand structure) to meet the needs of a variety of non-game forest birds and 

resident wildlife, including black bear and deer. 

Through the implementation of an either-sex hunting program and a liberal harvest upon refuge 

acquisition, check station data indicated that the deer population was reduced to a healthy, 

sustainable level by 1992. While the remainder of the 1990s produced a relatively high harvest of 

deer on the refuge, deer harvests have decreased substantially from 2000 through 2004, and along 

with this decline has come abundant criticism from the public about the lack of deer on the refuge. 

With control of the deer population in the 1990s, health indices such as average weights, lactation in 

adult females, and antler development improved dramatically, and indications were that deer herd 

health was high. Since 2000, however, check station data appear to indicate a decline in buck 

weights and lactation in does, which would give the impression of too many deer. There are a couple 

of plausible explanations for this decline in body indices in recent years. One is the habitat changes 

that have occurred in recent years, while the other cause is related to the process of collecting data 

from refuge check stations. 

The primary habitat changes include a reduction of habitat quality over much of the refuge forests 

due to successional changes that have resulted in a closed overstory that has reduced the 

availability of understory foods. Another recent development, the reforestation of fields on and 

adjacent to the refuge, has also reduced the availability of food. While these reforested fields, 

encompassing several thousand acres, provide somewhat limited quality forage for deer, they do 

provide ample escape and bedding cover and are undoubtedly heavily utilized by deer for these 

purposes. The availability of this newly established habitat for deer is probably a major factor 

contributing to the recent decline in deer harvests. 

During the past several years, hunting in the 2,000-acre Greenlea Bend area behind the refuge 

visitor center has been restricted to a special 2-day youth lottery hunt. Although high hunter 

success has made this hunt very popular, the result of such a restricted hunt is a large local deer 

population, which has caused negative effects on habitat management, such as overbrowsing on 

planted hardwood seedlings and crop depredation. An increase in deer harvest in Greenlea Bend 

area of the refuge is desired. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

The refuge has historically maintained eight to ten manned check stations during quota gun hunts in 

an effort to obtain body indices from all deer harvested during these hunts while providing as much 

convenience to hunters as possible. For a number of years, personnel assigned to collect data from 

these check stations were required to attend a brief training workshop prior to each hunt to verify their 

ability to obtain accurate data such as age and evidence of lactation. This was deemed necessary 

due to the large number of check stations and lack of trained biological staff. For the past several 

years, these training sessions have not been conducted, and an in-depth look at some of the raw 

data from check stations indicates that errors in data collection are being made. It is unlikely that 

these errors are accountable for the entire decline in herd indices since 2000. However, every effort 

should be made to ensure that all data obtained during refuge gun hunts is as accurate as possible. 

Strategies: 

y Collect, analyze, and utilize accurate biological data during annual hunts, health checks, and 

annual browse surveys such that deer herd health is maintained at a high level while providing 

a quality deer hunting experience. 

y Strive to meet an annual goal of silviculturally treating at least 3,000 acres of mature refuge 

forests in accordance with guidelines developed by the LMVJV Forest Resources 

Conservation Working Group. 

y Continue to monitor the availability and utilization of woody vegetation by conducting deer 

browse surveys at least on an annual basis. 

y Open designated reforestation fields to designated hunting in an effort to increase the ability to 

efficiently harvest deer throughout refuge habitats. 

y Reduce the number of manned check stations to a manageable level (five to six) to ensure 

that at least two adequately trained personnel are located at each station to ensure that all 

data obtained during refuge gun hunts are as accurate as possible. 

y Continue to have the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study conduct deer herd 

health checks every four to five years in an effort to measure the deer population related to 

the refuge. 

Objective B-5 – Colonial Waterbirds and Wading Birds: Survey and monitor for wading birds 

and contribute to objectives set in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

Discussion: Tensas River NWR provides excellent habitat for breeding and wintering colonial wading 

birds. Shallow water areas found on the refuge provide critical foraging opportunities for long-legged 

wading birds including herons, egrets, and ibis. Included in this should be approximately 200 acres of 

managed water on Tensas River NWR that should be jointly managed for shorebirds and wading 

birds. These areas should be managed to retain water during spring and summer to provide habitat 

for wading birds and slowly drawn down in fall to provide mudflat edge habitat for shorebirds. 

Strategies: 

y All rookeries on Tensas River NWR should be kept free from disturbance and, where possible, 

standing water should be maintained under nest trees throughout the nesting season to 

reduce nest predation. 

y Provide an extensive matrix of natural habitat for foraging wading birds to contribute to the 

objectives set in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

y Provide managed habitat (~200 acres) to contribute to the objectives set in the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 
82 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective B.6 – Shorebirds (Objective B-6): Survey and monitor shorebird use during fall migration to 

contribute to the objectives set in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Lower Mississippi 

Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Shorebird Management Plan and by the LMVJV. 

Discussion: Throughout the MAV, habitat for spring (northward) shorebird migration is probably 

provided in most years with normal rainfall and evaporation rates. Peak migration is expected April to 

mid-May. However, it extends from mid-March to late-May. 

Conversely, southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, and ends by 

mid-October. Limited opportunities exist at Tensas River NWR to provide habitat for southbound 

migratory birds in the fall. However, approximately 200 acres of land with water management 

capabilities (i.e., moist-soil management units) should be managed to retain water during spring and 

summer to provide habitat for wading birds. They should also be slowly drawn down in fall to provide 

mudflat edge habitat for shorebirds. Helmers (1992) provides good information regarding the 

management of shorebird habitat in “Shorebird Management Manual.” 

Shorebirds’ use of managed habitat should be assessed in concordance with LMVJV monitoring 

protocols. Monitoring shorebird responses to habitat management should focus on relating bird use 

to habitat conditions. Describing water depths, vegetation, and use by each identified shorebird 

species is recommended for making adjustments to future management. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor fall shorebirds response to habitat conditions and use protocols that contribute to the 

LMVJV and Manomet Bird Observatory data collection efforts. 

y Provide approximately 200 acres of warm-season shallow water/mudflat habitat for fall 

(August through October) shorebird habitat that will also contribute to colonial wading birds 

and early migrating waterfowl. 

Objective B.7 – American Woodcock: Use established protocol to survey American woodcock habitat 

every 3-5 years to contribute to the objectives of the American Woodcock Management Plan. 

Discussion: American woodcocks are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of 

the eastern United States. Tensas River NWR is within the Central Region used for administrative 

management. Woodcock populations in this region have declined 19 percent since 1968, probably due to 

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 winter 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. 

Woodcocks are closely tied to earthworms as their major food resource and other special habitat 

conditions (Krementz and Jackson 1999). 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 but 

relatively open groundstory below. Typical cover includes privet, cane, and briars that result from 

openings in the canopy. The scrub/shrub and dense bottomland hardwood habitats created to 

benefit priority forest interior nesting birds (such as Swainson’s warbler) and Louisiana black bears 

will also provide good daytime cover for woodcocks. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

At dusk, some portions of the woodcock population 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 low intensity fall burn to create patchy 

openings of exposed soil interspersed between grass clumps one to three feet in height. These 

grassland areas also provide habitat preferred by other priority species (e.g., northern bobwhite, 

dickcissel, and other grassland birds). 

Strategies: 

y Assess and inventory suitable woodcock habitat on the refuge. 

y 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 to assess woodcock densities and response to 

management action. 

y 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 B.8 – Turkey Management: Encourage active management that results in enhanced habitat for 

turkeys and provides quality recreational activity. 

Discussion: Tensas River NWR has a robust turkey population, and most refuge habitats are 

considered suitable for this resident game bird. With that said, turkeys are not a priority species for 

forest management on the refuge, and, as such, their numbers may not be consistently maintained at 

optimum levels. However, much of the management that occurs for non-game birds and other priority 

wildlife does provide benefits to turkeys as well. 

Turkey populations can fluctuate in any habitat due to a combination of factors other than the habitat 

itself. A disease outbreak, such as pox or blackhead, can cause as much trouble in good habitat as 

in bad. In fact, an infectious disease will usually do more damage in a dense turkey population than 

in a sparse one (Williams 1981). Weather conditions, especially during the spring nesting season, 

can determine reproductive success, regardless of habitat quality. Thus, weather can be a major 

limiting factor on turkey numbers. Wetter than normal weather during May and drier than normal 

summers adversely impact turkey production. 

Timber management, on a selective basis, can benefit turkeys by increasing the diversity and availability 

of foods in the form of hard and soft mast, as well as grasses, sedges, and forbs. Nesting habitat is often 

improved by selective timber harvests by providing more ground cover for nest concealment. Removal of 

more than 50 percent of the overstory degrades turkey habitat in the short-term by causing extremely 

dense undergrowth that is generally avoided by turkeys. Forest management objectives for the priority 

wildlife species on the refuge will, in most cases, provide positive or neutral benefits to turkeys. 

One important ingredient in good turkey habitat is well-dispersed grassy openings. Turkeys use such 

areas for feeding, and openings are especially important to broods foraging on insects. Grassy openings 

are also used for nesting and courtship activities. A large percentage of the refuge’s open grasslands 

occurs along the series of gravel roads and utility rights-of-way. The refuge currently has a cooperative 

agreement with the National Wild Turkey Federation to maintain food plots in some of these open areas. 

It is unclear how much benefit this management practice provides for the overall nutritional health of 

turkeys, but food plantings help provide a more diverse choice of foods over a long period and are thought 

to provide good brood rearing habitat (Williams 1981). 
84 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Several long-term studies estimate that adult gobbler harvest in the southeastern United States 

ranges from 17 to 32 percent, and annual survival in hunted populations ranges from 36 to 63 percent 

(Vangilder 1992). Since gobbler annual survival is generally very high in the absence of hunting, a 

high harvest rate reduces the number of birds available in subsequent years. The continued viability 

of isolated populations may be adversely impacted by high gobbler harvest rates. Models based on 

data from Missouri (Vangilder 1992) suggest that spring gobbler harvests of 30 percent or less will not 

negatively impact long-term population viability. The Missouri model assumed a fall hunting season 

in addition to the spring season. Since Louisiana does not have a fall season, a maximum spring 

harvest of 35 to 40 percent of the gobbler population is probably sustainable. 

Allowing fewer gobblers to reach older age classes (3+ years) creates a situation where the harvest 

each year is dependent on production during the spring-summer two years prior. Such a situation is 

not a problem during consecutive years of good production. However, when consecutive years of 

poor production occur, adult gobbler populations and hunter harvest will drop to low levels. Once the 

gobbler population reaches low levels, it will take several years to recover, even if production is good. 

A preferable strategy is to allow a moderate harvest level that results in a diverse gobbler age 

structure so that harvest can remain relatively stable, even following years of poor production. Thus, 

a moderate harvest rate will help avoid a “boom or bust” harvest cycle. 

Strategies: 

y Implement annual gobbler and poults surveys in conjunction with LDWF. 

y Continue to implement an active forest management program on the refuge. 

y Continue to provide a spring turkey season on the refuge with a moderate number of days to 

allow adequate recreation without adversely impacting the population of adult gobblers. 

Objective B.9 – Scrub/Shrub Birds: Determine use by scrub/shrub birds in habitats that provide a 

matrix of early successional habitat for species such as painted buntings and blue grosbeak. 

Discussion: Scrub/shrub (e.g., early successional) associated species are another group of 

vulnerable species within the southeastern United States. These species are considered a lower 

priority than mature forest species within the MAV, but several species will benefit from prescribed 

silvicultural treatments. For example, white-eyed vireo, indigo bunting, and orchard oriole birds are 

markedly more abundant for several years following prescribed silvicultural treatment. 

Some scrub/shrub species (e.g., painted bunting, blue grosbeak) likely require larger blocks of 

suitable habitat (e.g., 50-100 acres but possibly as small as 25 acres). The refuge staff should 

consider targeting sites for this habitat condition. Generally, sites selected for long-term maintenance 

of scrub/shrub will require periodic disturbance. One option to consider to reduce the frequency of 

disturbance (to set back succession) is to plant areas with native fruit-producing, shrub species such 

as plums, dogwoods, devil’s-walking-stick, deciduous holly, hawthorns, mulberries, crabapples, and 

beauty-berries. If densely stocked and at a distance from mature forest, these plantings may retain a 

shrubby character for an extended period. However, periodic entry may still be required to remove 

overstory canopy trees. 

Land parcels that are distant from existing forests (e.g., some Farm Service Agency tracts) would be 

suitable for development and maintenance of shrubby habitat. Possible conversion of existing 

agriculture/moist-soil management will be evaluated for conversion to scrub/shrub habitat. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Strategy: 

y Inventory and monitor scrub/shrub birds within the interior of forest stands in small (less than 5 

acres) patches generated through prescribed silvicultural harvests and 100-150 acres of shrub 

habitat dominated by and maintained in soft mast (fleshy-fruit) shrubs and small trees and 

dense cane thickets 

Objective B.10 – Grassland Birds: Monitor and inventory grassland birds to determine 

contributions to the goals of the Partners in Flight Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. 

Discussion: Although grassland birds are not a priority at Tensas River NWR, some breeding species 

(e.g., dickcissel and eastern meadowlark) and some winter species (e.g., Henslow’s sparrow and 

sedge wren) will benefit from provision of this habitat in larger blocks (e.g., 50-100 acres but possibly 

as small as 25 acres). 

In the future to facilitate grassland bird use, possible conversion of existing agriculture fields or 

restoration on Farm Service Agency tracts should not result in weeds that characterize idle 

agricultural land. They should involve an intentional planting of warm season bunch grasses (e.g., 

little bluestem and Indian grass) and a large component of native forbs (e.g., Missouri primrose, 

Tahoka daisy, Maximilian sunflower, standing cypress, prairie verbena, black-eyed susan, scarlet 

sage, mealy blue sage, gayfeather, tall aster, butterfly weed, obedient plant, and foxglove). These 

areas should emphasize (maybe dominated by) forbs that are attractive to butterflies and 

hummingbirds. Plantings should not include species with tall, dense growth forms (e.g., switchgrass). 

These grass-forb areas will require periodic disturbance (mowing – burning) to maintain vigor. 

Land parcels that are distant from existing forest (e.g., some Farm Service Agency tracts) may be suitable 

for development and maintenance of additional grass-forb habitat. These areas could be planted heavier 

to grasses and as a result may be more beneficial to birds breeding or wintering in grasslands. 

Strategy: 

y Provide about 200 acres of native warm season grasses dominated by bunch grasses and 

native forbs. 

Objective B.11 – Special Birds and Habitats: Monitor occurrence and record post-breeding and 

wintering individuals of historically abundant bird species such as roseate spoonbills, wood storks, 

and Bewick’s wren. 

Discussion: A few species of birds historically used extensive canebrakes. Although some of these 

species are likely extinct (e.g., Bachman’s warbler), other species that favor cane-dominated habitats 

may be present such as the Swainson’s warbler. In addition to federally listed species, breeding 

occurrence of swallow-tailed kites and cerulean warblers should be noted and documented. The 

occurrence of these species along with wood storks, roseate spoonbills, and Bewick’s wrens should 

also be noted as post-breeding and wintering individuals occur. 

Strategies: 

y Provide a minimum of 50 acres of switch cane (Arundinaria spp.) dominated habitat by 

identifying Farm Service Agency tracts or evaluating possible existing agriculture conversion. 

y Presence of threatened, endangered, and rare species should be noted and documented. 
86 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective B.12 – Marshbirds: Spot-check habitat patches to determine use by priority species. 

Contribute to ongoing marshbird survey data. 

Discussion: During the last several decades, overall loss of freshwater emergent wetlands has been 

underway as development pressures increase. King rail in particular is thought to have declined 

dramatically from inland areas and is now considered to be a species in potentially deep conservation 

trouble away from coastal areas. Least bittern is likely also suffering from freshwater wetland losses 

in recent decades. All the other priority marshbirds that could be found at Tensas River NWR require 

tall emergent vegetation as part of their habitat. Breeding populations of pied-billed grebe and 

American coot are considered of regional conservation interest. King rail is of highest concern 

among marshbirds, followed by least bittern and purple gallinule. 

It is recognized that there are a number of marshbird species that require tall emergent vegetation, 

which with adequate staffing and funding for the necessary water management infrastructure could 

receive the necessary management attention to address the habitat needs of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and marshbirds along with a host of other resources at Tensas River NWR. It must be recognized, 

however, that natural plant succession in freshwater wetlands of northeast Louisiana is to move to a 

forested habitat type. Maintenance of emergent marsh conditions, as with maintenance of other early 

successional vegetative stages, could be fairly labor intensive. 

The refuge staff should identify how much habitat can be managed in at least 20-acre units and use 

this as a baseline for integrating the needs of breeding marshbirds with wood duck brooding habitat 

and other (wintering) waterfowl habitat requirements as possible. 

Strategies: 

y Provide for high-quality breeding marshbird habitat to manage for these species. 

y Promote tall emergent vegetation to support marshbird-breeding populations. 

Objective B.13 – Wood Ducks: Annually install, repair, and maintain wood duck nest boxes to 

provide wood duck nesting and brood rearing habitat, and conduct banding activities to support 

objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council. 

Discussion: Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forest lands of the southeastern United 

States, including Tensas 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 closer to water. Due to conversion of forest lands to urban 

sprawl and/or agriculture, as well as forestry practices, and competition for nest sites from a host of 

other species, natural cavities are considered to limit 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 time to clean and repair at least annually. Production can 

be increased by more frequent checks and cleaning of boxes, but this must be weighed with other 

time constraints. During the review, refuge staff indicated that the boxes have not been adequately 

maintained, and they did not know where or how many boxes were on the refuge. Production is 

presumed to be relatively low. The refuge had an active program of approximately 125 nest boxes, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

and box utilization and wood duck production was quite high during the 1990s. The refuge staff 

indicated an interest in re-establishing a wood duck nest box program. 

A recent publication, Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding 

on USFWS Refuge Lands (Southeast Region) (USFWS, 2003)., provides well-documented guidelines 

for silvicultural practices, nest boxes, and brood habitat that should be used to guide management of 

wood duck production at Tensas River NWR. It is critical that nest boxes be spread out so that they 

are at least 100 yards apart or cannot be seen from another box. The boxes must have a functional 

predator guard and be checked and repaired annually; otherwise, boxes are considered traps for the 

hen and her clutch. Conical predator guards should be placed on all of the boxes to more effectively 

keep rat snakes and raccoons from climbing into the boxes. Some reports indicate that if rat snakes 

learn there is a meal of eggs in the nest box, it is very difficult to exclude them from the boxes, even 

boxes with predator guards. 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. Continued monitoring of nest boxes is critical to success. If box usage and 

nest success does not improve, modifications to the current program should be considered. The 

decision to continue adding more boxes must be weighed with the available staff 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 reported nest success was comparable to standard boxes 

and provided financial savings. Subsequent studies by Hunter (2000) and Davis et al., (1999) 

reported lower (compared to standard 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 standard nest boxes be used. 

Brood survival is always a consideration, especially if broods must travel long distances to suitable 

habitat. 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 one to two 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 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). 

Because wood ducks are secretive birds, it is extremely difficult to estimate populations and survival 

rates. Therefore, regional banding quotas, which are stepped down to individual states and stations 

to distribute banding throughout the range of the wood duck, have been established to determine 

harvest and survival rates. Tensas River NWR has an annual preseason-banding quota of 125 wood 

ducks, including 16 adult males, 27 adult females, 34 immature males, and 48 immature females. 

Until recent years, the refuge had a history of reaching its annual banding quota, and it is essential 

that reaching this banding quota continue so that this important resource can be managed. 

Strategies: 

y Operate a program of well-maintained nest boxes. 

y Evaluate nest use and nesting success in boxes and adjust the program accordingly to add 

more boxes if over 50 percent of the existing boxes are used; however, do not add more nest 

boxes than refuge staff can properly maintain. 

y All existing and any newly erected nest boxes should be mapped using global positioning 

satellites (GPS) and locations must be kept in the file. 
88 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

y Allow some beaver ponds to develop and mature but not to exceed 5 percent of the refuge’s 

forested land in order to provide wood duck habitat. 

y Strive to meet annual preseason wood duck banding quota of 16 adult males, 27 adult 

females, 34 immature males, and 48 immature females. 

Objective B.14 – Nuisance Wildlife and Predators: Manage nuisance native wildlife such as beaver and 

nutria, and eliminate, if possible, non-native wildlife populations of feral hogs to conserve wildlife habitat. 

Discussion: Beaver populations were significantly reduced by subsistence hunting, commercial 

hunting, and trapping (Hill 1976; Woodward 1983; Novak 1987a). By the time trapping seasons were 

reopened, beaver trappers were scarce, and demand for shorthaired fur remains low. Consequently, 

little commercial beaver trapping was done. Absence of an adequate beaver harvest in conjunction 

with insignificant non-human predation and an abundance of suitable habitat resulted in beaver 

populations reaching levels where the animals were considered pests (Woodward 1983; Woodward 

et al., 1985). Subsequent decline in fur prices in the early 1980s led to further increases in beaver 

populations with beaver damage reaching epidemic proportions in some areas. 

Although beavers can provide additional beneficial wetland habitat on Tensas River NWR, it is 

necessary to implement some form of beaver control to reduce the negative impacts on native wildlife 

and fish species and forest habitats. Beaver damage is easy to recognize from the air and on the 

ground in the form of flooding (as a result of dam building activities) and numerous girdled and/or 

dead trees. When refuge staff observes damage and decides beaver activity is having a negative 

impact on refuge objectives, the entire beaver colony should be lethally removed by trapping and/or 

shooting. Beaver dams should be removed with heavy machinery, manually with hand tools, or with 

explosives. In some situations, it may be beneficial to refuge objectives to keep beaver pond water 

during some parts of the year. If this water is desirable, Clemson pond levelers should be installed. 

Currently, refuge staff conducts all beaver damage management activities on Tensas River NWR. If 

the staff is able to maintain beaver damage at an acceptable level, this will remain the best option. If 

not, other options include contracting with an individual or agency that conducts beaver damage 

management activities. Opening a trapping season to the general public would help manage overall 

beaver populations but would provide very little reduction in site-specific beaver damage. 

Many believe the first introductions of feral hogs by Spaniards in the southeastern United States 

occurred in the early 16th century (Nowak 1991). Others suggest Christopher Columbus released 

eight animals in the West Indies. Hernando de Soto later released progeny of these into Florida in 

1539 (Towne and Wentworth 1950). Regardless of when and who introduced feral hogs into the 

United States, their distribution has expanded to include 23 states. A minimum population estimate 

of 2 million animals was suggested by Mackey (1992). In his survey, 12 states reported numerical 

population estimates. Eleven states, including Louisiana, did not provide a population estimate. 

In addition to range expansion by feral hogs from early introductions, Louisiana was one of many states 

that allowed livestock free-range practices. We can safely assume that many of Louisiana’s feral hogs 

are descendants of free-range animals. Feral hogs have been implicated in damaging a wide variety of 

natural resources and private property. Feral hog damage to sensitive plant communities, wildlife, 

agricultural crops, forestry, and water quality; livestock predation; spread of disease; and competition for 

available food with other native wildlife species are well documented (Miller 1993). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Although Tensas River NWR currently does not have a damage problem due to feral hogs, it will 

benefit the refuge to have a management plan available to eliminate or reduce damage as it occurs. 

Feral hogs have expanded their range to include several other refuges, management areas, forests, 

and private lands in Louisiana. It is a reasonable assumption that the refuge will experience 

problems in the near future. Refuge staff should be watchful of feral hog damage during their normal 

work duties. Once signs of feral hog presence have been observed, it is absolutely necessary to 

eliminate or reduce the population before it gets well established. Once feral hogs have established 

a population, it is nearly impossible to eliminate all animals. 

If feral hogs are found on the refuge, several options are available to manage or eliminate the 

population. Methods available include shooting, trapping, and public hunting. Refuge staff, hunters, or 

an agency or private business specializing in such activities can do the shooting. General public 

hunting helps manage hog populations but may be ineffective in reducing damage. Allowing hunters 

that specialize in hunting hogs with trained dogs may be very effective in removing a small population. 

Trapping can be done with large cage traps, corral traps, and snares. Feral hogs often feed and travel 

in large groups. Adult hogs trapped alive can be fitted with telemetry collars and released to rejoin the 

group. Using telemetry equipment, this group can be located and eliminated by shooting. 

Refuge staff should monitor predator populations. If populations exceed or hinder refuge objectives, 

predators should be removed by hunting or trapping. A general public trapping season would be 

effective in managing predator species. Currently, only refuge staff is able to trap on refuge property. 

On an area as large as Tensas River NWR, the refuge staff would probably not be able to provide 

sufficient man-hours to manage predators. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to use refuge staff to monitor and manage site-specific beaver damage by trapping 

and shooting beavers and removing beaver dams. 

y Contract with an individual or agency (e.g., USDA Wildlife Services) that conducts beaver 

damage management activities. 

y Open a trapping season to the general public to help manage the overall beaver population. 

y Use refuge staff to monitor for feral hogs presence. 

y Open a general public hunting season for feral hogs. 

y Hire a trapper if feral hog populations cannot be controlled by general public hunting. 

y Use refuge staff to monitor predator populations. 

Objective B.15 – Fisheries Management: Enhance existing fisheries and maintain self-sustaining 

sport fish and crawfish populations through management, monitoring, and law enforcement. 

Discussion: The Improvement Act recognizes fishing as one of the six priority public uses of the 

Refuge System. These uses, “where compatible with the Refuge System mission and purposes of 

the individual refuges,” are considered “legitimate and appropriate public uses ... through which the 

American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife” and shall receive “priority 

consideration in refuge planning and management.” The Improvement Act further states that “in 

administering the Refuge System, the Secretary shall ....provide increased opportunities for families 

to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their 

children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as hunting and fishing....” 

The Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008) details specific actions and tactics that 

will be implemented over the next five years to meet national goals and objectives supported by the 
90 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Service’s Fisheries Program Vision of the Future (2002). Other documents and/or legislation 

pertaining to the importance of aquatic species management and the associated role of the Service 

are numerous. They include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, National Recreational Fisheries Policy 

- 1988, Action Plan for Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems – 1994, and Recreational 

Fishery Resources Conservation Plan - 1996. 

Tensas River NWR was established in 1980. The refuge is located within the Tensas River Basin. 

The Tensas River meanders through the refuge and can cause overflow into a few lakes, depending 

upon water stages. The river is heavily contaminated by agricultural runoff (silt and pesticides). 

Tensas River NWR has several lakes and bayous that can be accessed for fishing opportunities. 

Fishing is allowed all year on the refuge and is in accordance with state regulations. 

Annual water intake from a natural flood regime makes it difficult to efficiently manage a sport fishery. 

Typically, river overflows can provide a natural stocking of the fishery through fish immigration. Sport fish, 

carp, buffalo, and other fishes benefit from overflows. The LDWF does not recommend significant 

expenditures on the lakes with such influences. However, Rainey Lake and the special use pond do not 

receive floodwaters from the river and merit some attention. 

Rainey Lake is approximately 30 acres and is isolated from agricultural runoff and backwater 

flooding. Largemouth bass, bluegill, redear, crappie, and other species are present, but the carrying 

capacity of the lake is adversely affected by excessive aquatic vegetation. The use of triploid grass 

carp, a biological method of control, should be considered for the vegetation problems in Rainey 

Lake. The lake has natural barriers that would prevent fish emigration. The recommended stocking 

rate is four to five per vegetated acre. These fish are known to consume 40 to 300 percent of their 

body weight per day in plant material though feeding rates decrease with age to about 25 percent of 

body weight. Triploid grass carp should be 10 to 12 inches long at stocking to lessen bass predation. 

It can take several years to achieve weed control depending on stocking rate, plant types, and 

vegetation density. For maximum effectiveness, restocking may be required every five to seven 

years but is still substantially lower in cost compared to repeated chemical treatments. 

Previously managed as a moist-soil unit, the special use pond is approximately 27 acres. It was 

constructed in 2000 and stocked in 2000 and 2001. However, the lake experienced a leak in 2003, 

and repair attempts were made that same year. Though it was speculated that the repairs failed, 

water levels have increased with rainfall and remained fairly stable this summer. Sometimes 

microbial activity and organic matter and fine sediment accumulation can seal leaks, and this perhaps 

is the case here. The LDWF staff does not recommend that this pond be abandoned or returned to a 

purely moist-soil management regime. Tensas River NWR already has approximately 1,200 acres of 

moist-soil unit management areas, and this pond contains ample shallow water shoreline areas and 

adjacent moist soil for bird usage under present conditions. The pond should continue to be 

monitored for seepage, and maintenance should be performed as necessary to ensure adequate 

water depths for sport fish. 

An aspect of aquatic resource management where both wildlife and the public can benefit is the 

incorporation of crawfish production in a portion of the moist-soil management units. One of the 

areas visited in spring 2005 was inhabited by crawfish though the density did not appear high. If soil 

hardness is adequate and there are water supply and drainage structures, crawfish production is 

possible in moist-soil areas where water depths of 12 to 18 inches exist in portions of the units. 

Water regimes for both activities are quite similar (i.e., draw-down in early summer and refill in fall). 

Rice, sorghum, and other crops promote maximized crawfish yields, but voluntary, moist-soil 

vegetation can provide satisfactory results. Besides feeding on growing vegetation, crawfish 

consume aquatic invertebrates and detritus. The LDWF staff recommends the implementation of 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

crawfish culture in approximately ten percent of the area managed for moist-soil vegetation provided 

that the above criteria of water manipulation, depth, and hardness exist. 

Over the past 15 years, Tensas River NWR and LDWF staffs have discussed potential areas for lake 

construction of 50 to 100 acres. These may involve the installation of water control structures, movement 

of earth, and/or damming sloughs. The development of outdoor recreational opportunities is one of the 

listed objectives for Tensas River NWR. Thus, the construction of a lake would support this objective 

while also providing habitat for wildlife. 

Past discussions with a former refuge manager and staff have highlighted areas on the refuge that 

would be conducive to lake construction. A lake of approximately 100 acres was discussed for the 

Cooper Tract though some earth moving would be involved. A lake of approximately 75 acres was 

discussed for the Hall’s Bayou area by damming a slough, though again, earth moving would be 

required. Stutz Field was discussed as a potential site for a 20-acre lake. Of the three, the Hall’s 

Bayou area has the best access that might rank it as the most desirable area to develop as a sport 

fishery. Other areas discussed over the years were the Wilderness Field South (50-acre lake), Lake 

Nick (200-acre), and Ridge Lake (100-acre). 

In light of the above, the following strategies for the fishery on Tensas River NWR are provided for 

inclusion in the biological review report and Draft CC/EA. 

Strategies: 

y Seek approval from the LDWF for triploid grass carp usage to control aquatic vegetation in 

Rainey Lake. 

y Maintain adequate water depths in Rainey Lake and the special-use pond for the benefit of 

sport fish populations. 

y Monitor water seepage in the special-use pond and perform maintenance as necessary. 

y Incorporate crawfish life cycle requirements, which mimic rice/moist-soil plant production 

water regime if it is determined as compatible. 

y Provide at least 250 acres of new deep-water habitat not subject to backwater flooding. 

y Conduct periodic electro-fishing surveys. 

y Provide and maintain public access to existing and new lake. 

Objective B.16 – Reptiles and Amphibians: Conduct a complete inventory of reptiles and 

amphibians, monitor populations, and protect priority species. 

Discussion: As a wetland habitat, Tensas River NWR is important for reptiles and amphibians. 

Despite the dominance of these creatures on the landscape, little is known about their populations on 

the refuge. Surveys of breeding anurans have been conducted by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Lafayette, Louisiana (Lichhtenberg et al., 2004), but no comprehensive list of reptiles and amphibians 

has been created. In addition, because there is currently no monitoring of reptile and amphibian 

populations, their response to habitat management is unknown. 

A complete survey of all habitats on the refuge is needed to determine baseline populations. Special 

effort should be taken to locate any species that are not initially detected but would be expected to inhabit 

the refuge based on range maps since their absence may signal problems with the habitat. Due to their 

susceptibility to environmental degradation and recent global population declines, amphibians are priority 

taxa to be monitored both to indicate environmental health and to protect their populations. With 
92 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

extensive historical and current use of pesticides known to be harmful to amphibians in the surrounding 

watershed, amphibians need to be monitored for health and deformities. 

In addition to baseline population surveys, population monitoring should be conducted to determine 

reptile and amphibian response to habitat management. Timber management affects habitat 

components such as understory density, course woody debris, and standing snags that are important 

to many reptiles and amphibians. A comprehensive study of herpetofauna response to timber 

treatment modeled after noted biologist Dr. Twedt’s research on refuge songbirds is needed to 

quantify habitat management impacts on reptile and amphibian populations. 

Currently, timber harvest is used to open the forest canopy in order to allow sunlight to penetrate to 

the forest floor and encourage the growth of understory vegetation. It is suspected that such 

conditions will benefit reptile and amphibian populations. However, the most important reptile and 

amphibian habitats lie within streamside management zones and other aquatic transition zones 

currently protected from timber harvest. While timber harvest restrictions may be important in 

protecting waterbodies from erosion, habitat may suffer due to understory suppression. A 

combination of selectively girdling trees to create standing snags and felling trees into water bodies to 

create turtle basking platforms and increase aquatic habitat structure may produce the desired effects 

of timber management. This would enhance habitat not only for reptiles and amphibians but also for 

all refuge resources. Further discussion and research is needed. 

Many species of amphibians require breeding pools without fish to complete their lifecycle. The 

intentional stocking of predatory fish has been linked to global amphibian declines. Moist-soil 

impoundments provide excellent temporary ponds for breeding anurans, especially when located 

near a forest edge. To ensure their viability as breeding ponds, moist-soil impoundments should be 

allowed to dry out completely at least every three years. Game fish should not be stocked in potential 

breeding ponds unless the waterbody is specifically developed for public fishing opportunities. 

Little is currently known about reptile and amphibian populations in the Tensas River. This habitat 

should support a different assemblage of species than are found in the surrounding bottomland 

hardwoods. The Tensas River is known to harbor alligator snapping turtles (Macroclemys 

temminckii) and may contain Ouachita map turtles (Graptemys pseudogeographica ouachitensis) 

both of which have been identified as a species of concern. A requirement of a Corps water project is 

continued maintenance of flood control measures, including removal of snags and standing timber 

from the Tensas River to improve drainage in Madison Parish. About 10 years ago, the Fifth 

Louisiana Levee District tried to force the affected parishes to follow through on that requirement. 

Madison Parish did not conduct any maintenance downstream from I-20. Ouachita map turtles and 

other turtles depend on snags for both basking platforms and habitat structure. This important habitat 

component should be protected to the fullest extent possible. 

Alligators play an important role in the ecosystem at Tensas River NWR. As a top predator, they can 

contribute to limiting populations of problematic species such as beaver and raccoons in local 

situations. Populations will be evaluated for future management action including a possible 

recreational hunt. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Strategies: 

y Institute a complete survey for reptiles and amphibians on Tensas River NWR. 

y Institute a comprehensive study of herpetofauna response to timber treatment modeled after 

Dr. Twedt’s research on refuge songbirds to quantify habitat management impacts on reptile 

and amphibian populations. 

y Evaluate suitability of reforestation tracts for reptiles and amphibians. 

y Moist-soil impoundments should be allowed to dry out completely at least every three years. 

y Protect snags in the river from removal. 

y Protect and monitor alligator snapping turtle and Ouachita map turtle populations on the 

refuge. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 

Goal C: Work with private landowners, agencies, and other partners to restore hydrological regimes 

of the refuge, bottomland hardwood forests, and native wetlands, while protecting cultural resources 

to fulfill the refuge purposes. 

Discussion: The Tensas River NWR is a part of a larger system of federal refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper 

Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake, and Tensas River) and state wildlife management areas 

in north Louisiana that are focused on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland 

hardwoods. Together with a number of properties under easement/contract through the Wetland 

Reserve Program (WRP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and other reforestation activities, 

the refuge is part of a 125,000-acre block of bottomland hardwood forest. There are only five or six 

other forest blocks exceeding 100,000 acres in the MAV. This makes this area an important and 

somewhat unique area, particularly for forest breeding birds and other species requiring large forest 

blocks to meet their habitat needs. Protecting this unique resource is a vital function of refuge 

management. 

Objective C.1 – Fluvial Geomorphology and Sediment Control: During the next 15 years, enhance 

and improve quality of Tensas River and all tributaries on refuge lands by minimizing turbidity and 

suspended solids in water bodies, and improve aquatic habitat. 

Discussion: The Tensas River has an approximate drainage area of 309 mi2

 at the USGS gaging 

station near Tendal. The river can vary substantially in discharge with monthly averages ranging from 

10 to over 2,000 ft3

/s. Average monthly flows tend to be at their lowest in August and September with 

higher flows occurring during the winter months. 

The Tensas River is thought to be one of several remnant channels of the Mississippi River (Saucier 

1994). This theory is supported by the fact that the meander belt width is much larger than would be 

expected for a river with its current discharge. The decreased discharge associated with the changed 

course of the Mississippi River suggests that the Tensas River has been slowly aggrading over time. 

Whether the stream had reached stable dimensions prior to deforestation in the region is not known and 

is beyond the scope of this document, but the fact that smaller meanders have not yet developed suggest 

that some natural aggradation may still be occurring. This is further supported by the lack of symptoms 

associated with normal channel migration or degradation, including mass wasting or hydraulic erosion of 

stream banks, exposed fine roots of trees, and development of mid-channel bars among others. 
94 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The Tensas River Basin has undergone substantial anthropogenic changes in the last century. 

Logging and conversion of land to agriculture increases the velocity and volume of water that reaches 

the river via tributaries. This water arrives with more sediments than normal, thereby increasing 

turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) present in the water. Implementing strategies one through 

five under Objective A will serve to maximize the refuge’s contribution to clean water in the Tensas 

River by addressing several significant head-cuts. It should be noted that on at least one occasion, a 

dam was constructed to address a head-cut. This drowned the eroding channel and created a pond 

for use by the fishing public. This has proven to be a viable solution, but the benefits of creating a 

fishing pond must be weighed against the cost of reservoir maintenance and reduced forest habitat, 

which is the reason for establishment of the refuge. From a technical aspect, if this approach is 

chosen, the engineers and construction foremen must be certain that the dam rises to the point 

where stream slope is low enough to avoid a head-cut beginning upstream of the reservoir. 

Beavers are an important part of the ecological systems where they reside. The low, semi-permanent 

dams they create help slow water velocities, capture sediment, create pool habitat for fish and 

migratory birds, and increase habitat complexity. Beavers also stress and kill trees by girdling and 

drastically changing the hydroperiod, resulting in habitat for insects fed upon by ivory-billed 

woodpeckers. Removing beaver dams has been shown to increase stream erosion; reduce fish 

species, abundance, and average size; and reduce habitat value. On this refuge, native predators of 

the beaver have been eradicated or greatly reduced in number. Refuge staff has noted large beaver 

populations and dams that threaten to flood areas of timber having relatively low flood tolerance. 

This could have the effect of reducing the amount of forest due to rapid hydroperiod changes and 

flood kills in the affected area, or, as a minimum, driving species composition toward more floodtolerant species. Population targets for beaver should be established, thereby helping determine the 

number of beavers that need to be removed. 

Strategies: 

y Stop head cutting (rapid erosion) of all tributaries on refuge lands to avoid increased siltation 

by following established best management practices for logging. 

y Allow natural processes such as beaver dams to remain in place when practicable. 

y Document the location of all culverts and water control structures on the refuge, especially 

those repeatedly dammed by beavers. 

y Where water control structures are not necessary, replace them with rock-lined fords to 

maintain vehicular access, discourage dam construction by beavers, and reduce blockage of 

structures by debris, thereby facilitating drainage. 

y Working with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and/or the regional refuge 

ecologist, design and install erosion control structures in actively eroding tributaries on refuge 

property. 

y Identify, assess, and treat areas prone to erosion prior to the development of significant 

channel incision, especially on recent acquisitions of previously converted farmlands. 

y As appropriate, within the context of the refuge’s reforestation plans, plant fast-growing, 

native, and flood-tolerant shrub and tree species such as common buttonbush, black willow, 

and red maple in the riparian corridor of previously converted farmlands and other areas 

prone to erosion to aid in soil stabilization. 

y As appropriate within the context of the refuge’s Forest Habitat Management Plan, minimize 

patch cuts within 100 m of any body of water, and require contractors to follow established 

best management practices. 

y Work with NRCS and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologists to establish acreage 

objectives for riparian zone buffers along Tensas River tributaries upstream of the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

y Develop beaver population objectives on refuge lands and, as appropriate within the context 

of the refuge’s reforestation and Forest Habitat Management Plans, allow beavers to build 

dams on the refuge, especially in previously converted farmlands prone to erosion where 

reforestation efforts are not yet underway. 

Objective C.2 – Aquatic Habitat Diversity: During the life of this CCP, increase native habitat complexity in 

the Tensas River by increasing the volume of large woody debris in and along the stream. 

Discussion: According to refuge staff, the Tensas River has been dredged one or more times to 

speed runoff of floodwaters and improve navigation. This channelization simplifies aquatic habitat by 

reducing the variability of velocities through the channel. Refuge staff also indicated that trees have 

been removed from the river channel to aid in navigation. 

Wood is a critical structural component in low-gradient streams like the Tensas River. Trees, which 

are recruited into the river due to senescence or normal stream migration, provide the only structures 

that change flow patterns. When a tree falls into the river, water can be diverted over, under, and 

around it. Localized higher velocities increase turbulence and aeration, thereby raising levels of 

dissolved oxygen. Higher velocities also cause scouring that creates pools, while localized low 

velocities provide sediment depositional areas. Low velocity areas can act as refuge for fish during 

flood events, and the larger grained sediment that forms the bottoms of pools acts as spawning 

habitat. One study of wood in low gradient streams showed that the wood occupied only 2 percent of 

the stream volume but provided more than half of the flow resistance (Manga and Kirchner 2000). 

Other studies have shown that removing wood from streams decreases channel sinuosity; increases 

bank erosion; increases turbidity and TSS; and reduces the number of fish found in the stream reach 

(Gregory, Boyer, and Gurnell 2003). Increased sediment and lack of wood in streams leads to other 

problems, including increased water temperature, reduced dissolved oxygen, and reduced quality of 

habitat for fishes, mussels, and macroinvertebrates. Clearly wood is an important component of the 

Tensas River and managing for it can improve the aquatic habitat for Service trust resources, even if 

the river itself is not refuge property. 

Strategies: 

y Discourage removal of wood from streams on the refuge by the Louisiana Levee District, 

which is part of the Corps of Engineers. 

y Discourage dredging of streams on the refuge by the Louisiana Levee District. 

y In coordination with the State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the 

regional refuge ecologist, introduce large wood in strategic locations to improve cover; 

increase hydraulic complexity and habitat diversity; and decrease turbidity and TSS. 

Objective C.3 – Water Quality and Contaminants: Establish and implement contaminant-monitoring 

protocols in partnership with others to monitor and evaluate contaminant issues that could affect the 

refuge and the fish and wildlife resources that it supports. 

Discussion: The aquatic habitats of the Tensas River Basin have been heavily impacted by sediment 

and agri-chemical runoff due to intense drainage, extensive clearing of bottomland hardwoods, and 

agricultural production. Contaminant surveys in the Tensas River Basin have documented elevated 

levels of organochlorine pesticides, particularly DDT and toxaphene, in fishes and sediments. Those 

pesticides were used in soybean and cotton farming throughout the basin from the 1940s to the 

1970s. DDT and toxaphene have been consistently present in fishes collected from mainstem and 

backwater areas, including the Tensas River NWR. 
96 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

DDT possesses known carcinogenic, teratogenic, xenotoxic, and mutagenic properties and is 

very persistent in the environment (McCabe and Sandretto 1985). DDT acts as a synthetic 

estrogen, binding to and activating estrogen receptors (McLachlan et al., 1992; Colburn and 

Clement 1992). Pesticides that function as endocrine system disrupters, such as DDT and 

toxaphene, cause thyroid dysfunction in birds and fishes; reduced fertility in vertebrates; 

decreased hatching and birth defects in turtles, birds, and mammals; metabolic abnormalities and 

male emasculation/feminization in fishes, birds, and mammals; and 

defeminization/masculinization in female fishes and birds (Colburn and Cement 1992). 

A potential point source that may be contributing to the elevated levels of toxaphene and DDT in the 

Tensas River is the East Carroll Parish Prison Farm, located adjacent to the headwaters of the 

Tensas River. Beginning in July 1984, highly contaminated soils (ranging up to 3,930 ppm toxaphene 

and 4,560 ppm DDT) were excavated from Byerley Airport and the adjacent recreation area and 

hauled to the East Carroll Prison Farm (Gambrell and Patrick 1985). Once at the East Carroll Prison 

Farm, the contaminated soils were disked three times to a depth of 20 cm. Anecdotal information 

indicates that the area south of the East Carroll Prison Farm was used as a solid waste landfill for 

disposal of empty/used agricultural pesticide containers. 

Runoff from upstream landowners not only contains contaminates but also contributes to siltation of the 

Tensas River, its tributaries, and other bodies of water. Implementation of agricultural best 

management practices and precision farming techniques in the Tensas River Basin could help reduce 

siltation, nutrient, and pesticide loading. Surrounding upstream landowners and farmers should be 

encouraged to use filter strips to limit agricultural runoff. The refuge needs to protect against erosion 

and siltation caused by its own management practices. The recent reforestation efforts, both on and off 

the refuge, will help improve water quality, especially in tributaries like Lick Bayou, but cooperation from 

upstream farms and landowners will be essential if the Tensas River is to one day run clear again. 

Strategies: 

y Work with the contaminants personnel at the Ecological Services Field Office in Lafayette, 

Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish and implement sampling protocols to 

determine baseline and perform periodic soil, tissue, and water quality contamination 

monitoring. 

y Work with the Service’s private lands biologists, LDEQ, and NRCS to develop incentives for 

local farmers and landowners to encourage the use of filter strips to limit agricultural runoff. 

y Work with EPA to identify and quantify the refuge’s current contribution to the Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) established for the Tensas River and tributaries. 

y Working with EPA, DNR, USGS, and other partners, conduct surveys every five years or as 

appropriate to document status and trends of Service aquatic resources as well as physical 

water quality parameters. 

y Working with the LDWF and other partners, establish population objectives for fishes and 

mussels in the Tensas River and tributaries. 

Objective C.4 – Oil and Gas Program: Develop working relationships with oil and gas operators to 

establish best management practices. Working within applicable state and federal laws and Service 

policies and regulations, provide access to minerals (e.g., oil and gas) with minimal impacts to the 

refuge or associated fish and wildlife resources. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Discussion: Most of the oil and gas exploration on Tensas River NWR occurred prior to its inception 

in 1983. Currently, only seven of the original 96 wells drilled are in production. Most (82) of the wells 

that were drilled have been properly plugged and abandoned. Twenty-eight of these were productive 

wells that were properly dismantled after their oil reserves were exhausted, and 54 were dry holes 

(determined not productive at time of drilling). Four of the remaining wells are listed in the "shut-in" 

status. A shut-in well is not producing and either has mechanical problems down hole or is not 

economically feasible to produce hydrocarbons. Most of the shut-in wells on Tensas River NWR 

have been shut-in for many years. Shut-in wells can be a problem because wells that have received 

no attention after long periods of time can become potential environmental threats. Pressure can 

build up down hole, and if not released, the pressure can cause blowouts. These blowouts can have 

major negative environmental implications because production, which includes hydrocarbons and 

highly saline produced water, can be released into the surrounding environment. Two additional 

wells are actively used for saltwater disposal. Well No. 183567, formerly operated by D. G. Hamilton, 

has been abandoned and is listed by the State of Louisiana as orphaned. An additional five wells 

were permitted but never drilled. 

Tensas River NWR currently has one transmission pipeline owned by Ashland Pipeline Company. 

The transmission line crosses approximately two miles of refuge land and moves products off the 

refuge. The refuge also has 12 flow lines that transport products from wells to production facilities 

across approximately ten miles of refuge land. 

 

As the surface owner, Tensas River NWR has the right to require any old, out-of-use equipment and wells 

that are not in production to be removed, so that sites can be returned to wildlife habitat and the threat of 

environmental contamination minimized. The refuge should actively pursue the removal and cleanup of 

these sites to prevent current (if any) and future environmental contamination from these activities. 

Tensas River NWR should require all spills of any quantity be reported to the refuge, so proper cleanup 

can be accomplished. It is imperative that documentation of any release onto refuge property be 

maintained in case it is relevant in the future. In some cases, once a mineral lessee is aware of a 

landowner's concerns, problems will be addressed. In other cases, it may take persistence and 

perseverance to have the refuge's surface returned back to use as habitat. Good communication that 

occurs often with the current mineral lessee is the key to working toward site restoration. 

Strategies: 

y Allocate the staff time necessary to coordinate new activities and cleanup. 

y Identify wells that need to be plugged and abandoned, remnant equipment that needs to be 

removed, and possible related contamination issues. Communicate these needs to the 

responsible oil and gas company. 

y Develop a database to track the well status and pipeline locations along with current 

ownership and enter well locations into the Refuge Lands Geographic Information System 

(RLGIS). 

y Work with partners (ES, State, and Regional Office) to develop an oil spill response plan. 

y Sponsor a workshop with partners to inform refuge personnel on legal and technical issues 

related to oil and gas production. Include a contaminants expert to discuss the effects of oil 

on habitats and wildlife, how clean up occurs, how long it takes for the habitat to recover, etc. 

Objective C.5 – Cultural and Historical Archaeological Resources: Within 15 years of CCP approval, 

the refuge will develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). 
98 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: Protecting the cultural and archaeological heritage of an area is important whether such 

resources are located in or out of the boundary of a refuge. Cultural surveys are necessary to protect 

such resources. If any such resources are found on the refuge, they will be protected. 

Strategy: 

y Until such time as the CRMP is completed and implemented, the refuge would follow standard 

Service protocol and procedures in conducting cultural resource surveys by qualified 

professionals, in consultation with the Regional Historic Preservation Office (RHPO) and the 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), prior to commencing projects that entail extensive 

excavation. 

Objective C.6 – Private Lands: Continue working with private landowners and other partners (e.g., 

NRCS) to develop and deliver programs that compliment the purpose of the refuge. 

Discussion: Most of the land in the MAV is privately owned. Thus, private lands must play an 

important role in the restoration and maintenance of native biodiversity in order to achieve the goals 

and objectives of national and regional plans, such as the NAWMP and Partners in Flight: Mississippi 

River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. In an effort to address those objectives, the Service 

established a private lands program known as Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW). Through this 

program, the Service provides technical assistance and delivers financial assistance programs to 

private landowners. The Migratory Bird Field Office, co-located at Tensas River NWR, is responsible 

for providing technical assistance through the PFW Program in northeast Louisiana. 

The Regional PFW Program limits landowners to $25,000 of financial assistance per year. In the 

MAV, most projects involve the restoration of hydrology and hardwood reforestation. Vegetation on 

up to 30 percent of the area can be manipulated to maintain successional stages other than what 

would be expected to come in naturally. For example, up to 30 percent of the area could be 

managed for moist-soil management. The program favors projects located adjacent to refuges, in 

priority bear zones, and within Forest Bird Conservation Areas. 

The Louisiana Waterfowl Project is a partnership with other conservation organizations to provide 

water control structures to private landowners who traditionally will flood harvested cropland and 

moist-soil areas in the winter period (November 15 through February 28). The program provides 

significant benefits for wintering waterfowl and water quality. 

Other agencies, particularly the USDA agencies such as the Farm Services Agency and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, have large programs that will restore wetland habitats in the MAV. 

The NRCS administers the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), which is a popular program that restores 

croplands to wetlands by restoring hydrology and reforestation and protects these areas through the 

acquisition of 30-year and perpetual easements. There are over 200,000 acres of WRP easements in 

Louisiana. A significant amount of this acreage is manageable water for waterfowl. The Service plays 

an important role in developing ranking criteria, evaluating sites, and working with private landowners to 

manage and maximize wetland values. 

The Farm Service Agency administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which 

provides 50 percent cost share to reforest wetland and highly erosive sites in the MAV. The 

program is competitive and qualifying lands are placed under a 15-year contract. Various other 

programs are also available. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

One of the highest priority recommendations from the biological review was the proposed Tensas/Big 

Lake Forest Core WRP Special Project Initiative developed and promoted by the Migratory Bird Field 

Office in Jackson, Mississippi, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s district 

conservationist for Madison Parish, Louisiana. The area is in excess of 125,000 acres and includes 

Tensas River NWR (65,000 acres); Big Lake Wildlife Management Area (20,000 acres); numerous 

tracts restored and/or protected through the WRP and CRP; and other agricultural lands. There is 

within this large complex of habitats a 21,000-acre area generally dominated by agriculture that lies 

between the two units of Tensas River NWR and serves to fragment the area into two forest blocks. 

The southern half of this agricultural block is locally known as Hunter’s Bend. About 3,000 acres 

within Hunter’s Bend is being proposed for inclusion in this special project (Figure 8). About 7,500 

acres in the Hunter’s Bend area either were already forested or are being reforested through WRP 

and CRP. The remaining 11,000 acres of agricultural land immediately north of the proposed WRP 

Special Project area are being acquired from Chicago Mill and restored to forested wetlands for 

carbon sequestration through an agreement between The Trust for Public Lands (TPL), Entergy, and 

the Service (Figure 8). The carbon project is in its third year of restoration work. Due to infrastructure 

impacts and unusual repair costs associated with Hurricane Katrina, Entergy, Inc., the original project 

funding partner, has fallen behind in their support of the project. TPL remains committed to the 

project and is working to find other partners. 

Completion of the carbon project and the proposed WRP special project would contribute significantly 

to solving several ecological problems. These include defragmenting a large forested area; restoring 

the ecological integrity of the area; providing continuous forest cover along both banks of nearly 50 

miles of the Tensas River; and developing a 125,000-acre block of forested wetlands important to a 

suite of forest breeding landbirds of highest conservation priority. The ivory-billed woodpecker and 

American swallow-tailed kite both require large, contiguous forested blocks to support viable 

populations. A number of other high-priority birds of continental conservation concern that require 

large, contiguous blocks (more than 10,000 acres) of forested wetlands to reduce nest predation and 

parasitism and provide habitat necessary to support viable breeding populations will also benefit 

significantly from reduced fragmentation of this forest complex. These species include Bachman’s 

warbler (Vermivora bachmanii), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), prothonotary warbler 

(Prothonotaria citrea), and Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii). The threatened Louisiana 

black bear would also benefit from the expansion of natural habitat in the area as its population 

continues to expand. Significant positive benefits to water quality in the Tensas River are expected. 

Competition for private landowners to get into the USDA’s WRP is increasing as a result of the failing 

farm economy and the increasing value of restored wetlands for recreational purposes. The Service, 

working with NRCS and private landowners, became aware that some of the landowners within the 

proposed special project area applied or were interested in applying to the WRP. Relatively small tract 

landowners own much of the area with potential hydrologic restoration extending across property 

boundaries. Because of this limitation and other factors, some of the individual tracts on these farms 

are not scoring high enough for those landowners to get their intentions accepted into the program. 

Consequently, the best probability for ensuring the restoration and protection of a block of land in this 

area is through a special project. In the winter of 2005-06, the Service’s private lands biologists, and 

representatives from the Madison Parish Soil and Water Conservation District, The Nature 

Conservancy, The Trust for Public Lands, and the Louisiana Black Bear Conservation Committee 

coordinated with the Madison Parish’s district conservationist in identifying a 3,000-acre special WRP 

project area. Nearly all 3,000 acres were enrolled and accepted in the program (pending appraisals, 

etc.) during the 2006 sign-up period. 
100 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Work through a variety of programs to provide technical and financial assistance necessary to 

promote corridors and core habitat for the threatened Louisiana black bear and to provide 

additional migratory bird habitat to benefit refuge and regional objectives. 

y Work with the NRCS, FSA, private landowners, and other partners to designate conservation 

priority areas to provide additional incentives that will encourage landowners to implement 

practices that will benefit trust resources (e.g., Louisiana black bear and migratory birds), 

refuge purposes, and MAV ecosystem goals. 

y Specifically, work with partners to develop a special WRP project area in the Hunter’s Bend 

area of the refuge to increase the forest block size and improve water quality in the area of 

Tensas River NWR. 

Objective C.7 – Land Acquisition: Work with willing sellers to acquire privately owned lands within the 

established acquisition boundary of the refuge. 

Discussion: Land acquisition efforts are intended to contribute to the goals of the NAWMP and 

LMVJV. Privately owned lands within the acquisition boundary of Tensas River NWR will be targeted 

for acquisition for incorporation into the Refuge System. Sources of federal funds for land acquisition 

include the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the 

Inholding and Emergency Fund. Additional assistance will be sought through partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, such as The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and The 

Conservation Fund, and through partnerships with private companies involved in carbon 

sequestration. 

The current refuge acquisition boundary encompasses 95,725 acres. To date, the Service has 

acquired 74,622 acres (this includes 195 acres of easements). The remaining 21,103 acres includes 

scattered medium to large ownerships (1,000s of acres) and numerous smaller ownerships, ranging 

in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. These inholdings are distributed throughout the 

refuge. Acquisition of these remaining inholding properties will provide significant biological benefits 

by increasing the size and continuity of refuge lands; and, will greatly facilitate refuge management by 

incorporating these properties into surrounding contiguous blocks of refuge lands. Currently, a multiyear project is underway which combines federal, non-governmental organizations, and corporate 

funding to acquire approximately 11,000 acres through a carbon sequestration partnership. Through 

this partnership, the lands were acquired by The Trust for Public Land over a 3-year period from 2004 

through 2006. Portions of the property were then reforested under the direction of the Service with 

funding from corporate partners, then conveyed to the Service for incorporation into the refuge. To 

date, 8,225 of the 11,000 acres have been acquired, reforested, and conveyed to the Service. The 

remainder is expected to be reforested and conveyed to the Service in the next one to two years. 

This carbon sequestration project, and others such as the GoZero program administered by The 

Conservation Fund, can serve as models for future land acquisition partnerships as opportunities 

arise in the future. 

Strategy: 

y Work with willing sellers and partners where appropriate to acquire privately owned inholding properties for addition to refuge. 

Objective C.8 – Law Enforcement: Enhance the refuge Law Enforcement Program to provide 

sufficient resource protection and visitor safety. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Discussion: Protecting the natural resources of the refuge and ensuring the safety of refuge visitors 

are fundamental responsibilities of the Refuge System. As crime continues to increase in rural 

America, the refuges face a larger and more complicated enforcement problem. In addition to more 

than 10,000 natural resource violations, many other serious crimes are occurring on America’s 

refuges each year. 

Strategies: 

y Provide up-to-date training and equipment to all full-time and dual function officers. 

y Develop memorandums of understanding with state and parish law enforcement agencies to 

facilitate cooperation and assistance in law enforcement activities. 

y Provide education and outreach programs in the local community as part of a preventive law 

enforcement effort. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal D: Develop and implement a quality, compatible wildlife-dependent public use program that 

leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural resources found in the Tensas River 

Basin. 

Objective D.1 General Public Use Program: Develop a Visitor Services Plan that will set goals, 

determine measurable objectives, identify strategies, and establish evaluation criteria for all 

visitor services. 

Discussion: The Improvement Act recognizes wildlife-dependent recreation as a legitimate use of 

refuges. Priority public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in 

planning and management. The Improvement Act also clearly states that these uses are to only be 

allowed if they are determined to not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or purposes of the refuge (i.e., must be compatible). Wildlife needs 

must come first and will override public use activities. Therefore, it is important on Tensas River 

NWR that any allowable public uses do not impact the sanctuary and non-disturbance requirements 

of migratory birds (e.g., foraging, roosting, nesting, pairing, molting, and rookeries), endangered 

species, and other wildlife. 

Strategy: 

y Following the drafting and acceptance of the CCP, develop an up-to-date Visitor Services’ 

Plan that reflects current legislation, director’s orders, initiatives, policy, and the mission of the 

refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service. 

Objective D.2 – Welcome and Visitor Orientation: Provide visitors with clear information, so they can 

easily determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in 

recreational and educational activities. 

Discussion: Careful planning provides the visiting public with opportunities to enjoy and appreciate 

fish, wildlife, plants, and other resources. Clear directions to the refuge, ready access to refuge 

information, and courteous treatment of visitors will all add to public enjoyment of their refuge 

experience (Figure 8). 
102 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Proposed visitor services on Tensas River NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Strategies: 

y Facilities will be clean, well-maintained, and accessible. We will treat visitors with 

courtesy and in a professional manner. 

y Provide well-maintained entrance sign at each major entry point onto the refuge. 

Provide signs on I-20 directing visitors to the refuge. 

y Provide kiosks at all entry points and have one standard panel kiosk with basic 

information such as You Are Here Map, Permit Required for All Visitors, and brochure 

box with permits. 

y Revise the Public Use Regulations Brochure to address all uses. It currently looks like 

a hunting and fishing brochure, which can cause confusion to visitors. 

y Update the audiovisual program for the refuge. 

y Develop a consistent way of letting visitors know when the roads are impassable until 

the visitors have driven all the way out to the refuge. 

Objective D.3 – Hunting Opportunities: Conduct a quality hunting program in a safe and costeffective manner, and to the extent practicable, carried out in accordance with State regulations. 

 

Discussion: Of the 82,000 annual visits to Tensas River NWR, approximately 90 percent of them are 

to hunt. Of the 74,622 acres on the refuge, all but 2,600 are open to some form of hunting. Hunting 

activities allowed on the refuge include deer-archery, deer-youth, deer-modern firearms, deer 

muzzleloader, turkey, squirrel and rabbit, raccoon, woodcock and snipe, ducks and coots, and 

incidental species including coyote, beaver, raccoon, skunk and opossum. 

The deer-modern firearms hunt is a quota hunt. Hunters must send in an application for one of the 

two hunts and if selected purchase a $12.50 permit. In recent years, the number of applications has 

dropped from highs of over 10,000 to less than 4,000. One reason for this drop in applications may 

be because the habitat on the refuge is changing. 

For the modern firearms and the muzzleloader hunts, the refuge runs deer check stations staffed by 

refuge personnel and volunteers to collect biological data. There are eleven check stations at all major 

exits from the refuge. For all hunts, the hunter is required to report harvest information on a green 

Hunter Information Report Card, which is located at self-clearing check stations at main exit points. 

 

For the youth deer hunt, the refuge provides stands and guides for the youth. Hunters under 16 

years of age must possess proof of completion of an approved Hunter Safety Course and be 

accompanied at all times by an adult 21 years of age or older. 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are allowed on designated trails during hunting season. An ATV user 

permit is required, and the permit must be permanently affixed to the ATVs used on the refuge. The 

permit may be purchased at the visitor center or by mail for $10. 

The refuge does have several trails for ATV use by hunters with disabilities. Hunters with disabilities 

must have a Physically Challenged Hunter Program Permit issued by LDWF or be 60 years of age or 

older to operate an ATV on one of these specially designated trails. Currently, in the way the 

regulations are stated, there is no accommodation for hunters with disabilities once they ride the ATV 

down the trail. The regulations state “Hunting within 150 feet of any public road, designated refuge 

road, or trails....is prohibited.” The law enforcement officer indicated during discussions that he 

would not write a violation for a disabled hunter that had driven off the ATV trail to get 150 feet away 
104 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

from the trail. The team discussed the need to have a plan in place to accommodate hunters with 

disabilities that will allow them to legally get to an appropriate hunting spot. 

The refuge does allow night hunts for raccoons. Horses and mules are allowed during this hunt. The 

refuge also issues special use permits to coon dog field trials. These are currently allowed at times 

other than the regular raccoon season. 

All visitors to the refuge (including hunters and people fishing) are required to have a signed Public 

Use Regulations brochure with them. These are available at the main entry points. 

Strategies: 

y Evaluate the need for continued check stations/bag limit cards. Consider eliminating one or 

both if they are not providing needed information. 

y Put the Game Check Card and Recreation Brochure in standard brochure box and then have 

a locked drop box for hunters to put the completed Game Check Cards into. 

y Continue to support youth hunts. 

y The need for a continued quota hunt will be evaluated but is currently necessary for public 

safety and use as a management tool. 

y Continue to work with various user groups to develop accessible opportunties for a quality 

hunt. 

y Consider opening a recreational alligator hunt. 

Objective D.4 – Fishing Opportunities: Conduct a quality fishing program in a safe and cost-effective 

manner that is carried out in accordance with State regulations. 

Discussion: In the opinion of the Biological Review Team, fishing opportunities are somewhat limited 

at Tensas River NWR. Few locations on the refuge provided quality fishing destinations, and water 

quality and pesticides could be an issue. There may be better opportunities for fishing in the 

surrounding area. As a result, the refuge has made the appropriate decision not to develop an 

extensive fishing program. 

Fishing regulations are printed in the Refuge Public Use Regulations. State creel limits and 

regulations apply. A special use permit is required for commercial fishing and trot-lines must be 

attended once each day. 

The refuge has capitalized on some of the better fishing sites in developing fishing facilities to support 

this priority activity. They have developed a fishing pier on Rainey Lake and have one developed 

boat launch at Ben Lily Bridge that provides access to the Tensas River. 

The refuge provides several special fishing events annually for senior citizens, youth groups, and 

individuals with disabilities. 

Strategies: 

y Evaluate the quality of fishing on the refuge and determine how much emphasis to put on 

developing additional fishing opportunities. 

y Use existing fishing opportunities, and do not put resources into developing additional lakes, 

ponds, or borrow pits for fishing. 

y In Rainy Lake, control vegetation around the fishing pier. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

y In Africa Lake, put in boat launch at new site with a possible fishing pier. 

y In Indian Lake, put boat launch and possibly a fishing pier at the campsite on Spur 577 on the 

east side of Indian Lake. 

y In Cooper Tract, evaluate bank fishing opportunity at existing pond. 

Objective D.5 – Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography Opportunities: Promote wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography, when compatible, to visitors of all ages and abilities. 

Discussion: The refuge does have an auto tour route starting within sight of the office/visitor center. 

The tour route goes by Rainey Lake and is marked with directional signs, but there are no interpretive 

signs other than one stating that an area had been re-forested in 1987. Wildlife is skittish when 

vehicles drive by as there is little cover or screening from the road. It does offer a representative 

sample of the refuge’s habitats. The road is wide enough for vehicles to safely pass. 

There are two observation towers accessible by the Hollow Cypress Trail (boardwalk) behind the 

visitor center. One is handicapped accessible and the other is not. The taller one – not handicapped 

accessible – has a handicapped accessible binocular telescope and a tall mounted binocular 

telescope. Both have interpretive panels mounted off the sides. Both look out onto the wildlife drive 

area and Rainey Lake. The boardwalk leading to these overlooks does have a few interpretive signs 

in Plexiglas covered frames mounted on posts. One more overlook is located off the Rainey Lake 

walking trail called the Cypress Overlook. A fishing pier also along the Rainey Lake Trail offers a 

great view of the lake. The Rainey Lake Trail does have several signs both interpretive (a few 

interpretive signs in Plexiglas covered frames mounted on posts) and directional with distances 

noted. There is no trailhead sign, total mileage sign, or map of the trail. 

All the refuge brochures that are available comply with the Service Graphics Standards. There is a 

current bird list updated in 2005. A general brochure and “Public Use Regulations” brochure are 

available at the visitor center. The “Public Use Regulations” brochure is a required permit for all refuge 

uses and is available at most entrances and all game-check-in stations. Even though the universal 

symbols on the cover are only for hunting and fishing, this brochure also contains the refuge map and 

all public use regulations. Hiking areas, wildlife viewing areas, and photographic opportunities are not 

designated on the map or mentioned in the required brochure. 

The visitor center has exhibits that are relevant and good quality, but some of the content is dated. 

They have just been cleaned. The video the refuge currently uses is not a video made for visitor 

center viewing but is an informative video of how the refuge was established. 

The refuge holds a National Hunting and Fishing Day event where they draw for their quota youth 

hunts. Exhibitors, music, bb shooting contests, clay pigeon shooting, casting contest, and food bring 

in over 2,000 visitors annually. 

The refuge has plantings and food plots they call “wildlife viewing areas,” but they are not marked or 

signed as such. Some do offer the possibility of wildlife viewing from the roads or trails. Conflicts 

between wildlife and the public could become an issue with increased visitation/road traffic and some 

of the food plots along the roads. 
106 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Place trailhead kiosk at beginning of all trails with information such as map of trail, trail 

conditions, what to see, safety information, and length of trail. 

y Place temporary signs at trail entrances to alert hikers when hunting is taking place. 

y Replace End of Trail signs with No ATV Beyond This Point. 

y On Greenlea Wildlife Drive, place one-way signs where the road becomes one way. 

y On Rainey Lake Trail, develop a trailhead kiosk with basic information for both entrances. 

y Around Rainey Lake Observatory place information sign on the boardwalk about “quiet area” 

and the importance of staying quiet for the benefit of the birds. 

y Conduct plantings in front of Hollow Cypress Trail Observation Tower to bring wildlife closer to 

the tower. 

y Develop canoeing opportunities on the river and partner with canoe clubs to keep it clean and 

maintained. 

Objective D.6 – Environmental Education: Coordinate Environmental Education program with federal 

and state education standards, emphasizing public awareness of wildlife issues and concerns on and 

off refuge lands. 

Discussion: Education programs have been handled on a case-by-case basis, developing a program 

to fit the needs of the school. Refuge staff have developed and now lead school tours. These tours 

number about eight programs each year and include trail walks, wildlife viewing tours, time in the 

visitor center, and some specialized activities. 

The refuge also had a program involving high school students called Instructor Core. This was a 

cascade mentoring style program that taught students to teach other students. This program was 

eliminated due to staff time limitations. 

One area teacher is also a volunteer and does some innovative activities including water quality 

testing and amphibian studies. 

Strategies: 

y Work with schoolteachers to develop a teacher in-service to provide training for local teachers. 

y Continue to be involved in Boy Scout Venturing Crew, 4-H, school groups, wild woods, 

church, and civic organizations.

y Contact LDEQ about partnering on a water-monitoring program with one of the local schools. 

y Contract or partner with local teacher(s) to develop a revised instructor corps program. 

Objective D.7 – Environmental Interpretation: Develop interpretive displays and standard talks on 

interpretive themes such as: reforestation, black bears, forest management, and bottomland 

hardwood forests. 

Discussion: The focus of the current interpretive program is the visitor center. This facility is 16 years 

old. The exhibits explain the management of the refuge in one area and the history in another and 

the bulk of the exhibitory is mounted specimens in diorama cases. The visitor center has adequate 

parking although the lot and sidewalks are slated for maintenance. There is a roofed kiosk in the 

parking area that is also planned to be replaced. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

Near the visitor center is a driving tour and two short walking trails that make up the majority of 

interpretation on the refuge. The Rainey Lake Trail has a few wayside signs on it, a blind that is in 

need of repair, a fishing pier, and an overlook. The Hollow Cypress Trail and Overlook offers a 

vantage of the wildlife viewing area and has a few interpretive panels and scopes on the overlook. 

Most activities in these areas are self-guided. 

Strategies: 

y Provide interpretive information in such places as pullouts along the wildlife drive, the visitor 

center, and observation platforms/piers/blinds. 

y Provide new environmental education sites such as an outdoor classroom. 

y Create self-interpreted brochures that coincide with various refuge trails, boardwalks, and 

drives. 

y Update interpretive panels along all refuge trails, boardwalks, and drives. 

Objective D.8 – Public Outreach: Ensure public is aware of refuge existence and strategies such as 

living with black bears, forest management, and management programs associated with all wildlife 

species. 

Discussion: Effective outreach depends on open and continuing communication between the refuge 

staff and the public. This communication involves determining and understanding the issues, 

identifying audiences, crafting messages, selecting the most effective delivery techniques, and 

evaluating effectiveness. Achieved results will further the mission of the Refuge System and 

purpose(s) of the refuge. The target audiences include Tensas, Madison, and Richland Parishes, as 

well as surrounding parishes throughout Louisiana. 

The refuge staff currently conducts programs off-site to local organizations, including the Lions and 

Elks clubs, upon request, which usually are five or six per year. Outside of news releases for the upcoming hunting and fishing seasons or for the National Hunting and Fishing event, held the fourth 

weekend in September, there is not any outreach through the media. A weekly column was 

submitted to the local paper in Tallulah when there was a visitor services specialist on the staff. 

The refuge staff does not participate in any local or surrounding area events in an outreach capacity. 

The refuge is not a member of any local Chambers of Commerce. 

Strategies: 

y Develop/maintain contacts at media outlets. 

y Develop email or fax list of media contacts. 

y Select some key events (opening of hunting, Hunt/Fishing Day, etc.) and provide news 

releases for this. 

y Re-establish a monthly “Refuge Updates” section for the Tallulah paper. 

y If it still exists, re-establish the relationship with the local radio station. 

y Develop two to four talks that can be presented to local groups as requested. 

y Make sure that all outreach materials (talks, presentations, etc.) emphasize the purpose and 

objectives of the refuge. 

y Develop a quarterly refuge newsletter to send to contacts in the community. 

y The refuge should be a member of the local chamber of commerce. 
108 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective D.9 – Volunteer Programs: Build volunteer programs and partnerships with refuge support 

groups to help with directed refuge activities. 

Discussion: Volunteers and refuge support groups fortify refuge staffs with their gift of time, skills, 

and energy and are integral to the future of the Refuge System. Refuge staff will initiate and nurture 

relationships with volunteers and refuge support groups and will continually support, monitor, and 

evaluate these groups with the goal of fortifying important refuge activities. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-242) 

strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing effective partnerships with various community 

groups. Through volunteers, refuge support groups, or other important partnerships in the 

community, refuge personnel will seek to make the refuge an integral part of the community, giving 

rise to a stronger Refuge System. 

Over the life of the refuge, about 100 volunteers have signed up, but most are not active currently. 

When active, these individuals build wood duck boxes and assist with numerous maintenance 

projects such as repairing boardwalks and assisting with woodworking projects. The refuge also 

utilizes volunteers to help staff special events such as the Hunting and Fishing Day events. 

Volunteers also are used to staff hunter check stations during the lottery gun hunts. 

The Tensas River Refuge Association was established in 1998. Over its history, membership has 

ebbed and flowed. When it was most active, the association had up to 30 members, and at its lowest 

number, the membership has dwindled to six. The current Board of Directors has been in place for 

several years. The association meets monthly on the second Sunday of the month. The association 

maintains a modest sales area in the Visitor Center, and the revenue generated helps fund social 

events and other refuge projects. 

Strategies: 

y Ensure volunteers are monitored through the volunteer coordinator. 

y Volunteer coordinator will refresh in Volunteer Training. 

y Develop a volunteer plan to identify volunteer opportunities (both ongoing and project based), 

develop volunteer job descriptions, recruit volunteers, and assign who will supervise each 

volunteer. 

y Develop a volunteer orientation packet. 

y Maintain the bunkhouse to provide housing for volunteers/interns/detailees. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal E. Secure and enhance staffing, funding, and facilities to manage the integrity of habitats and 

wildlife resources in Tensas River NWR and fulfill the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Objective E.1 – Staffing: Work with Regional Office to provide sufficient staffing and budget needs to 

meet specific goals and objectives outlined in CCP. 

Discussion: The managers at Tensas River NWR face a series of challenges in managing a 

cooperative farming program and enhancing and maintaining productivity of moist-soil 

impoundments. It is recommended that the refuge have at least one employee (biotech/equipment 

operator) plus other staff assistance at least on a seasonal basis to properly manage the desired 

habitat complex (i.e., 400-550 acres of moist-soil, 150-300 acres of unharvested (forced account) row 

crops, and 200 acres of shallow-flooded/mud flat habitats for shorebirds and wading birds). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

Strategy: 

y Provide a full-time law enforcement officer, an equipment operator, a maintenance worker, 

and a wildlife technician. 

Objective E.2 – Facilities: Work with Regional Office to prioritize and fund for improvements, 

updates, renovations, and construction of visitor and refuge management support facilities within the 

next 15 years where needed. 

Discussion: Additional staff and equipment are needed if the refuge is expected to meet waterfowl 

objectives. Required equipment includes a 200 hp tractor and a seed drill, heavy plow, cultivator, 

planter, and mower. 

Strategy: 

y Provide equipment and facilities, as necessary, to support the mission and vision of the 

refuge. 
110 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

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. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for Tensas 

River NWR, this section 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, 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 Draft CCP/EA will be included in the Refuge Operating 

Needs System (RONS), which is a national database that contains 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 Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) Database, which is a computerized database and management tool used for planning and 

budgeting maintenance, capital improvements, and equipment replacement. 

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 will be developed in conjunction with future plans such as visitor 

services program plans and forest habitat management plans. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Enhance Active Forest Management to Improve the Health and Expand the Population of 

Deer, Turkey, and Forest Breeding Birds 

Since the formation of the refuge, logging has been minimal. In many areas, the forest canopy has 

become closed, limiting the amount of available browse and reducing the carrying capacity of the habitat 

for deer. By continuing to implement the refuge’s Forest Habitat Management Plan, particularly as it 

relates to providing habitat needs of priority forest-dwelling non-game birds, conditions will be enhanced 

for maintaining a healthy deer population as well. Such active management will provide a diversity and 

abundance of understory, midstory, and overstory stand components (i.e., complex forest stand structure) 
112 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

to meet the needs of a variety of non-game forest birds and resident wildlife, including turkey and deer. 

(Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

 

Recurring Costs: $68,000 Special Project Cost: $133,000 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest Restoration 

Prior to European settlement, the Tensas 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. Tensas River NWR is 

one of the remaining bottomland hardwood forests (isolated islands) surrounded by a sea of 

agriculture. One of the primary goals of the refuge is to expand this habitat in large integral tracts in 

order to support interior bottomland hardwood forest function where possible. Continue to work with 

non-profit organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Ducks Unlimited, 

and the Service’s Realty Office to acquire lands from willing sellers within in the acquisition boundary. 

Acquisition of the tracts with the acquisition boundary will enable Tensas River NWR to become a 

contiguous tract. (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: Cost dependent on fair market value Special Project Cost: To be Determined 

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 Chinese tallow and trifoliate orange in reforestation areas, woody succession in moist-soil units 

and impoundments, and sub-aquatic vegetation in Rainey Lake. Strategies will include chemical, 

mechanical, and biological control techniques. (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: $10,000 Special Project Cost: $42,000 

 8,000 23,000 

 7,000 29,000 

Control Nuisance Animal Populations to Protect Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation Efforts 

Refuge lands contain extensive wetland acreage with varying sources and duration of hydrology that 

can be impacted by beaver activity. Beavers have constructed dams that hold water and kill trees. 

Although beaver ponds do provide habitat for some waterfowl and aquatic species (wading birds, 

reptiles, amphibians), forest losses can be substantial if not controlled. Beaver suppression will be 

required in many areas throughout the refuge. Feral hogs historically have been found on Tensas 

River NWR; recently the population has been contained. All efforts need to be taken to keep the 

number of feral hogs as low as possible if not at all. This project considers the addition of a wildlife 

technician (GS-486-05/07). (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

 

Recurring Costs: 45,000 Special Project Cost: $60,000 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Science-based Inventorying and Monitoring of Wildlife Populations 

Science-based inventorying and monitoring of wildlife populations are critical to ensuring the 

biological integrity of the refuge. Information collected will serve as baseline flora and fauna data for 

developing habitat management plans and will influence all refuge management activities. A 

systematic inventorying 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, scrub/shrub birds, and others. 

Standardized census and survey techniques will be employed, and all baseline data compiled into 

databases, including global information system (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. (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: $68,000 Special Project Cost: $138,000 

 65,000 

 

Determine Population Status and Management Needs of Refuge Reptiles and Amphibians 

Although the prospective herpetofauna on the refuge is large, the presence of relatively few of the 

species have been confirmed and associated with their habitats. When confronted with a lack of 

knowledge concerning the species actually residing on the refuge, the first step in conserving them is 

learning of their presence, and to the extent possible, associating their presence with particular 

habitats and how forest management activities are impacting their populations. The refuge will 

cooperate with universities or organizations to design and implement a project and collaborate with 

the U.S. Geological Survey on the possibility of funding through the Amphibian and Reptile 

Monitoring Initiative. (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: $81,000 Special Project Cost: $146,000 

Continue Active Participation in the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Activities 

The Louisiana black bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act due to 

extensive habitat reduction and fragmentation and declining populations. Bears once occurred 

throughout southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and eastern Texas. Habitat modification, particularly clearing 

for agriculture, has fragmented and reduced suitable habitat by more than 80 percent in the Lower 

Mississippi Valley. Refuge efforts for participating in these activities will include (1) coordination of bear 

related research and other activities throughout northeast Louisiana; (2) continued support and assistance 

with Louisiana State University, LDWF, and Black Bear Conservation Committee with repatriation efforts; 

(3) provide support and assistance with USDA Wildlife Services and LDWF with nuisance bear situations; 

(4) conduct public education and outreach on living with bears to the local community and coordinate with 

other agencies as necessary in this outreach; and, (5) conduct forest habitat management. (Linkages: 

Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

 

Recurring Costs: $20,000 Special Project Cost: $50,000 
114 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Archaeological 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 the protection of existing resources and resource/public use development activities. 

(Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: N/A Special Project Cost: $70,000 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Improve Public Access and Use Opportunities 

Access to the refuge and visitor activity would be greatly improved by paving access to the refuge 

from Highway 80 and providing an off-ramp from I-20 near that refuge access point. Another need to 

improve public awareness of the refuge is directional and interpretive signs at major visitor access 

points. Public use and wildlife interpretation opportunities will be enhanced through better access 

signage. This project includes multiple boat launches, interpretive signs, kiosks, fishing piers, and 

outdoor education facilities. Other improvements are to include paving and construction of the offramp. This project will also include a maintenance worker (WG-4749-9) and Engineering Equipment 

Operator (WG-5716-10) (Linkages: Goal A; Goal E, Objectives E.1 and 2)

Recurring Costs: Cost unknown at this time Special Project Cost: Cost unknown at this time. 

Improve Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center 

The present headquarters was built in 1991 and has many deficiencies such as improper plumbing, 

reduced office space, rotten windows and siding, and no room for storage of refuge supplies. Current 

staff have to share office space. Several of the exhibits are functional but need to be updated with 

new technology to bring the refuge up-to-date with current trends. An environmental classroom 

added to the new visitor center would greatly enhance the ability to teach young people about the 

aspects of natural resources. (Linkages: Goal D; Goal E)

Recurring Costs: $150,000 Special Project Cost: $3.8 million 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative Support 

Increase base budgeting for Tensas River NWR to cover salaries with cost of living increases and to 

provide adequate training and equipment for personnel. Park Ranger (Law Enforcement, GL-0025-7; 

$80,000). New equipment needed includes an excavator ($174,000), road grader ($312,000), and 

boat and motor ($10,000). (Linkages: Goal A through E)

Recurring Costs: Special Project Cost: 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Table 10. Summary of projects 

Project Title 

First Year 

Cost 

($) 

Recurring 

Annual 

Cost 

($) 

Staff 

(FTE’s) 

Enhance Active Forest Management to Improve the Health 

and Expand the Population of Deer, Turkey, and Forest 

Breeding Birds 

133,000 68,000 1 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest Restoration * * 

Control of Invasive Plants 94,000 25,000 

Control Nuisance Animal Populations to Protect 

Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation Efforts 60,000 45,000 1 

Science-based Inventorying and Monitoring of Wildlife 

Populations 68,000 203,000 

Determine Population Status and Management Needs of 

Refuge Reptiles and Amphibians 81,000 146,000 

Continue Active Participation in the Louisiana Black Bear 

Recovery Activities 20,000 50,000 

Archaeological Survey N/A 70,000 

Improve Public Access and Use Opportunities * * 1 

Improve Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center 150,000 3.8 Million 

Administrative Support 90,000 600,000 1 

PARTNERSHIP AND VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

VOLUNTEERS 

The refuge currently has a good relationship with the volunteer group “Tensas River Refuge 

Association” and will use this as a model for other partnerships. This group of volunteers is 

involved in helping make the refuge a part of the surrounding community. The refuge will 

continue to use this group of volunteers as well as recruit others to assist in activities such as 

wood duck box management, migratory songbird point count surveys, amphibian and reptile 

surveys, and grounds maintenance. 
116 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this Drat CCP/EA 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 LDWF, Ducks Unlimited, The 

Nature Conservancy, and Audubon Society. 

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 better contributions to the refuge by assisting 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 Draft CCP/EA need the support and the partnerships of 

federal, state, and local agencies; non-governmental organizations; and private citizens. This broadbased 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 future direction of the refuge. A step-down management 

plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services’ management. 

These plans (Table 11) are also developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 

which requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement 

prior to their implementation. 

Table 11. Tensas River NWR step-down management plans 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Forest Management Plan 2012 

Water Management Plan 2014 

Cropland Moist-Soil Management Plan 2014 

Visitors Services’ Plan 2012 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2016 

Nuisance Animal Control Plan 2013 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2017 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117

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, inventorying, and monitoring protocols will be 

adopted for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine 

approaches and determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will 

include ecosystem team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation 

indicate undesirable effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to 

the management projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. 

It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when 

conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological 

conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s 

goals and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject 

to public review and NEPA compliance. 
118 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 119

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Tensas River NWR in compliance with 

NEPA and the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act requires the development of a CCP for all 

refuges, and plan development must follow the guidelines established by NEPA. Following a public 

review and comment period on the Draft CCP/EA, a final decision will be made by the Service that 

will guide Tensas River NWR management actions and decisions over the next 15 years; provide 

understanding about the refuge and management activities; and incorporate information and 

suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft CCP proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP addresses current management issues, provides longterm management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the 

Improvement Act. While the CCP provides general management direction, subsequent step-down 

plans will provide more detailed management direction and actions. 

This EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to 

support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative 

presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no 

significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or if 

the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD). Following public review and 

comment, the Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

The CCP is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the refuge, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the Improvement Act, which 

requires the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP is to establish and implement management direction for Tensas River NWR 

for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. This 

EA describes the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 
120 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a range 

of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected Alternative C, 

“Ecosystem Management” as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the 

planning team, Alternative C is the best approach to guide the refuge’s management direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of 

the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this plan. The Improvement Act requires that all national 

wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to 

implement the CCP for Tensas River NWR. The finalized CCP will include a FONSI, which is a 

statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the Service and the Refuge 

System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and other legal mandates. 

Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the plan will begin and will be monitored 

annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

The refuge consists of over 74,622 acres in fee title. It is located in the Tensas Basin in northeast 

Louisiana approximately 60 miles southeast of Monroe, Louisiana, and 25 miles southwest of 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. The refuge selection area encompasses portions of Madison, Tensas, and 

Franklin Parishes. The office/visitor center and maintenance facilities are located approximately 12 

miles southwest of Tallulah, Louisiana, on the refuge. 

This EA will identify management on refuge lands, as well as those lands proposed for acquisition by 

the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the Improvement Act and Part 602 (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan 

also meet the requirements of NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance with NEPA through the 

involvement of the public, the incorporation of this EA in the Draft CCP, inclusion of a description of the 

alternatives considered, and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapters 

III and IV in this section). When fully implemented, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision and purposes 

of Tensas River NWR. 

The CCP’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and 

encourages public use (i.e., wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does 

not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

Improvement Act, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from incompatible or 

harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters 
Environmental Assessment 121

now and for generations to come. Before activities or uses are allowed on a refuge, the uses 

must be found to be compatible. A compatible use will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. In addition, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible 

and not inconsistent with public safety. 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, which were 

listed in the Improvement Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for Tensas River NWR. This Draft 

CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation 

organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge 

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

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

individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge. 

Generally speaking, scoping refers to the process by which the planning team gathers input from a 

variety of internal and external sources as to what the key issues, concerns, and opportunities are 

that need to be addressed in the DraftCCP/EA. Internal scoping sources include the refuge staff 

itself, other Service biologists, and professionals in the region. External scoping sources include 

concerned private citizens; research and educational institutions; members of conservation, 

sportsmen, and civic groups; refuge neighbors; members of the community; and state, tribal, and 

local agencies. These various interests are sometimes referred to collectively as stakeholders, which 

means those individuals and groups that have a stake in how the refuge is (and will be) managed. 

The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the 

management direction for the Tensas River NWR. 

The first step in developing a CCP for the Tensas River NWR was a Biological Review that took place 

during the week of April 25-27, 2005. The review team included 27 Service biologists, managers, 

and foresters, as well as non-Service managers/biologists. The review involved on-site evaluations to 

help the refuge meet its purpose and determine the role(s) this refuge could play regarding wildlife 

needs/objectives at various geographical scales (i.e., local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The 

approach was to take a holistic look for achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs 

while still giving priority to accomplishing the original purposes of refuge establishment. The 

Biological Review Report included background information on the refuge that was evaluated by 

reviewers, as well as the recommendations developed by the review team. In keeping with the 

terminology and expected outcomes of the CCP process, many of these recommendations took the 

form of goals, objectives, and strategies for the management of the refuge’s biological resources. 

These preliminary goals, objectives, and strategies were studied by the CCP planning team and 

modified and adapted for this CCP. 

A Visitor Services’ Review was also conducted in 2006 in preparation for the upcoming CCP. A 

review team met with refuge staff to discuss the visitor services program. The staff explained what 

the visitor services program is currently doing to provide recreational, educational, and interpretive 
122 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

opportunities on the refuge. The refuge manager then took the review team to all the different public 

use areas on the refuge. After discussions with some of the staff, the review team met to discuss the 

current status of the programs and to make recommendations. On the final day of the review, the 

team presented the recommendations to the staff and had an open discussion of the pros and cons 

of the various recommendations. Later, the team prepared a report with a number of 

recommendations for improving and expanding upon visitor service facilities and operations. 

The nucleus of the CCP planning team itself was comprised of the refuge manager, a wildlife 

biologist, a Service natural resource planner from the Regional Office, and a contractor with 

experience in preparing CCPs. This team met for the first time on July 17-19, 2006, for a tour of the 

refuge and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and 

opportunities. At this time, the planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and 

prepared a preliminary schedule and plans for public involvement. 

Scoping continued with public meetings on September 12 and 14, 2006. Early indications pointed to a 

high level of public interest well beyond the local refuge area; therefore, two public scoping meetings 

were held. One was on September 12th at the Louisiana State University, Agricultural Scott Research 

Extension Education Center, Winnsboro, Louisiana, and another was on September 14th in Ferriday, 

Louisiana, at the city’s public meeting facility. Approximately 45 members of the public attended the 

scoping meetings. The public was asked to make its individual statements before the assembled 

group, and those statements were recorded and later transcribed. Refuge Manager Jerome Ford was 

on hand to answer any questions by the public, as was Contractor Randy Williams, a consultant with 

the Mangi Environmental Group, tasked to assist the Service on the Tensas River NWR CCP/EA. 

During this period, meeting participants had the opportunity to publicly express their concerns about the 

refuge and ideas and suggestions for its future management. In addition, a comment form was 

distributed for attendees and sent to other interested parties to submit their written comments. Written 

comments could be submitted at the meeting, mailed subsequently, or sent via email. 

 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. Many issues that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the 

decision to be made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot resolve 

issues some people have communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout our 

planning process and have developed plans that attempt to balance the competing opinions 

regarding important issues. 

Appendix D contains the following: 

y A copy of the cover letter that made a request to the public for input, 

y A copy of the Public Comment Form submitted with the above letter and used at public 

meetings to solicit comments, 

y A copy of the news release that was submitted to local TV, radio, and newspapers in order to 

promote attendance at the public meetings, and 

y A summary of the public comments received. 
Environmental Assessment 123

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
124 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 125

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision; the goals identified in the CCP; the priorities 

and goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge System; and the 

mission of the Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, concerns, and 

problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological 

conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed 

to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. Thus, each 

alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was 

evaluated based on how much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues 

related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, 

visitor services, and refuge administration. Table 12 provides a summary of each alternative. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals were developed to help achieve the 

refuge’s purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired conditions or 

outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three alternatives. 

These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-

year time frame while still meeting the refuge’s purposes and goals. The three alternatives are 

summarized below. A comparison of each alternative follows the general description. 

ALTERNATIVE A – CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 

Current management and public use would continue under this alternative. Refuge management 

programs would continue to be developed and implemented with limited baseline biological 

information and limited monitoring. Wildlife surveys would still be completed for presence and 

absence of species and to alert refuge staff to large-scale changes in population trends. Cooperation 

with partners for monitoring waterfowl, eagle, fish, and deer herd health surveys would continue. The 

refuge would continue to provide habitat for and monitor the progress on the repatriation of the 

Louisiana black bear. It would also maintain the current habitat mix for the benefit of other migratory 

birds, shorebirds, marshbirds, and landbirds. Staff would continue existing surveys to monitor longterm population trends and health of resident species. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management would continue at the current rate of thinning to maintain a 

closed canopy forest and retain as much water tupelo and bald cypress as possible. The open fields 

would continue with manipulating water levels for the moist-soil and cooperative cropland 

management. Management for invasives would continue with opportunistic treatment and mapping. 

Partnerships would continue with LDWF for several biological programs, hunting regulations, and law 

enforcement issues. The refuge partners program would still develop projects with interested parties 

for carbon sequestration projects and invasives. 
126 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting, fishing, and environmental education programs would continue to be the priority focus of 

public use on Tensas River NWR with no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or 

prohibitions would remain. Environmental education and wildlife observation and photography would 

be accommodated at present levels with a few interpretive sites added. Staffing would remain at 

current level with no new positions added, but current vacancies would be advertised and filled. 

ALTERNATIVE B – CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT 

This custodial management alternative is driven by the lack of resources to adequately support 

wildlife and habitat management and the public use program. The biological information would be 

modified to develop management programs that could be implemented less frequently yet still 

accomplish the objectives. Extensive baseline inventorying and monitoring programs would be 

conducted with several partners to provide a solid foundation of the current condition of refuge habitat 

and wildlife while monitoring for changes in trends. 

Additional research projects would be implemented in this alternative, depending on granting 

opportunities and partnerships with other agencies and universities. An intensive bottomland hardwood 

forest inventory would be implemented to define current conditions and monitor natural successional 

changes. Management in the bottomlands would be limited so that the forest could go through natural 

succession as defined in a revised Forest 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. 

Management of invasives would become a priority to establish baseline information on location and 

density and protocols for control. 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. Public use would 

be monitored more closely for impacts to wildlife, and with negative impacts, new restrictions or 

closures would result. Deer hunting would be allowed when data demonstrated that the population 

was exceeding the habitat carrying capacity and a reduction in herd size was necessary. An 

extensive survey for monitoring the deer population and its association with habitat conditions would 

be implemented. Fishing would continue as currently managed. Environmental education, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography would be accommodated at present levels; but access would 

be limited to July-October and February-April to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. Staffing 

would increase by four positions (e.g., biologist, forester, and two maintenance workers) to handle the 

increase in biological inventorying, monitoring, and invasives control.

ALTERNATIVE C – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Biological potential of historical habitats are restored and enhanced with most management 

actions emphasizing natural ecological processes to foster habitat functions and wildlife 

populations. The biological program would be enhanced with inventorying and monitoring so that 

adaptive management could be implemented primarily for migratory birds, but other species of 

wildlife could benefit as well. A close evaluation of migratory bird use and nesting success on the 

refuge would be evaluated with granting opportunities and partnerships. Partnerships would be 

developed to establish scientifically valid protocols and collaboratively work on research projects 

associated with information needed to manage the habitats and wildlife or in other words how 

forest management is affecting wildlife. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed based on an inventory defining 

current condition that could be conducted in a logical and feasible manner. Bottomlands would have 

management increased to open the canopy cover and increase structural and vegetation diversity. 
Environmental Assessment 127

Water control structures and pumping capability would be improved to enhance moist-soil and cropland 

management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasives would be mapped and protocols for control 

established with the addition of a forester. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several 

biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. 

Under Alternative C, land acquisition, reforestation, and resource protection at Tensas River NWR 

would be intensified from the level now maintained in the “No Action” Alternative. In the refuge’s 

Private Lands Program, staff would work with private landowners of adjacent tracts to manage and 

improve habitats. Staff would also explore opportunities with partners to protect existing and extend 

potential foraging areas off refuge lands. Alternative C would provide a full-time law enforcement 

officer, an equipment operator, a maintenance mechanic, and a wildlife technician. The refuge would 

develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Within three years of CCP completion, the refuge would develop a Visitor Services’ Plan to be used in 

expanding public use facilities and opportunities on the refuge. This step-down management plan 

would provide overall, long-term direction and guidance in developing and running a larger public use 

program at Tensas River NWR. Alternative C would also increase opportunities for visitors by 

improving and/or adding facilities such as photo-blinds, observation sites, and trails. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions. Each of the three alternatives described above would have the following features in 

common: 

y Provide for expansion of the refuge within the current acquisition boundary through federal 

dollars and funds made available through the Carbon Sequestration Program. 

y Increase bottomland hardwood forest cover throughout the refuge. 

y Maintain a habitat mix to provide incidental benefits to other migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, and landbirds. 

y Provide a minimum of 15,000 additional acres of bottomland hardwood forest throughout the 

refuge within 15 years. 

y Control for a variety of invasive species including Chinese tallow trees. 

y Protection of cultural resources. 

y Continue to provide services and facilities to visitors. 

y Maintain existing trails and other existing wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretive programs and facilities. 

y Continue cooperative farming practices. 

As a result of input from the public, internal scoping, and the experience of the review team for this 

Draft CCP/EA, five focus areas were established for the Tensas River NWR. 
128 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Each of these focus areas was given a goal statement as follows: 

HABITAT Management 

Manage, restore, enhance, and conserve a structurally diverse and complex bottomland hardwood 

forest and associated habitats that also provide a functional corridor linkage in the MAV. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Maintain healthy and diverse populations of endemic fish and wildlife, as well as provide habitat for 

migratory birds. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Work with private landowners, agencies, and other partners to restore the natural hydrological 

regimes of the refuge, bottomland hardwood forests, and native wetlands, while protecting cultural 

resources to fulfill the refuge purposes. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Develop and implement a quality, compatible wildlife-dependent public use program that leads to a 

greater understanding and appreciation of the natural resources found in the Tensas River Basin. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Secure and enhance staffing, funding, and facilities to manage the integrity of habitats and wildlife 

resources on Tensas River NWR and fulfill the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Within each focus area, objectives were established to fulfill these above noted goals. A comparison 

was made between alternatives as to how they would address each goal’s objectives. That 

comparison is provided below. 
Environmental Assessment 

Table 12. Comparison of management alternatives for Tensas River NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

GOAL A. HABITAT MANAGEMENT: Manage, restore, enhance, and conserve a structurally diverse and complex bottomland hardwood forest and athat also provide a functional corridor linkage in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Objective A.1 Forest Habitat Management Plan 

Use current Forest Habitat Management Plan, research data, and recommendations being developed by the LMVJV Forest Resources Conservation Working Group. 

Use current Forest Habitat Management Plan on sweet pecans, cypress, and persimmons. 

Modify current FManagement Pguidelines of the Habitat Working 

Objective A.2 Reforestation 

Continue to partner with companies interested in carbon credits to reforest additional lands both donated and purchased. 

Same as Alternative A. Modify reforesta

ensure natural htopography. Enof tree species species (songbiwaterfowl, etc.)

Objective A.3 Invasive Plant Species Management 

Apply for alternate funding sources to address invasive concerns. 

Allow natural processes to determine a balance between native plants and invasives. 

Identify areas ato reduce non-nImplement an aprogram to reduinvasive vegetaemphasis on coof trifoliate orantallow. 
130 Tensas River Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective A.4 Water Management Plan 

Continue to maintain moist-soil units and utilize current flood date practices. 

Same as Alternative A. Develop and im

management pland drawdown for managemenmeet the step-dthe LMVJV guid

Objective A.5 Cropland and Moistsoil Management 

Continue using cooperative farming to manage, maintain, and establish “hot food” crop production and moist-soil management on refuge. 

Allow cropland and moist-soil areas to naturally regenerate to bottomland hardwood forest. 

Develop a CropManagement Pcooperative farmmaintain, and egrain crop producropland in the wetland units. Msoil areas as dircomplex of foodrequired by migwaterfowl on the 

Objective A.6 Canebrakes 

Utilize existing forest management to provide canebrake habitat. 

Allow natural disturbance to maintain and enhance existing canebrake habitat. 

Utilize Forest HPlan to enhance openings promothrough patch cmanagement tocanebrakes by appropriate are

Objective A.7 Scrub/shrub 

Utilize existing and any new reforestation areas to provide scrub/shrub habitat. 

Allow natural disturbance to maintain early successional habitats. 

Utilize Forest HPlan to allow fohabitats through other forest man
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

GOAL B. FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT: 

Maintain healthy and diverse populations of endemic fish and wildlife, as well as provide habitat for migratory b

Objective B.1 Migratory Waterfowl 

Support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan by providing a number of DEDs each year as stepped down through the LMVJV. 

Monitor waterfowl populations on the refuge throughout the year as a part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Same as Altern

Objective B.2 Forest-breeding Birds 

Work with partners in research to collect neotropical migratory bird population data when possible. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to inventory populations of forest breeding birds and monitor their productivity that contributes to the goals of the Partners in Flight Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. 

Work with partnproductivity, disoccurrence data populations of sprothonotary wawarblers, and omigratory birds goals of the PaMississippi AlluConservation P

Objective B.3 Louisiana Black Bears 

Continue to work towards the goals and objectives in the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. 

Same as Alternative A. Continue to wo

the Louisiana bsupport of the gin the recovery 

Objective B.4 Whitetailed Deer Management 

Collect biological data during annual hunts using volunteer helpers, and conduct health checks and annual browse surveys. 

Coordinate with state biologists to manage deer herd. 

Encourage activmanagement thenhanced habitdeer populationherd health is mlevel while provhunting experie
132 Tensas River Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective B.5 Colonial Waterbirds and Wading Birds 

All rookeries on Tensas River NWR should be kept free from disturbance and, where possible, standing water should be maintained under nest trees throughout the nesting season to reduce nest predation. 

Monitor rookery locations on Tensas River NWR and keep free from disturbance. 

Expand on Altesurveying and mwading bird to cobjectives set in Waterbird Cons

Objective B.6 Shorebirds 

Note and document the presence of shorebirds and their response to moist-soil unit treatments. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to inventory shorebird response to habitat conditions and use protocols that contribute to the LMVJV and Manomet Bird Observatory data collection efforts. 

Survey and moduring fall migrathe objectives sShorebird ConsLower MississipCoastal Plain SManagement PLMVJV. 

Objective B.7 American Woodcocks 

Use established protocol to survey for American woodcock when feasible. Current and future woodcock use will continue to be unknown. 

Work with partners to use established protocol to survey for American woodcock to determine use in open field habitat of the refuge during winter and spring. 

Use established American wood3-5 years to conobjectives of the Woodcock Man

Objective B.8 Turkey Management 

Implement annual gobbler and poults surveys in conjunction with LDWF. 

Same as Alternative A. Encourage activ

results in enhanturkeys and prorecreational act

Objective B.9 Scrub/shrub Birds 

Current and future scrub/shrub bird use will continue to be unknown. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to inventory populations of scrub/shrub birds and monitor their productivity. 

Determine use in habitats that early successiospecies such as and blue grosbe
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective B.10 Grassland Birds 

Current and future grassland bird use will be surveyed when feasible. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to inventory populations of grassland birds and monitor their productivity. 

Monitor and invbirds to determthe goals of the Mississippi AlluConservation P

Objective B.11 Special Birds and Habitats 

Note and document the presence of rare species such as roseate spoonbills, wood storks, and Bewick’s wren. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society or others, to inventory populations of rare species such as roseate spoonbills, wood storks, and Bewick’s wren. 

Monitor occurrepost-breeding aindividuals of hibird species sucspoonbills, wooBewick’s wren. 

Objective B.12 Marshbirds 

Coordinate with partners to spotcheck habitat patches to determine use by priority species. Note and document the presence of marshbirds and marshbird breeding populations. 

Encourage clubs and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to spot-check habitat patches to determine use by priority species. Contribute to ongoing marshbird survey data. 

Spot-check habdetermine use bContribute to onsurvey data. 

Objective B.13 Wood Ducks 

Minimal wood duck box maintenance and checks are and will continue to be conducted annually. Strive to meet annual preseason wood duck banding quota of 16 adult males, 27 adult females, 34 immature males, and 48 immature females. 

Encourage clubs, volunteers, and organizations, such as the Audubon Society, to spot-check nest use and nesting success in boxes. 

Annually installmaintain wood provide wood dbrood rearing hbanding activitieobjectives of the Council. 
134 Tensas River Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective B.14 Nuisance Wildlife and Predators 

Continue to use refuge staff and hunting program to monitor, manage, and conduct sitespecific beaver damage and nuisance animal control activities. 

Contract with an individual or agency (e.g., USDA Wildlife Services) that conducts beaver and feral hogs nuisance animal control activities. 

Manage nuisansuch as beaver eliminate, if poswildlife populaticonserve wildlif

Objective B.15 Fisheries Management 

Work with partners to monitor and maintain quality fish habitat. 

Same as Alternative A. Enhance existin

maintain self-suand crawfish pomanagement, menforcement. 

Objective B.16 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Work with partners to inventory reptiles and amphibians to monitor populations. 

Same as Alternative A. Conduct a com

reptiles and ampopulations, anspecies. 

GOAL C. RESOURCE PROTECTION: Work with private landowners, agencies, and other partners to restore hydrological regimes of the refuge, bottoforests, and native wetlands while protecting cultural resources to fulfill the refuge purposes.Objective C.1 Fluvial Geomorphology and Sediment Control 

Work with partners, such as USDA and Service’s Ecological Services Office in Lafayette, to coordinate sediment control strategies and improve habitat in order to improve the quality of Tensas River and all tributaries on refuge. 

Fluvial geomorphology and sediment control would remain status quo. 

During the next and improve quand all tributarieby minimizing tususpended solidand improve aq
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective C.2 Aquatic Habitat Diversity 

Discourage removal of wood and dredging of streams on the refuge by the Louisiana Levee District, which is part of Army Corps of Engineers. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition to A

the life of this phabitat compleRiver by increalarge woody dethe stream. 

Objective C.3 Water Quality and Contaminants 

Work with the contaminants personnel at the ES Field Office in Lafayette, the LDEQ, and the EPA to establish and implement sampling protocols to determine baseline conditions and periodic soil, tissue, and water quality contamination. 

Work with Service private lands biologists, LDEQ, and NRCS to develop incentives for local farmers and landowners to encourage the use of filter strips to limit agricultural runoff. 

Expanding on Aestablish and imcontaminant-mopartnership with and evaluate cothat could affecfish and wildlife supports. 

Objective C.4 Oil and Gas Program 

Identify wells that need to be plugged and abandoned, remnant equipment that needs to be removed, and possible related contamination issues. Communicate these needs to the responsible oil and gas company. 

Work with partners to monitor oil and gas activity. 

Expanding on Adevelop working oil and gas opebest managemeWorking within federal laws anand regulationsminerals (e.g., ominimal impacts associated fish resources. 
136 Tensas River Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective C.5 Cultural and Historical Archaeological Resources 

Protect cultural and historic resources from disturbance. 

Same as Alternative A, except this alternative will not entail major excavations. 

Within 15 years the refuge woulto implement a Management Pas the plan is coimplemented, thfollow standard and procedures cultural resourcqualified profesconsultation witHistoric Preservand the State HOffice (SHPO), projects that enexcavation. 

Objective C.6 Private Lands 

Continue working with private landowners and other partners (e.g., NRCS) to develop and deliver programs that compliment the purpose of the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Altern

Objective C.7 Land Acquisition 

Continue to use the carbon sequestration funding source and work with willing sellers to acquire privately owned lands within the established acquisition boundary of the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Altern

Objective C.8 Law Enforcement 

Continue to respond to wildlife violations and visitor safety reports. 

Same as Alternative A. Enhance Law E

Program for sufprotection and v
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

GOAL D. VISITOR SERVICES: Develop and implement a quality, compatible wildlife-dependent public use program that leads to a greater undappreciation of the natural resources found in the Tensas River Basin. Objective D.1 General Public Use Program 

Develop a Visitor Services Plan that will prioritize public use, emphasizing public outreach and strategies that enhance management. 

Same as Alternative A. Develop a Visito

will set goals, dmeasurable objstrategies, and criteria for all vi

Objective D.2 Welcome and Visitor Orientation 

Maintain the quality of the refuge headquarters display. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand on Alte

headquarters strelations. 

Objective D.3 Hunting Opportunities 

Provide current hunting program. Allow state to manage the 

hunting program on the refuge. 

Conduct a qualin a safe and coand to the extencarried out in acregulations. 

Objective D.4 Fishing Opportunities 

Provide current fishing program. Allow fishing according to state 

regulations. 

Fishing will be a conducted in a effective mannepracticable, caraccordance wit

Objective D.5 Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography Opportunities 

Provide available wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Promote wildlife 

wildlife photogracompatible, to vand abilities. 
138 Tensas River Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

Objective D.6. Environmental Education 

Continue current level of environmental education programs. 

Coordinate with local education system to continue environmental education opportunities. 

Coordinate enveducation progrstate education emphasizing puwildlife issues aoff refuge lands

Objective D.7 Environmental Interpretation 

Maintain current interpretive materials. 

Same as Alternative A. Develop interpr

standard talks othemes as reforbears, forest mabottomland hard

Objective D.8 Public Outreach 

Respond to direct public contacts on refuge management programs. 

Same as Alternative A. Ensure public is 

strategies such bears, forest mamanagement pwith all wildlife s

Objective D.9 Volunteer Programs 

Maintain current level of volunteers to help with refuge operations. 

Same as Alternative A when feasible. 

Build volunteer partnerships wigroups to help wactivities. 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

“No Action” Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Alte

(Ecosystem 

“Propose

GOAL E. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION: Secure and enhance staffing, funding, and facilities to manage the integrity of habitats and wildlife resources in and fulfill the purposes for which the refuge was established. Objective E.1 Staffing 

Maintain current staffing level, budget, and level of effort while trying to meet specific goals and objectives outlined in CCP. 

Redistribute current budget and staffing priorities to monitor and inventory biological resources. 

Work with Regiprovide sufficiebudget needs to and objectives o

Objective E.2 Facilities 

Maintain current facilities needed to fulfill the work and purpose of the refuge. 

Consider reduction in facilities and equipment due to a reduction in active management.

Maintain and imorder to expand enjoyment of th
140 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Improvement Act is designed to allow 

consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. During 

the alternatives development process, many different solutions were considered. The following 

alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this Draft CCP/EA for 

the reason(s) described. 

VISITOR SERVICES FOCUS 

This alternative was considered due to the public comments on ways to access the refuge for more 

public use activities. Promoting visitor enjoyment is an important aspect of refuge management when 

it does not conflict with the “Wildlife First” priority of the Service. This alternative would have pushed 

efforts to improve public access to the refuge and open more areas to visitors. In the analysis of such 

an effort, it was determined that such a focus would ultimately conflict with the priority of the Service 

to protect the natural environment and focus on wildlife first. 

Expanding refuge access can be done within the framework of the proposed alternative without 

disturbing wildlife sanctuary, which could occur under this eliminated alternative. The Service will 

allow and provide for public use of this refuge – to the extent possible – as long as these uses are 

compatible with the Service mission and the purposes for which Tensas River NWR was established. 

In the development of public use opportunities that will be addressed in the proposed alternative, 

appropriate compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses will be emphasized. However, public 

use must be at a level where wildlife populations and habitat are not harmed. The rationale for 

wildlife first in the overall Service program of protecting wildlife and habitat for current and future 

generations of Americans is a sound one and is ultimately the reason for dismissing this alternative. 
Environmental Assessment 141

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three management alternatives described 

in Chapter III of this EA. A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are 

summarized under seven categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land 

acquisition, cultural resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. These similar effects are 

discussed in the “Effects Common to All Alternatives” section below. The planning team selected the 

following impact topics (whose effects are expected to vary depending on the alternative chosen) for 

analysis: habitat, wildlife, invasive species, species of concern, visitor services, and refuge 

administration. Table 13 below includes the effects that could occur from implementing each 

alternative to the issues raised during the scoping process. For each comparison, Alternative A does 

not propose any change in the present management direction. Therefore, Alternative A serves as the 

baseline for comparing the other alternatives. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is 

anticipated to provide benefits equally to all residents residing in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under 

its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts 

as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the Earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 
142 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon emissions 

and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The conclusions of the 

Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration 

and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this Draft CCP/EA would conserve or restore land and water and would thus 

enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to mitigate humaninduced global climate changes. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources, would be managed to comply with all relevant laws and regulations. In 

particular, any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the 

refuge would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the 

same in each of the three management alternatives. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary of Tensas 

River NWR would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund; Army Corps of Engineers mitigation programs; Carbon Sequestration Programs; 

or donations from conservation and private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can 

be used to obtain the minimum interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can 

adequately manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate 

management agreements with local, state, and federal agencies and accept conservation easements. 

Some tracts within the refuge acquisition boundary may be owned by other public or private 

conservation organizations. The Service would work with interested organizations to identify 

additional areas needing protection and provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of 

private lands is entirely contingent on the landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and development of water impoundments. In 

most cases, these management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist 

in consultation with the State of Louisiana Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action 

within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process that would 

occur during the planning stages of every project. 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources, protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a federal agency that may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 
Environmental Assessment 143

Historic Preservation Office and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust 

and to avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 

Land acquisition, within the current acquisition boundary, by the Service would provide some degree 

of protection to significant cultural and historic resources. If acquisition of private lands does not 

occur and these lands remain under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for 

protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to 

destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for 

cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Franklin, Madison, and Tensas Parishes would continue 

at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments 

would increase accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water 

quality and quantity; air quality; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous 

materials; waste management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The three alternatives share similarities with differences resulting from various types and levels of 

impacts. None of the proposed management activities would lead to a violation of federal, state, or 

local laws imposed for the protection of the environment. The following section describes the 

environmental consequences of adopting each refuge management alternative. Table 13 

summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for specific issues that arose during public scoping. 

HABITAT 

Under all the alternatives discussed here, there will continue to be a conversion of open fields to 

forests. Early successional forests often provide an abundance of nesting and escape cover and 

forage such as insects, small mammals, reptiles, seeds, and soft mast. However, edge species often 

occur and create cumulative effects on other species. For example, in edge habitats, cowbirds may 

be more numerous, and they parasitize other migratory songbird nests leading to decreased nesting 

success. This edge effect is one rational for the desire to create larger contiguous tracts of forest in 

order to promote breeding success in interior forest dependent migratory songbirds. 

Immature forests are sometimes viewed as the least beneficial to wildlife species. The closed canopy 

prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor, limiting the development of herbaceous groundcover 

and shrubby understory. This condition does provide some forage and cover for some species. For 

the majority of wildlife, this vertical/closed canopy structure condition provides lower quality habitat 

than early or late successional stages. However, a few species do prefer these mid-story conditions 

such as hooded and Kentucky warblers. 

Late or mature forest conditions provide important habitat for high canopy nesting and roosting, 

suitable structure for cavity development and excavation, and relatively large volumes of hard mast 

and other seeds. Components of this type include snags, large and small hollow trees for dens, 
144 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

downed woody debris, and large trees near water that provide important habitat for many wildlife 

species. The snags provide an important component to cavity-nesting wildlife and provide enhanced 

organic material that is habitat for a diverse group of invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Under Alternative A, populations of bottomland hardwood and moist prairie dependent birds would 

likely increase over time due to the current and planned wetland forest restoration practices ongoing 

at the refuge. Waterfowl species diversity would not change substantially under the current 

management practices. Shorebird populations are expected to remain stable at relatively low 

numbers, concentrated primarily in and around ponds and sand bars along the Tensas River. 

Populations of forest interior birds and songbirds (including neotropical migratory birds) would 

increase over time as the recently planted bottomland hardwood forests mature. 

Under Alternative B, populations of bottomland hardwood associated species would likely increase as 

with the other alternatives, but this increase would come more slowly following natural successional 

conversion of open fields to forests. Waterfowl and shorebird populations would decline over time as 

preferred open wetland habitat changed to forested wetlands. 

Under Alternative C, populations of bottomland hardwood dependent birds would likely increase over 

time due to the current and planned wetland forest restoration practices ongoing at the refuge. 

Forest dependent wildlife species would increase as early reforestation efforts mature. Shorebird 

populations would be expected to increase somewhat with the active manipulation of water levels in 

the moist-soil units. Efforts would be made to increase the numbers and diversity of waterbirds 

(including marsh and colonial nesting birds) under this alternative. Populations of forest interior birds 

and songbirds (including some that are neotropical migratory birds) are likely to increase as 

agricultural lands are converted to bottomland hardwood forests in an effort to increase the size of 

core breeding areas for interior forest breeding birds. 

WILDLIFE 

Under Alternative A, native resident species of wildlife will expand and diversify gradually throughout 

the refuge units because of ongoing programs to acquire additional land within the refuge acquisition 

boundary from willing landowners. This alternative will provide for an increase in bottomland 

hardwood habitat and associated moist prairie habitat. Current forest management practices 

regarding timber harvest and general thinning of the canopy may impact those species dependent on 

more mature forest types. 

Under Alternative B, native resident species of wildlife will also expand and diversify gradually 

throughout the refuge units as open fields convert to forests. Under this reduced funding option, 

more forests will mature, and this will benefit those species that prefer such habitat. The electric 

utility funding source described elsewhere will be diminished with this alternative because active 

reforestation will not be a priority. 

Under Alternative C, the desire for greater diversity in habitats on the refuge is higher than in the No 

Action Alternative. It is realistic to expect that if undertaken the steps proposed to increase habitat 

and species diversity would indeed increase wildlife populations and diversity and would afford the 

refuge a better chance of reaching a self-sustaining condition. 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Alternative A would maintain the current level of management effort with regard to biological 

resources, including stepping up efforts to address certain resource threats, as several of these 
Environmental Assessment 145

would continue to be important issues over the life of the CCP. Current management practice 

proposes to more aggressively control invasive plant species, particularly Chinese tallow trees. Feral 

hogs and beavers will continue to be a problem throughout the refuge. The feral hogs will impact 

resident white-tailed deer populations and other native species due to their feeding habits. Beavers 

will pose a problem to bottomland hardwood forest restoration efforts. 

Under Alternative B, feral hogs and beavers will continue to be a problem throughout the refuge with 

little done to retard the negative impacts. The feral hog population will increase and more heavily 

impact resident white-tailed deer populations and other native species due to their feeding habits. 

Beavers will pose a problem to bottomland hardwood forest management. With regard to invasive 

species, Chinese tallow trees would continue to infest portions of the refuge, and this alternative 

would provide little in the way of ongoing control efforts to prevent its expansion. 

While Alternative C would intensify management of biological resources, including stepping up efforts 

to address certain resource threats, several of these would continue to be important issues over the 

life of the plan. This alternative proposes to more effectively control invasive plant species, 

particularly Chinese tallow tree, although it would not be eliminated entirely. Because it is subject to 

factors beyond the refuge’s boundaries and control, water quality in bayous and creeks is unlikely to 

change substantially during the 15-year life of the CCP, which is the same as the No Action 

Alternative. As with all the alternatives, feral hogs and beavers will continue to be a problem 

throughout all the refuge units; however, those impacts would be reduced under this alternative due 

to more aggressive animal control. 

SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Extinct or endangered species formerly found in the area include the red wolf, Florida panther, and 

ivory-billed woodpecker. Panthers are occasionally reported, but their existence has not been 

verified. The Louisiana black bear, which was listed as a threatened species on January 7, 1992, 

ranges throughout Tensas River NWR. The Bachman warbler may be a rare transient or possibly 

uses the refuge during its breeding season. 

All the species noted above would be affected in similar degrees regardless of the alternative 

management direction chosen, except for the Louisiana black bear. Each of the alternatives will 

provide for a maturing bottomland hardwood forest, and this will provide similar habitat for all the 

above species of concern. As these forests mature, under each alternative, there will be less open 

canopy, which will reduce the occurrence of peregrine falcon and increase the amount of habitat 

preferred by red wolf, Florida panther, and ivory-billed woodpecker. Because of the current Service 

efforts to repatriate the Louisiana black bear on the Tensas River NWR, the success of that program 

will vary depending on the alternative chosen. 

Efforts to implement the Service’s recovery plan for the Louisiana black bear would continue under 

all three alternatives. Each alternative would provide different levels of support for that effort. Each 

would try to provide assistance in implementing all phases of repatriation; including black bear 

management, nuisance control, and public outreach. Preferred habitat management for the black 

bear is the critical piece in this recovery effort. Alternative C would provide the best level of effort in 

this regard by using an ecosystem approach to promote preferred habitat and expanding efforts to 

increase wildlife corridors. 
146 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The presence of the public on a refuge can be detrimental to wildlife because of disturbance to 

activities that are important to survival. This is why the focus at any refuge must be wildlife 

conservation first. However, the timing of the disturbance, the species involved, and the type and 

intensity of the public activity can all determine the degree to which wildlife is affected. The key is for 

refuge managers to monitor the public use program and wildlife population trends to determine if 

there is a significant change to native wildlife populations. 

Public use visits for wildlife observation and photography are currently very low on the refuge. 

Wildlife observation and photography conducted in an ethical manner can have minimal to no impacts 

on wildlife. However, these uses can produce negative effects if public visitation levels increase, the 

public pursues rare species, or approach wildlife too close (Pease et al., 2005); and all these effects 

can differ depending upon which species are involved. Impacts can be mitigated by viewing areas 

and the use of trails. Gabrielson and Smith (1995) suggested that some species are disturbed to a 

greater degree with unpredictable movement compared to humans following a particular trail. 

Under Alternative A, much of the refuge would remain open to all sport hunting. Some fishing from 

small watercraft (e.g., boats and canoes) would continue to take place in bayous and creeks under 

Louisiana jurisdiction. Environmental education and interpretation would continue at current levels, 

confering some educational and experiential benefits to the visiting public. Wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography would be maintained at their current levels, which include support by some 

volunteers and interns. In scoping comments, several members of the public expressed concern 

about the general lack of awareness and interest in the refuge on the part of most neighboring 

residents and communities. Under Alternative A, the current modest level of awareness and local 

visitation to the refuge would be anticipated to increase with the construction of an exit ramp off I-20 

and completion of paved access all the way from the interstate to the refuge. Overall, the No Action 

Alternative, even with the improved access noted above, would not realize the full potential of the 

refuge for engaging the attention, use, and support of the local public. 

Under Alternative B, like Alternative A, parts of the refuge would remain open to all sport hunting. 

Some fishing from small watercraft (e.g., boats and canoes) would continue to take place in bayous and 

creeks under Louisiana jurisdiction, though the refuge would not encourage or actively manage this 

fishing. Environmental education and interpretation would continue at reduced levels. Wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography would be maintained at their current levels, but routine 

maintenance on observation areas would be reduced. In scoping comments, as noted above in the 

discussion on Alternative A, several members of the public expressed concern about the general lack of 

awareness and interest in the refuge on the part of most neighboring residents and communities. This 

situation in turn leads to less visitation and support than if the local citizenry were more engaged. 

Under Alternative B, as in the No Action Alternative, the current modest level of awareness and local 

visitation to the refuge would be expected to continue indefinitely. 

Under Alternative C, efforts would be made to expand and improve sport-hunting opportunities on the 

refuge. Efforts would also be made to expand limited and closely controlled youth or disabled hunts, 

for example, for small game, waterfowl, or deer. The construction of canoe/boat trails and access 

points (put-in location) would be actively considered in order to increase fishing opportunities. The 

resulting increase in the numbers of anglers on the refuge would be a benefit from the public’s 

perspective. Environmental education and interpretation would be expanded through increased onsite and off-site activities, programs, and facilities, which would be another beneficial impact of this 

alternative. Furthermore, there would be increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent public use. 
Environmental Assessment 147

Overall, this alternative is expected to more fully realize the potential of the refuge to engage the 

attention, use, and support of the local public. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Under Alternative A, all current facilities and their level of upkeep would be maintained. Current 

programs would be continued, and total staffing would be maintained. The refuge’s partners, 

volunteers, interns, and its Friends Group would continue to assist the refuge. Any increase in 

the number of partners and level of effort would occur as prospective partners approach the 

refuge. By not actively working to increase the number of partners and their level of commitment, 

the refuge would probably forego the administrative benefits of having a larger, more committed 

cadre of volunteers. 

Alternative B envisions greater cooperation with partners and more extensive use of volunteers to 

help offset the expected reduction in budget. Volunteers with a wide variety of backgrounds can 

serve effectively in such areas as habitat and wildlife management and environmental education 

and interpretation. 

Alternative C envisions greater cooperation with partners and more extensive use of volunteers 

related to environmental education and interpretation. With a public use specialist position, the 

refuge could work harder to attract and maintain a dedicated corps of volunteers. The expected 

increase in volunteerism would, in turn, increase both refuge administrative capacities and the ability 

to provide the visiting pubic with a satisfying and educational experience while at the refuge. This 

alternative would increase staff size by adding a wildlife technician, an assistant station manager, an 

equipment operator, a maintenance mechanic, and a law enforcement officer. 
148 Tensas River Na

Table 13. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Tensas River NWR 

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

Resolve public perception of conflicts between bears and other refuge uses such as improved deer herd health and community safety. 

The Service is committed to the support of an initiative to reintroduce the threatened Louisiana black bear into the Tensas River NWR. A part of that program is to review and address conflicts with other refuge mandates. Studies have indicated that bears have very little impact to deer populations on the refuge. Addressing public perception on this issue is an ongoing part of the refuge’s public outreach program. 

Under this alternative, any conflicts in refuge uses will be addressed as time and material allow. This may result in delays in reviews of management conflicts. Public outreach on this important issue will also be reduced under this alternative. 

This alternaAlternative studies on pconflicts. Toffer a quicneeded chamanagemeon by confliCommunity life issues aService undalternative. provide for outreach prcommunity 

Address public concern over the health and size of the white-tailed deer herd. 

Refuge personnel are aware of the history of deer hunting on the refuge and will make efforts, based on annual herd health checks and browse surveys, to improve the health of the deer herd. 

Coordinated efforts with state biologist that are now being made to check herd health will continue. 

Efforts will bthe quality oexperience managemeincreased foactivities anassessmen

Should the refuge expand its moist-soil and agricultural wetland management program? 

This program is not likely to expand under this alternative, but cooperative farming will continue to be a part of a program to provide food crop production for refuge moist-soil management. 

This program would likely be reduced due to custodial actions that would allow more of the refuge open spaces to return to forests. 

A coordinatprogram womanage, mgrain produportions of 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities need to be improved. 

Under this alternative, there are plans to provide for additional areas that may be used of wildlife observation and photography. 

Under this alternative, the existing refuge facilities designed to offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be maintained, but no additional areas would be created. 

Under this aa proactive outreach anwill be madwildlife obsephotographthe refuge a

Better handicapped access and more hunting opportunities are needed on the refuge. 

Alternative A would maintain the existing program for handicapped access and handicapped hunting opportunities, but there would be no effort to expand the existing program. 

The Custodial Management Alternative may require a reduction in opportunities for handicapped access and hunting opportunities on the refuge. 

This alternareview of wwildlife depincluding beaccess opphandicappe

Public outreach needs to be improved. 

There would be no effort to expand public outreach under this alternative. 

Choosing the Custodial Management Alternative may initiate a reduction in public outreach. 

This alternaexpansion iand public eimprove refcommunity 

Should more forested areas be set aside as “No Cut” or cut in order to open up the canopy and create more deer browse? 

The No Action Alternative calls for the periodic review of the refuge timber management program. “No Cut” vs. open canopy will be a part of that review. 

The Custodial Management Alternative will still have a timber management program in place that will allow the harvest of timber by contractors from time to time. Any conflicts in wildlife habitat management such as “No Cut” vs. open canopy will be reviewed prior to any timber harvest. 

This alternato expand hdependent that prefer a With an actrefuge land forest, there to expand bwith a well-habitat man
150 Tensas River Na

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

More youth activities are needed on the refuge. 

No efforts will be made under this alternative to expand youth activities on the refuge; however, dates for these activities will be reviewed to provide better opportunities for use. 

The Custodial Management Alternative may require a reduction in youth activity opportunities at the refuge that call for active participation by refuge personnel. 

As part of apublic outreeducation ewould call fwildlife depactivities at 

Should hunting and fishing opportunities be expanded on the refuge? 

The No Action Alternative calls for a periodic review of hunting and fishing on the refuge. 

The Custodial Management Alternative may require a reduction in hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge that call for active participation by refuge personnel. 

As part of apublic outreeducation ewould call fhunting and on the refugnot create cmanageme

Should the refuge become a wildlife sanctuary and reduce all public recreational activities, especially consumptive recreational activities such as hunting? 

Conflicts often arise at refuges between adequate provision for wildlife sanctuary and wildlife dependent recreational opportunities, and Tensas River NWR is no exception. This alternative will review current management practices that may involve this particular potential conflict to determine if any changes are necessary that will benefit wildlife. 

Choosing this alternative may increase wildlife sanctuary due to possible decreases in other allowed refuge uses brought on by a need to reduce the level of participation in these uses by refuge personnel. 

Choosing thallow for an sanctuary aconsumptivactivities as maximize rewildlife whildependent 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

Access to the refuge needs to be improved, an exit off I-20 needs to be created, and the road to the refuge needs to be paved all the way from the interstate. 

Plans have been drawn up and funds are available to provide for both an exit off I-20 and paving of the access road from Highway 80 to the refuge. Efforts will be made under this alternative to implement these plans. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Al

Does the refuge need more or less all-terrain vehicles (ATV) trails, and should the existing trails be opened to horseback riding? 

All three alternatives must review any change in refuge use by the same criteria – wildlife first. Any expansion of refuge uses such as horseback riding or more ATV trails will be reviewed in light of potential impacts to wildlife. While periodic reviews of allowed refuge uses will be made, there is no current plan under this alternative to open trails to horseback riding or to expand ATV trails. 

There would be no expansion of these activities under this alternative; in fact, there may be a reduction in trail access due to availability of personnel to maintain such trails. 

If it were dealternative taccess wouthe wildlife fmandate, ththe possibilthese expan

Does the refuge need more staff? 

There would be no review of staff size at the refuge under this alternative. 

Any review of staff size under this alternative would be to determine if a reduction in staff size could be implemented. 

Implementaalternative wreview of stif staff expanecessary tand objectivEcosystem Alternative. 
152 Tensas River Na

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

The refuge needs to do more to promote the heritage of the refuge and the area. 

Under this alternative, there will be periodic reviews of material used in its public education program. If it is determined that promotion of refuge heritage is an issue that will enhance public refuge experience, the material will be added. 

Same as Alternative A. This alterna

expansion oand educatdetermined refuge heritwill enhancexperienceadded. 

Should the refuge provide housing for students and researchers? 

This issue will be reviewed under this alternative, and an action plan will be submitted to the Regional Office in light of projected refuge funding and the condition of existing refuge buildings. 

This issue will not be reviewed under this alternative. 

Housing for researchers certainly proexpansion oopportunitieconsidered alternative. 

What role, if any, should trapping play in future refuge management plans? 

Trapping is one of many available wildlife management tools, and its utilization will be considered as part of any overall review of refuge wildlife management plans. 

Trapping may not be a part of refuge management plans under this alternative because of the lack of refuge personnel to police such activity. 

Same as Al

Should the refuge consider the use of humane, non-lethal wildlife management techniques to resolve wildlife conflicts first before considering lethal techniques? 

Non-lethal wildlife management techniques are a part of many available wildlife management tools, and their utilization will be considered as part of any overall review of refuge wildlife management plans. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Al
Environmental Assessment 

Issues Developed during 

Both Internal and External 

Scoping 

Alternative A 

(Current Management) 

No Action Alternative 

Alternative B 

(Custodial Management) 

Al

(Ecosyst

Propo

An extensive biological inventory of refuge flora and fauna is needed to better prepare for the future. 

This is a very important wildlife management tool, and implementation of such an inventory will be sought under this alternative. 

Implementation of this wildlife management tool will be pursued under this alternative with the help of available regional personnel, local universities, and friends groups. 

Inventorying wildlife and expanded u
154 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts are the overall net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts 

can “accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They 

can also accumulate over the course of time from actions in the past, the present, and the future. 

Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, which cause them to partially cancel out 

each other’s effect on a resource. Nevertheless, more typically, multiple effects add up with each 

additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the 

overall effect is greater than merely the sum of the individual effects, such as when one more 

reduction in a population crosses a threshold of reproductive sustainability and threatens to 

extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects. Because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum, there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. Thus, any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions as outlined in the 

proposed alternative. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

 

All of the alternatives are intended to maintain or improve biological resources on the refuge in 

northeast Louisiana. The biological integrity of the refuge would be protected best under the 

proposed alternative (Alternative C – Ecosystem Management), and the refuge purposes would be 

achieved. The combination of our proposed management actions with those of other organizations 

could result in significant, beneficial cumulative effects by (1) increasing protection and management 

for federal- and state-listed threatened or endangered species; (2) protecting habitats that are 

regionally declining; and (3) reducing invasive plants and animals. 

We used Regional Bird Conservation plans; Partners in Flight; shorebird; waterbird and waterfowl 

plans; The Nature Conservancy ecoregion plans; and the Louisiana State wildlife and natural heritage 

programs plans in determining the highest resource priorities for the refuge to protect and manage. 

This process allows the refuge to focus its conservation and management actions on those resources 

of concern that are internationally, nationally, regionally, and locally important. We expect positive 

cumulative impacts on neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, waterbirds, species of special concern, 

fish, and other resident wildlife and their habitats from refuge actions. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

We expect none of the alternatives to have significant adverse cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources in Louisiana. Beneficial impacts would accrue at various levels, depending on the 

alternative, because of our proposed expansion of environmental education and interpretation 

programs and increased field surveys to identify and protect any sites discovered. 
Environmental Assessment 155

Under all of the alternatives, management practices on the refuge would consider potential impacts 

on historical resources. Projects requiring excavation would be sampled using test pits in the 

affected area before work begins. Our regional archaeologist reviews annual prescribed burn plans 

before we implement them and, even then, we select methods to avoid impacts on any resources. 

HUMAN RESOURCES 

We expect none of the alternatives to have significant, adverse, and/or cumulative impacts on the 

economy of northeast Louisiana. Although federal land acquisition reduces property tax revenue, it 

compensates affected towns with refuge revenue-sharing payments and should also reduce the costs 

of community services. We expect increased refuge visitation and increased tourism to bring 

additional revenues to local communities, but we do not predict a significant increase in overall 

revenue in any area. 

Alternatives C will increase opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent public uses, especially in 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and hunting. 

The Service defines facilities as “Real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, 

roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” Under the proposed alternative, those 

facilities most utilized by the public are roads, parking lots, trails, and boat launching ramps. 

Maintenance or improvement of existing facilities (i.e., parking areas, roads, trails, and boat ramps) 

will cause minimal short-term impacts to localized soils and waters and may cause some wildlife 

disturbances and damage to vegetation. The facility maintenance and improvement activities 

described are periodically conducted to accommodate daily refuge management operations and 

general public uses such as wildlife observation and photography. These activities will be conducted 

at times (seasonal and/or daily) to cause the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. Siltation barriers 

will be used to minimize soil erosion, and all disturbed sites will be restored to as natural a condition 

as possible. During times when roads are impassible due to flood events or other natural causes, 

those roads, parking lots, trails, and boat ramps impacted by the event will be closed to vehicular use. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

This section evaluates the relationship between local, short-term uses of the human 

environment and maintaining long-term productivity of that environment. By long-term, we 

mean that the impact would extend beyond the 15-year planning horizon of this Draft CCP/EA. 

By short-term, we mean less than 15 years. 

All of the alternatives strive to maintain or enhance the long-term productivity and sustainability of 

natural resources on the refuge. To varying degrees, they propose actions that promote watershedor ecosystem-wide partnerships aimed at identifying and protecting important forested and wetland 

habitats. The alternatives strive to protect our federal trust species and the habitats they depend on, 

evidenced by the limits on public access during certain seasons and in some locations. 

Environmental education and interpretation are priorities in each alternative to encourage refuge 

visitors and neighbors to support and participate in environmental stewardship. 

Alternatives A and C propose stepped-up outreach and enforcement to prevent inappropriate and 

incompatible uses. The outreach and enforcement purpose is to reduce impacts on wildlife and 

habitats and enhance the long-term productivity of those sites. Although the intent is the same, 

Alternative B would not provide the staffing or funding levels to ensure that incompatible and 

inappropriate uses can be eliminated. 
156 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

The construction of new refuge facilities (as proposed in Alternatives A and C), such as a visitor 

contact areas, trail, observation platform, and kiosks, will result in both short- and long-term impacts 

on soils and vegetation. Those would be localized and confined to the immediate construction sites. 

In summary, we predict that all of the alternatives would contribute positively to maintaining or 

enhancing the long-term productivity of the environment of northeast Louisiana. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Under Alternative B – the Custodial Management Alternative, there are numerous unavoidable 

impacts. These include law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting any significant visitor 

use; continued degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat 

due to the invasion of exotic plants and nuisance animals; and a continued decrease in biodiversity. 

Over time, if these issues are not addressed, they will continue to impact refuge resources. 

Alternative A – Current Management Practice – would have impacts similar to Alternative B above but 

not to the same degree. 

Alternative C, the proposed alternative, also has some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are 

expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge will attempt to minimize 

these impacts whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge will 

employ to mitigate and minimize the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the 

proposed alternative. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities such as wildlife observation may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative will be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from Alternative C are not considered to be 

significant. Nevertheless, the refuge will manage public use activities to reduce impacts. Providing 

access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without adversely 

impacting other resources. Hunting will also be managed with restrictions that ensure minimal impact 

on other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. If the 

refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor uses are above the levels that are 

anticipated, those uses will be discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less sensitive areas. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that 

require the clearing of non-sensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a 

minor, short-term impact. 

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new invasive species 

into areas when visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the boat ramps and other 

access points or with requests to stay on trails. The refuge will minimize this impact by 

enforcing the regulations for access to the refuge’s water bodies and by installing informational 

signs that request users to stay on the trails. 
Environmental Assessment 157

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge will adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge will use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts. These methods include establishing separate use areas, different use periods, 

and limits on the numbers of users in order to provide safe, quality, appropriate, and compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive plants, and increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands, noise associated with increased traffic, and nuisance activities from refuge 

wildlife (especially the Louisiana black bear). To minimize these potential impacts, the refuge will 

provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain the refuge’s existing parking 

facilities; use law enforcement; provide increased educational efforts at the visitor center; and provide 

nuisance control of problem animals. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use 

patterns because much of the non-Service-owned lands within the refuge has approved acquisition 

boundary is currently in row crops. If these lands were acquired as additions to the refuge, much of it 

would be reforested and maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, and 

opened to wildlife-compatible public uses, where feasible. This should be considered a positive 

potential impact to the wildlife of the area. Such land acquisition and conversion may have short-term 

negative impacts to the economy of the area as some local residents may be impacted by such land 

use changes. This short-term impact would be offset, long term, through revenue sharing by the 

refuge locally and through positive economic benefit due to expected increase in use of the refuge. 

Such a return to a natural forest ecosystem would have a long-term benefit on the environment. 

Potential development of the refuge’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to minor, 

short-term, and negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When constructing any 

new facilities, efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally sensitive treated 

lumber. All construction activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; 

and other applicable regulatory requirements. 

POTENTIAL IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Except perhaps in the extreme long term or under unpredictable circumstances, irreversible 

commitments of resources cannot be reversed. One example is an action that contributes to the 

extinction of a species. Once extinct, it can never be replaced. 

By comparison, irretrievable commitments of resources can be reversed, given sufficient time and 

resources; but they represent a loss in production or use for a period of time. One example is the 

maintenance of forest and shrubland as open fields and grasslands. If for some reason grasslands 
158 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

no longer were an objective, they would gradually revert to shrubland and forest. However, plantings 

could expedite that process. 

An example of such commitment of resources is Service land acquisition. Alternatives A, B, and C all 

propose protection of in-holding properties within the current refuge acquisition boundaries. Once 

those lands become part of the refuge, their reversion to private ownership is unlikely. However, 

once placed in public ownership in the Refuge System, they will provide a new set of benefits to a 

much broader group of people. Those benefits include watershed protection, wildlife conservation, 

the preservation of rural character, and the expansion of wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Our 

proposed management of the refuge will result in irretrievable and irreversible commitments of 

staffing and funding for the acquisition and stewardship of refuge lands. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance. However, these 

effects are still reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include facility improvement; 

wildlife and population management; resource protection; public use; and administrative programs. 

These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. Facility improvement, for example, 

would most likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in turn, would lead to indirect 

effects such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Other indirect effects that may result from implementing the proposed alternative include minor 

impacts from siltation due to the disturbance of soils and vegetation while expanding the water control 

structures. Additional sources are expanding or creating new foot trails; constructing new 

observation towers and walking trails; and providing greater visitor access through improvements to 

boat ramps. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of 

observation towers and new walking trails. While these activities would cause short-term, negative 

impacts, the educational values and associated public support gained from the improved visitor 

experience would produce long-term benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The plans proposed 

under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, 

implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and land 

conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
Environmental Assessment 159

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues and alternatives that are presented in this Draft CCP/EA. It lists the meetings that have 

been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were consulted in the 

preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The Tensas River NWR Draft CCP/EA was written with the participation and assistance of refuge 

and Service staff, the Mangi Environmental Group (a contractor for the Service), and the LDWF. 

The CCP planning process itself began in May 2006 with the formation of a refuge planning team. 

A notice of intent to prepare a CCP had earlier been published in the Federal Register on 

September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53131). 

In April 2005, in preparation for the CCP 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 Ecological Services, Realty, and Planning specialists. Other 

members included staff of the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Northwestern 

Louisiana University; Louisiana State University; and the LDWF. 

In 2006, refuge and Service personnel met to conduct a Visitor Services Review. The information 

and recommendations in the reports of the biological and visitor services reviews proved a 

valuable “point of departure” for the authors of this Draft CCP/EA. Subsequently, the refuge 

hosted public scoping meetings on September 12 and 14, 2006, and began an outreach 

campaign through various media to collect ideas and concerns from all stakeholders. Please see 

Chapter I of Section B and Appendix D for more information on public scoping and overall 

consultation and coordination in plan development. 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The core planning team consisted of the listed individuals. 

Kelly Purkey – Project Leader 

Brett Hortman – Acting Project Leader (former) 

Jerome Ford – Project Leader (former) 

George Chandler – North LA NWR Project Leader 

Ron Hollis – Deputy Project Leader 

Stan Howarter – Wildlife Biologist (former) 

Jean Mikeal – Wildlife Technician 

Amanda Wilkinson – Park Ranger 

Yancy Magee – Forester 

John Dickson – Wildlife Biologist 

Tommy Tuma – LDWF 

Lowery Moak – LDWF 

Tina Chouinard – Planning Biologist 

Randy Williams – Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group 
160 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

INTERDISCIPLINARY PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

Several 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 objectives found in this plan. Some members are internal 

to the Service and provide additional policy guidance and support for objective development as well. 

BIOLOGICAL REVIEW TEAM 

Bob Strader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pat Stinson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dan Twedt U.S. Geological Survey 

Stephen Earsom U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Cedric Doolittle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Anthony Bridgewater USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Mike Chamberlain Louisiana State University 

Ken Reinecke U.S. Geological Survey 

Buddy Dupuy Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Walter Cotton USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Randy Wilson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Dave Hickman Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

David Breithaupt Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Ken Clough U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Fred Kimmel Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Tom Edwards U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jeff Denman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

John Simpson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Debbie Fuller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jerome Ford U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Stan Howarter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Maury W. Bedford U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Louis Hinds U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bob Keeland U.S. Geological Survey 

Lindy Garner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Chuck Hunter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Scott Durham Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM 

Garry Tucker Visitor Services and Outreach, Region 4 

Doug Hunt Southeast Louisiana Refuges 

Andrea Dunstan Noxubee NWR 

Dorn Whitmore Merritt Island NWR 
Environmental Assessment 161

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 

In addition to the above listed core and extended planning team members, a number of individuals 

and groups contributed to the plan. These included local citizens and agencies and nongovernmental organizations, like the local chapter of The Nature Conservancy and Tensas River 

Refuge Association (a private citizen group organized to support the refuge), as well as Service 

Regional Archaeologist - Richard Kanaski. These contributors participated in the scoping meeting or 

provided input at various stages of the planning process. 
162 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 163

SECTION C. 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. 

Aggradation To fill and raise the level of (the bed of a stream) by deposition of 

sediment. 

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 National Wildlife 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. 

Anurans: Frogs and Toads. 

Avian: Of or pertaining to birds. 

Bioaccumulate: 

A general term for the accumulation of substances, such as 

pesticides (DDT is an example), methylmercury, or other organic 

chemicals in body tissue especially fatty tissue. 

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. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 
164 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, 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 National Wildlife Refuge System; maintains and, where 

appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife 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 Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Diorama: A three-dimensional model, usually enclosed in a glass showcase for a 

museum. 

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. 

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. 

Endemic: Exclusively native to a place or biota. 
Appendices 165

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) (C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Extirpation: The act of extirpating or rooting out, or the state of being extirpated; 

eradication; excision; total destruction; as, the extirpation of a species 

from land. 

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). 

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. 

Herpetofauna: Reptiles and amphibians. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 
166 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Management Concern: 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. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, 

and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the 

six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). It is published in the Federal Register. 
Appendices 167

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). 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

National Wildlife 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 Service believes 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. 

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). 
168 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

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. 

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. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 
Appendices 169

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the National Wildlife 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). 

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). 
170 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ac acre 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

BBCC Black Bear Conservation Committee 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BLH Bottomland Hardwood 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFI Continuous Forest Inventory 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

dbh diameter at breast height 

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DED Duck-energy Days 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ES Ecological Services 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FmHA Farmers Home Administration 

FMHP Forest Habitat Management Plan 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FRCO Fish Resource Coordinators Office 

FSA Farm Services Agency 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY fiscal year 

GIS Global Information System 

GPS Global Positioning Satellite 

ha hectare 

IPM integrated pest management program 

lbs pounds 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LMRE Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

LMVJV Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

LOF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Forestry 

LSU Louisiana State University 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival 

MAV Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

NBEM National Bald Eagle Management 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO non-governmental organizations 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 
Appendices 171

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWTF National Wild Turkey Federation 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PL Public Law 

ppm parts per million 

psi pounds per square inch 

RHPO Regional Historic Preservation Office 

RLGIS Refuge Lands Geographic Information System 

RM Refuge Manual 

RO Regional Office 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

SCWDS Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SMZs Streamside Management Zones 

TDE or DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads 

TPL The Trust for Public Land 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WGCP West Gulf Coastal Plain 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 
172 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 173

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

Anderson, D.R., 1997 Corridor use, feeding ecology, and habitat relationships of black bears in 

fragmented landscape in Louisiana. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. 

Beausoleil II, R. A. 1999. Population and spatial ecology of the Louisiana black bear in a fragmented 

bottomland hardwood forest. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Benson, J.F. 2005. Ecology and conservation of Louisiana black bears in the Tensas River Basin 

and reintroduced populations. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Beyer, W.N., and A.J. Krynitsky. 1989. Long-term persistence of dieldrin, DDT, and Heptachlor 

epoxide in earthworms. AMBIO 18(5):271-273. 

Boersen, M.R. 2001. Abundance and density of Louisiana black bears on the Tensas River National 

Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 

Bowker, B., T. Jacobson, and Black Bear Conservation Committee. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Region. 52pp. 

Brody, A. J. and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:5-10.

Caudell, J. and e. Carver. 2007. Bankin on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Washington, DC. 

Clark, M.K. (1990). Roosting ecology of the eastern big-eared bat, Plecotus refinesquii in North 

Carolina. MS Thesis. North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina: 111pp. 

Colburn, T., and C. Cement (eds.). 1992. Chemically-induced alterations in sexual and functional 

development: the wildlife/human connection. In M. A. Mehlan, ed. Advances in modern 

environmental toxicology, Volume XXI. Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc. Princeton, 

New Jersey. 401 pp. 

Csiki, I., C. Lam, A. Key, E. Coulter, J. D. Clark, R. M. Pace, K. G. Smith and D. D. Rhodes. 2003. 

Genetic Variation in Black Bears in Arkansas and Louisiana using Microsatellite DNA Markers. 

Journal of Mammalogy 84 : in press.

Davis, J.B. 2001. Survival, recruitment, and management of box-nesting wood ducks in Mississippi 

and Alabama. PhD Dissertation. MS State Univ. 185 pp. 

Davis, J.B., S.E. Stevens, B.D. Leopold, R.M. Kaminski, and P.D. Gerard. 1999. Wood duck 

reproduction in small and large nest boxes in Mississippi: a continued experiment. Proc. of 

the annual conference of the Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 53:257-269. 
174 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Edwards, C. A. 1966. Insecticide residues in soils. Residue Rev. 13:83-132. 

Elowe, K.D. and W.E. Dodge 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproduction success and cub 

survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 962-986 

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, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence 

through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp. 

Gambrell, R.P., and W., H. Patrick, Jr. 1985. A cleanup program for pesticides in the watershed of a 

southern freshwater lake. Pages 83-88 in Lake and reservoir management – practical 

applications. Proc. Fourth Ann. Conf. and Inter. Symp., McAfee, New Jersey. 

Gooding, G. and Langford, J. R. 2004. Characteristics of Tree Roosts of Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 

and Southeastern Bat in Northeastern Louisiana, The Southern Naturalist – March, 2004, 

Article, pp 61 – 67. 

Gregory, Boyer and Gurnell, eds. 2003. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. 

American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD 431 pp. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 951 pp.

Hartfield, E. No date. A mussel survey of Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. Ecological Services, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, MS 40 pp. 

Harvey, J.M. 1992. Bats of the eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little 

Rock, Arkansas. 

Hellgren, E. C., and M. R. Vaughan. 1989 Denning ecology of black bears in a southeastern wetland. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:347-353.

Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network. Manomet, MA 58 pp. 

Hill, E. P. 1976. Control methods for nuisance beaver in the southeastern United States. 

Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 7:85-98. 

Hunter, B.E. 2000. Wood duck use rates of small versus large nest boxes. MS Thesis. Louisiana 

State University. 

Hunter, C.B., and Golder. In prep. Draft of the Southeast U.S. Waterbird Conservation Plan. USFWS, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Krementz, D.G., and J.J. Jackson. 1999 Woodcock in the Southeast: Natural History & 

Management for Landowners. The University of GA College of Agriculture and Environmental 

Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. Bulletin 1183. 16 pp. 

Landry, J. L., and C.J. Killebrew. 1983. Trends in Louisiana pesticide residues, 1977-1981. Ann. 

Proc. of 1983 Louisiana Water Pollution Control Association. Baton Rouge, La. 18pp. 
Appendices 175

Lester, G.D., S.G. Sorensen, P.L. Faulkner, C.S. Reid, and I.E. Maxit. 2005. Louisiana 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. Baton Rouge. 455 pp. 

Lichtenberg, J.S., S.L. King, J.B. Grace, S.C. Walls. 2004 (unpublished report). Habitat associations 

of chorusing anurans in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley. U.S. Geological Survey, 

National Wetlands Center, Lafayette, LA 35pp 

Loesch, C.R., K.J. Reinecke, and C.K. Baxter. 1994. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

Evaluation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. 

Mackey, W. 1992. A Survey of Wild Hogs of the United States. Minnesota Board of Animal Health. 

Manga and Kirchner. 2000. Stress partitioning in streams by large woody debris. Water Resources 

Research 36:2373-2379. 

Marchinton, F. B. 1995. Movement ecology of black bears in a fragmented bottomland hardwood 

habitat in Louisiana. M. S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 107 pp.

McCabe, J.M., and C.L. Sandretto. 1985. Some aquatic impacts of sediment, nutrients, and 

pesticides in agricultural runoff. Public. No. 201. Michigan State University. East Lansing, 

Michigan. 79 pp. 

McGilvrey, F. G. 1968. A guide to wood duck production habitat requirements. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. 

Sport Fish. and Wildl., Washington DC. Resour. Publ. No. 60. 32pp 

McLachlan, J.A., R.R. Newbold, C.T. Teng, and K.S. Korach. 1992. Environmental estrogens: 

Orphan receptors and genetic imprinting. Pages 107-112 in T. Colburn and C. Clement, eds. 

Advances in modern environmental toxicology, Volume XXI. Chemically induced alteration in 

sexual and functional development: the wildlife/human connection. Princeton Scientific 

Publishing Co., Inc. Princeton, New Jersey. 401 pp. 

Merriam, C.H. 1893. The Yellow Bear of Louisiana. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington. 3: 147-152 

Miller, J. E. 1993. A National Perspective on Feral Swine. Feral swine: a compendium for resource 

managers. March 24-25, 1993. 

Miller, D. A., E. M. Hallerman, M. R. Vaughan, and J. W. Kashbohm. 1998a. Genetic variation in 

black bear populations from Louisiana and Arkansas: examining the potential influence of 

reintroductions from Minnesota. Ursus 10:335-341.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998b. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169. 

Novak, M. 1987. Beaver. Pages 282-312 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Mallock, 

editors. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.. Ontario Trappers 

Association, Ontario, Canada. 

Nowack, R.M. 1986. Status of the Louisiana bear. U.S.F.&W.S. special report. 17 pp.
176 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Nowack, R. M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. Fifth edition. The Johns Hopkins University 

Press. Baltimore and London. 

Pace, R. M., III, D. R. Anderson, and S. Shively. 2000. Sources and patterns of black bear mortality in 

Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 54: 365-373.

Parr, J.F., and S. Smith. 1976. Degradation of toxaphene in selected anaerobic soil environments. 

Soil Sci. 121:53-57. 

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. 

Pelton, M.R. 1982. Black Bear. Pages 504-514; Wild Mammals of North America: Biology 

Management and Economics. J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhammer, (eds.) The Johns 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Pelton, M. R. 1986. Habitat needs of black bears in the east. Pp 49-53; Wilderness and Natural Areas 

in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. D. L. Kulhavy and R. N. Conner 

(eds.) Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, 

Nacogdoches, Texas.

Pelton, M.R. 2000. Black Bear. Pages 389-408 in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in 

North America (Demarais and Krausman, eds). Prentice Hall. 

Reinecke, K.J., R.M. Kaminski, D.J. Moorhead, 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. Univ. 

Press, Lubbock 560 pp. 

Reinecke, K.J., and C.R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating research and management to conserve wildfowl 

(Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Gibier Faune Sauvage, 

Game and Wildlife 13:927-940. 

Rogers, L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive 

success of black bears. Trans. North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 

41:431-438. 

Rogers, L.L., and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Bear, Upper Great Lakes 

Region. Biological Report 82 (1.144). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 54pp. 

Rudis, V.A. 1986. Regional forest fragmentation effects on bottomland hardwood community types 

and resource values. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Unit, P.O. Box 906, 39759 Starkville, MS, USA 

Saucier. 1994. Geomorphology and quaternary geologic history of the lower Mississippi Valley. 

Volume I. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Schultz, T.W. 1991. Tensas River, Louisiana, contaminants study, 1987-1989. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Lafayette, La. 31 pp. 
Appendices 177

Stephens, S.E., R.M. Kaminski, B.D. Leopold, and P.D. Gerard. 1998. Reproduction of wood ducks 

in small and large nest boxes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:159-167. 

Taylor, E.F. 1971. A radio-telemetry study of the black bear (Euarctos americanus) with notes on its 

history and present status in Louisiana. Thesis, Louisiana University, Baton Rouge, LA USA. 

Towne, C. W., and E. M. Wentworth. 1950. Pigs from cave to corn belt. University of Oklahoma 

Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 

Townsley, George. 1996. “Selecting Sites for Wetland Restoration in the Tensas River Basin”, paper 

presentation, Louisiana Delta Conference, Memphis, TN. 

Triant, D. A. 2001. Estimating population size and genetic diversity of two populations of black bears 

in south central Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 

Triant, D.A., R.M. Pace III, and M. Stine. 2004. Abundance, genetic diversity and conservation of 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as detected through noninvasive sampling. 

Conservation Genetics. 5:647-659.

Twedt, D., Pashley, C. Hunter, A. Mueller, C. Brown, and B. Ford. 1999. Partners in Flight 

Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein, III, and A. B. Elliott. 2006. Habitat restoration for forest bird conservation: 

A spatially explicit decision support model. Conservation Biology 20(1):100-110. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development Report. Office 

of Science – Office of Fossil Energy 

USFWS, 1990. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American Woodcock 

Management Plan. 11 pp. 

USFWS, 1995. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear 

Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 52 pp. 

USFWS, 2003. Division of Migratory Birds. Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for 

Management and Banding, USFWS Lands (Southeast Region). 16 pp. 

Vangilder, L.D. 1992. Population dynamics. Pages 144-164 in J.G. Dickson, ed. The 

 wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 

Ware, G.W., and C.C. Roan. 1970. Interaction of pesticides with aquatic microorganisms and 

plankton. Residue Rev. 33(1970):15-45. 

Warrilow, J., M. Culver, E. Hallerman, and M. Vaughan. 2001. Sub specific affinity of black bears in 

the White River National Wildlife Refuge. Journal of Heredity 92: 226-233.

Weaver, K. M., D. Tabberer, L. U. Moore Jr., G. A. Chandler, J.C. Posey, and M. R. Pelton. 1990. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management for black bears in Louisiana. Proceedings of the 

Annual Conference of the southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44:342-350. 
178 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Weaver, K. M., and M. R. Pelton. 1994. Denning ecology of black bears in the Tensas River Basin of 

Louisiana. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management 9: 427-433. 

Weaver, K. M. 1999. The ecology and management of black bears in the Tensas River Basin of 

Louisiana. PhD. Dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. 

Williams, L.E. Jr. 1981. The book of the wild turkey. Winchester Press, Tulsa, OK 

 181 pp. 

Woodward, D. K. 1983. Beaver management in the southeastern United States: a review and 

update. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 1:163-165. 

Woodward, D.K., R.B. Hazel, and P.B. Gaffney. 1985. Economic and environmental impacts of 

beavers in North Carolina. Pages 89-96, Proceedings – Second Eastern Wildlife Damage 

Control Conference. Raleigh, NC. 
Appendices 179

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 Secretary of the Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-Federal interest 

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. 
180 Tensas 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, preservation 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 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 181

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 Reserve 

Research 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 endangered and threatened 

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 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 relates 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. 
182 Tensas 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 

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 landmanaging 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 183

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 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. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100th

anniversary of the System, coordinate activities to celebrate that 

event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The commission is also responsible for developing a longterm plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the System, and improve public use 

programs and facilities. 

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. 
184 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 plant taken in violation of 

domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of 

foreign species into new locations. 

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 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. 
Appendices 185

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-ways over Federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of Federal actions. It stipulates the factors 

to be considered in environmental impact statements, and requires 

that Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that 

unqualified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

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 an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
186 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single Federal Law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

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 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible 

for managing and protecting the System, and requires the 

development of a comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges 

outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

united States, Latin America and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend 

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for 

up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal lands). 

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 fees for public 

uses. 
Appendices 187

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund, to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

State fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 Federal funds, at least 1/3 Foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 State funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of Federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires 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 Department of the Interior and 

Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals 

to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, 

and requires Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies be given 

priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military 

reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

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. 
188 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 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) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Appendices 189

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. 

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. 
190 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is adopted, 

standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCT 

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. 

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). 
Appendices 191

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
192 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 193

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

Public involvement is a very important part of the development of all Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans (CCPs), and every effort was made to assure that public comments were solicited throughout 

the development of this plan. 

This appendix contains the following: 

y A copy of the cover letter that acompanied the above request; 

y A copy of the Public Comment Form submitted with the above letter and used at public 

meetings held on September 12 and 13, 2006, at Winnsboro and Ferriday, Louisiana, to 

solicit comments; 

y A copy of the news release that was submitted to local TV, radio, and newspapers in order to 

promote attendance at the public meetings; and 

y A summary of the public comments received through email, letters, and at the public 

meetings. 
194 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Central Louisiana NWR Complex 

401 Island Road 

Marksville, Louisiana 71351 

 Telephone: 318.253.4238 Fax: 318/253-7139 

September 2006 

Dear Interested Party: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 

Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. This CCP is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. The plan outlines the management practices and public uses that will 

occur on the Refuge for the next 10-15 years. 

An important part of the planning process is gathering input from the public who use or are affected 

by the Refuge. The Service wants to know what the public would like to see implemented on the 

refuge, ideas for management, or concerns for wildlife. The public input received will be used to 

develop alternatives to current land uses and management practices. These alternatives are then 

evaluated for their impacts to the habitat and wildlife. The Service makes a decision on which 

alternative is preferred and this decision is then referred back to the public for further review. 

Comments regarding management and visitor services on the Refuges will be accepted by phone, 

in writing, through email, and at public open house meetings. The first round of public open houses 

is listed below: 

Tuesday, September 12, 2006; LSU Scott Research Education Center Building B 

Between 6:30 and 8:30pm 212 Macon Ridge Rd - Winnsboro, LA 

Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Concordia Parish Community Center 

Between 6:30-8:30pm 26356 Highway 15 Ferriday, LA 

At these public meetings there will be handouts and poster materials for the public to review. Staff 

will be available to provide information and answer questions. 

Enclosed is a public comment sheet that is provided to gather your ideas about the refuge. The 

comment sheet also contains the legislative purpose for which the refuge was established along a 

draft vision statement. Please feel free to provide comments. You can mail your comments back to 

the address listed above, drop it off at the open house, or provide comments in letter form through 

the mail or email. The Planning Team Leader may be contacted at her office 318/253-4238X19, by 

fax 318/253-7139 and email tina_chouinard@fws.gov. 

We look forward to hearing from you! 
Appendices 195

 

REFUGE PURPOSE 

The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge was established through Public Law 96-285 on June 28, 1980 to preserve one of 

the largest privately owned tracts of bottomland hardwoods remaining in the Mississippi Delta. 

Refuge DRAFT Vision Statement 

“The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge will be managed to provide for the restoration, enhancement, and conservation 

of a structurally diverse and complex bottomland hardwood forest as an integral component of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

ecosystem. These habitat management efforts will promote healthy native populations and provide functional corridor 

linkages to facilitate migration, promote gene flow, and provide habitat for wide-ranging species. The desired results will 

balance the needs of federal trust species with compatible wildlife-dependant recreation.” 

We welcome your comments and suggestions for the CCP in writing. You can use this form to write your comments on 

issues that should be addressed in the CCP and environmental assessment. Drop it off with us as you leave, or mail it. To 

be most useful, written comments should be sent by November 7, 2006. You may take extras for your friends and 

neighbors. 

Please mail, fax, or email your comments to: Tina Chouinard – Planning Biologist 

 Central LA NWR Complex 

If you have any questions or comments 401 Island Road 

concerning this meeting or the issues Marksville, LA 71351 

involved, please call Tina Chouinard at Fax: 318/253-7139 

318.253.4238 X 19 Email: tina_chouinard@fws.gov

Please provide your contact information below: 

Name 

Mailing Address 

City, State, Zip Code 

Important: Because the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment will be a public document, all of its 

associated records, including mailing lists and comments submitted by the public, may be subject to public review. We will 

only release names and addresses from our mailing list when we are required to do so by law (e.g. under the Freedom of 

Information-Act). If you wish to have your home address withheld in such a case, please indicate so below. We will not sell 

or otherwise distribute mailing lists for commercial purposes. If we do not hear from you by November 7, 2006, we will 

remove your name from the mailing list. 

 Keep me on your mailing list 

 Keep me on your mailing list, but do not release my home 

address 

 Remove me from your mailing list 

Signature: _____________________________ 

Date: _____________________________ 

Please Provide Comments on Reverse Side 

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) Process 

Public Scoping Meetings 

Winnsboro, LA (September 12, 2006) 

Ferriday, LA (September 14, 2006) 
196 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

What do you think are the most important refuge management issues facing Tensas River NWR? 

How do you think the above issues should be addressed? 

How would you like to see the refuge habitats and wildlife be managed on Tensas River NWR? 

Are the types of public use and visitation that are permitted and encouraged on the Refuge appropriate? 

Out of the six wildlife-dependent priority uses (wildlife observation, photography, hunting, fishing, environmental 

education, and interpretation), which ones are you most interested in seeing promoted on the Refuge? 

Please provide any other comments or suggestions for how you would like to see the Tensas River NWR 

managed over the next 15 years. 
Appendices 197

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Tensas River NWR 

2312 Quebec Road 

Tallulah, LA 71282 

Phone: 318/574-2664 

Fax: 318/574-1624 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #: 2006/xx 

 September 8, 2006 Contact: Tina Chouinard 

318/253-4238 

 

Public Invited to 

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Meeting 

The future management of the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will be the topic of 

public discussion at a meeting on September 12, 2006, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Louisiana State 

University Agricultural Scott Research Extension Education Center, 212 Macon Ridge Rd,

Winnsboro, Louisiana and September 13, 2006, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Concordia Parish 

Community Center, 26356 Hwy 15 Ferriday, Louisiana. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Southeast Regional Director Sam D. Hamilton, the Service wants to hear the public’s ideas 

and opinions about a proposed comprehensive conservation plan for the Refuge. The proposed plan 

is designed to guide the management of the refuge over the next 15 years. 

The Refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). 

The MAV was, at one time, a 25 million acre forested wetland complex that extended along both 

sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Over 90% of that original forest has been 

cleared for agriculture and the rest is heavily fragmented. In an effort to preserve the largest privately 

owned tract of bottomland hardwoods remaining in the Mississippi Delta, Congress authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to establish the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge by Public Law 96-

285 on June 28, 1980. 

The refuge was acquired through a joint effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources associated with six flood 

control projects under construction or being planned in this portion of the state. The refuge is located 

in the Tensas River Basin in northeast Louisiana approximately 60 miles southeast of Monroe, LA 

and 25 miles southwest of Vicksburg, MS., and now totals 71,217 acres. The Refuge encompasses 

portions of Madison, Tensas, and Franklin Parishes. The office/visitor center and maintenance 

facilities are located on the refuge approximately 12 miles southwest of Tallulah, Louisiana. 

In keeping with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, an overriding 

concern reflected in the proposed plan is that wildlife must have first priority in refuge management 

and that recreation and other uses can be provided as long as these uses are compatible with wildlife 

conservation. According to Refuge Manager Jerome Ford, “We want to enhance public use 

opportunities wherever possible, but must ensure that the wildlife comes first.” 
198 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management

y Explicitly state the current status of the Louisiana black bear on the refuge, management of 

the Louisiana black bear population, and effects on local community. 

y Concern over the health and size of the deer herd. 

y Complete an extensive biological inventory of its flora and fauna in order to better complete 

this CCP. 

y The refuge should perform a full Environmental Assessment of native flora and fauna 

distribution, migration, abundance, and habitat before making Compatibility Determinations. 

Habitat Management

y Improve moist-soil and agricultural wetland management for wildlife. 

y Improve Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management Practices for resident and migratory 

species such as increasing harvest versus no forest cutting, to providing structural and 

species diversty. 

Visitor Services

y Outreach to the local communities is paramount. 

y Specific hunt program changes requested included lottery hunts, bow hunting only, increased 

disabled and youth hunts, squirel hunting with dogs, raccoon hunting, and hunter safety. 

y Increased hunting and fishing. 

y The refuge should truly focus on its mandated “wildlife first” policy and become a wildlife 

sanctuary and reduce all public recreational.

y Wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, hunting, and fishing 

opportunities need to be improved and increased. 

y More youth activities are needed on the refuge. 

y Work with and utilize the Refuge Association. 

y Trapping of invasive species needs to be addressed. 

y Other uses such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and horseback riding need to be addressed. 

y Provide improved access to the refuge. 

Refuge Administration

y Access to the refuge need to be improved, an exit off I-20 needs to be created, and the road 

to the refuge needs to be paved all the way from the interstate. 

y Increased staffing needs and housing for students/researchers. 
Appendices 199

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Tensas 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 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 we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

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

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider 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 (Administration Act). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, 

including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration 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 National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS). 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 Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of 
200 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide 

quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the NWRS] or parts thereof for public 

recreation when in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

While the Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the NWRS when the use 

is an “appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the NWRS mission 

and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the NWRS. 

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. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we 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, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off-highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, 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 NWRS 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. 

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 and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality: The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 
Appendices 201

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Take: A permit may be required to harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or 

attempt to engage in any such conduct with regard to a listed species. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use: As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. 
202 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Cooperative Farming

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X 

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 203

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Boating

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
204 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Horse/Mule Special Use

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 205

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: All-Terrain Vehicle Use

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
206 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Field Trials

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 207

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Research Studies

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
208 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 209

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Tensas River NWR

Use: Trapping

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X__

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
210 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 211

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were found to be appropriate and considered for compatibility 

determination reviews: Wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, fishing, field trials, boating, bottomland hardwood forest management, trapping, allterrain vehicle use, cooperative farming program, research studies, horse/mule special use, and fire 

management. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use are addressed 

separately in this Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Date Established: 1980 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Refuge Purpose: “For the preservation and development of the environmental resources ... to 

conserve the diversity of fish and wildlife and their habitat ... for the conservation and development of 

wildlife and natural resources, the development of outdoor recreation opportunities, and interpretative 

education,” and “to give special consideration to the management of the timber on the refuge to 

ensure continued commercial production and harvest” (94 Stat. 595, dated June 28, 1980); 

“For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]; 

“For the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)]; 

“For conservation purposes” [7 U.S.C. 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)]; and 

“To conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... 

or (B) plants” [16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)]. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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.
212 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by 

Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter 

C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” are only written once within the CCP, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the CCP. 
Appendices 213

Use: Wildlife Observation And Photography 

Wildlife observation and 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. It is in anticipated that an increase in non-consumptive wildlifedependent uses will occur over the next few years as facilities and access are provided. 

Wildlife observation and 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. 

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 towers, access roads, kiosks, and brochures. 

Maintenance costs: $20,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, individual 

animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential disturbance 

include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling of plants by observers and 

photographers. Disturbance to trust species are expected to be minimal. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads will alter 

small portions of the natural environment. Proper planning prior to construction, sediment retention, 

and grade stabilization features will reduce negative impacts to wetlands and species of special 

concern. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be avoided by special closures 

due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. 
214 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available 

for public review as part of Draft CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability 

in the Federal Register, refuge postings, and newspaper articles. 

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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________

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. These activities are largely conducted at the Headquarters Office 

and are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all ages to develop land ethics, foster public 

support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sometimes, 

environmental education and interpretation activities occur on Tensas River NWR. 

Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses provided they are compatible with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 
Appendices 215

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 the refuge manager and led or supervised by the park ranger. 

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 towers, brochures, and environmental education materials. 

Maintenance costs: $2,000/year 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, and 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. 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: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 
216 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the area that is now Tensas River NWR prior to its 

inclusion in 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 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. 

Sport fishing is open on Africa, Judd, Buck, and Rainey Lakes year-round. Fishing for bream, 

crappie, and bass is excellent though fishing participation is light. Disabled fishermen have 

access to fishing at Rainey Lake due to a wheelchair accessible fishing pier. Fishing is subject to 

regulations established by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Fishing is further 

restricted on the refuge by regulations that prohibit commercial fishing on the refuge and prohibit 

the use of certain fishing methods. 
Appendices 217

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. 

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: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial fishing is prohibited. Recreational fishing using commercial gear is allowed by obtaining 

a special use permit from the refuge. Trotlines must have cotton line attached to the ends and they 

must be tended daily. 
218 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Field Trials 

Field trials are not one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System but are 

historical uses of the refuge covered under a previous compatibility determination completed in 1980. 

Raccoon or squirrel field dog trials are generally the only request. Raccoon trials are conducted at 

night and the dogs race against the clock for locating and treeing the raccoon. The animal is not 

killed in the process, and firearms are not part of the test. 

Squirrel field trials are conducted during the open state squirrel season and follow state regulations 

for take of animals. Both types of field trials are very limited in number of requests. Field trials are 

not a priority public use but do encourage practices and techniques that enhance the tradition and 

quality of the hunting experience and reduce the incidence of downed but unretrieved game. 

Where would the use be conducted? 

Field dog trials would not be held where wildlife is concentrated or during the local breeding season. 

The field trials will also be contained in an area that will accommodate the trial without undue 

disturbance to field office operations. 

When would the use be conducted? 

No trials would be conducted from April 15 through August 15 for the protection of nesting and 

breeding wildlife. No trials would be conducted during the gun deer hunting season. Squirrel field 

trials would only be conducted during the state squirrel season. No trials would be conducted from 

December through April, which is the expected denning activity period for the Louisiana black bear. 

Trials would be permitted for no more than two consecutive calendar days for local trials and no more 

than three consecutive calendar days for regional or national trials. 

How would the use be conducted? 
Appendices 219

Hunting clubs must request a special use permit. Clubs are limited to conducting one trial per 

calendar year or season, and only two nights per raccoon field trial. Permission will be granted only 

for one trial at a time in order to avoid conflicts of time and space. These usually consist of three to 

four with up to six parties and with two dogs per party. Raccoon trials are conducted at night, and 

squirrel trials are conducted during the day. 

Why is this use being proposed? 

Historically, people in this area have had a strong interest in hunting with raccoon and squirrel dogs. 

In most cases, there are sufficient areas available off of refuge lands to conduct field trials. However, 

at times and in our areas sites are not available off of refuge, and a few requests are received. 

Therefore, the refuge must review each request as a secondary use and determine compatibility 

based on refuge objectives, purposes, disturbance factors, etc. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Law enforcement activities would be needed to provide resource and visitor protection. 

 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

No permanent physical facilities will be constructed or located on Service lands for the support of field 

trial activities. Any necessary portable facilities must be removed from the field office at the end of 

each field trial. All costs for temporary facilities and the conduct of a trial are the responsibility of the 

permittee (631 FW 5). 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring and compliance would be handled within existing resources, programs, 

and staff time. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Field trials have the potential to adversely impact wildlife with disturbance. However, disturbance of 

wildlife will be short-term and minimized by not conducting trials where wildlife is concentrated and 

not during the local breeding or denning seasons. Additional stipulations are listed below. The 

number of field trials is few and with such low frequency that no significant conflicts would be 

expected with other users. 

Long-term impacts: 

Impacts are expected to be minimal to negligible with the limited number of requests and limiting to 

one trial at a time and one trial per club per year/season. No cumulative impacts are expected. 

 
220 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Field trials must be conducted under a special use permit. 

A permit fee of $50 is required. 

Time and space limits will be used to avoid conflicts with non-target wildlife species and other 

refuge users. In addition, no hunts will be conducted from April 15 through August 15 or during 

any gun deer hunts. 

Each club is limited to conducting one trial per calendar year/hunting season on the refuge, and a 

maximum of two nights per raccoon trial. 

No firearms of any type are allowed on the refuge during raccoon field trials. 

Firearms are permitted only during squirrel field trials. Squirrel field trials are required to be held 

during the state squirrel season, with take of squirrels according to state regulations. 

All vehicles are restricted to designated roads. No off-road vehicles are permitted during the trials. 

Injury and/or destruction of any plant or animal life, other than target animals, is prohibited. 

Justification: 

Historically, people in this area have had a strong interest in hunting with raccoon and squirrel dogs. It is 

a means of enjoying the outdoors and hunting. These trials are used to judge a dog’s performance, not 

the actual taking of wildlife. The trials are considered low impact activities that have no long-term or 

cumulative effects and can be managed within existing refuge resources. Field trials are considered 

wildlife-dependent recreation as listed in Part 631 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. They do not 

materially interfere with or detract from refuge purposes or objectives. They will not adversely affect 

refuge biological resources or conflict with wildlife-dependent priority public uses. The objective of 

permitting field trials on the refuge is to encourage practices and techniques that enhance the tradition 

and quality of the hunting experience. 

 
Appendices 221

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Boating 

Fishing is allowed year-round on the refuge and is in accordance with state regulations. The annual 

natural flood regime makes it difficult to efficiently manage a sport fishery. Typically, river overflows 

can provide a natural stocking of the fishery through fish immigration. Sport fish, carp, buffalo, and 

other fishes benefit from overflows. As a result, seasonal fishing from motorboats and non-motorized 

boating for wildlife observation and photography are common uses. 

Where would the use be conducted? 

Boating occurs in all accessible areas of the refuge. The Tensas River and many sloughs, 

creeks, and oxbow lakes provide a great diversity of aquatic habitat. The Tensas River NWR 

has several lakes and bayous that can be accessed for fishing opportunities. 

When would the use be conducted? 

Sport fishing is open on Africa, Judd, Buck, and Rainey Lakes year-round. Fishing for bream, 

crappie, and bass is excellent though fishing participation is light. Disabled fishermen have access to 

fishing at Rainey Lake due to a wheelchair accessible fishing pier. 

How would the use be conducted? 

The refuge is accessible every day. It is closed at night except for coon hunting. 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. The variety 

of access points makes it difficult to monitor the amount of use actually occurring on the refuge. 

Why is this use being proposed? 

Providing the public with wildlife-dependent recreation is a priority use of the refuge. Boating 

provides access to fishing, a priority public use. Since fish and wildlife observation is an integral part 

of the boating experience, it is considered a wildlife-dependent activity. 
222 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

These lands have been open to the public since the refuge was established. Therefore, access trails, 

parking lots, signs, and other facilities, as well as staff to enforce regulations and maintain these 

facilities, have already been provided by the Service. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Every three to five years the annual maintenance costs may increase in order to 

provide gravel for parking lots and roads and to replace signs. 

Monitoring costs: Costs are minimal 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: 

Boating is restricted to the river and its tributaries and backwaters. Access is typically by a 

couple of individuals per boat. Some canoeing and motorboating occurs and could cause minor 

disturbance to wading bird colonies. Disturbance may affect nest abandonment, predation on 

young, or subject young birds to environmental stress. Boating activity can also disturb wildlife, 

especially birds, because it disrupts feeding activity and can affect large areas in a short period of 

time. The disturbance can result in increased energy expenditures from avoidance flights and 

decreased energy intake due to interference with feeding activity. This is important to survival 

especially with wintering waterfowl. However, there are species-specific differences in response 

and speed, and approach of boats can influence wildlife response. Zoning of visitor activities by 

time and space, clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and 

enforcement will ensure compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Through periodic evaluation of boating effects on wildlife, the visitor 

services program will assess resource impacts. If future human impacts are determined through 

evaluation to be detrimental to important natural resources, actions will be taken to reduce or 

eliminate those impacts. Continued monitoring for significant disturbance during critical times or 

with large groups of birds will allow the refuge to determine if additional regulations are needed if 

use increases. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds for the manager to close the 

area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm. 

Horsepower restrictions exist for motorboats, and limited human conflicts have occurred as a result of 

reckless boat operators. This use will be monitored for impact and future modifications could be 

made to regulations. 

The use of motorized and human powered boats will not adversely impact refuge purposes. The 

biggest problem with this use is littering and will continue to be handled with law enforcement and 

refuge staff for cleanup. 
Appendices 223

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Motorized land vehicles are to remain on designated roads only. 

y Camping and fires are prohibited. 

y No equipment (blinds, stands, boats, vehicles, etc.) may be left over night. 

y Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

y Outboard motors not greater than 10 horsepower are allowed to be operated in all refuge 

lakes, streams, and bayous. 

y All motorized boats must utilize navigation lights according to state regulations. 

y Personal flotation devices must be worn by all occupants of motor boats that are underpower 

on the refuge. 

y 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. 

Justification: 

Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with quality wildlife-dependent experiences and 

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 Tensas 

River NWR. Boating provides access to fishing, a priority public use. Since fish and wildlife 

observation is an integral part 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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _______________________
224 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management 

Forest management, per timber harvest sales, is the only realistic tool that is available to enable the 

refuge to achieve wildlife forest habitat objectives. The forests of the southeast require significant 

disturbance at a level of acreage that cannot be achieved without incorporating commercial entities. 

Therefore, forest management packages are offered for bid with those trees in excess of the 

management needs offered for harvest. The excess value of the trees in relation to the cost of the 

entire management package will be the amount paid to the government and placed in the general 

fund. Forest management is conducted to benefit wildlife and further the refuge purpose. It is not 

based on current or future economic gain from timber harvest. 

Where would the use be conducted? 

Refuge forester and manager would decide where forest management is needed. Designated areas 

would be marked with blue paint and on a map. 

When would the use be conducted? 

Timber harvest sales would occur when forest management was needed, when soil conditions 

were appropriate for least impact, and when the bidding process was complete and a contract 

was awarded. 

How would the use be conducted? 

Active forest management consists of mechanical removal of commercial and non-commercial forest 

products by refuge personnel or contractors utilizing conventional logging equipment. The refuge is 

sub-divided into manageable-sized compartments, which are selected for forest management 

activities based on the greatest need for wildlife habitat improvement, and which are tempered with 

considerations for spatial, temporal, and area constraints stated in the Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Habitat Management Guidelines (2005). Once selected, vegetative/wildlife data is collected and 

analyzed to determine the extent of treatment needed, which is then expressed in a document that 

details the specific silvicultural strategies necessary to obtain specific wildlife habitat objectives. Only 

those trees marked with two spots of blue paint could be cut. Stumps would be cut as low as 

possible to the ground as long as some portion of the paint remained visible on the stump. Special 

use permits, detailing specific environmental, fiscal, physical, and administrative constraints, are 

issued to contractors that have bid the highest for the forest products or through the negotiation 

process, if applicable. All state and federal permits, clearances, and consultations (such as State 

Historic Preservation Office cultural resource clearance, permits associated with the Clean Water Act 

and Intra-Service Section 7 consultation) would be obtained prior to implementing the special use 

permit. Timber harvest sales require a pre-entry conference between refuge forester and permittee 

before starting logging operations. 

Why is this use being proposed? 

Forest management is needed to improve general health, productivity, diversity, and quality of the 

bottomland and upland forests. Forest stands often need to be gradually thinned to reduce 

competition, to increase diversity, to lessen the chance for epidemics of damaging insects, and to 

remove diseased trees. Accomplishing habitat improvement targets requires heavily utilizing the 

commercial sale of refuge forest products (timber sales) since funding and staffing never has been, 

and never will be, at a level to achieve force account (refuge staff) conducted actions only. 
Appendices 225

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Forest management activities are administered by refuge staff and do not exceed the general 

operational costs of the refuge. Recent staff losses due to lack of resources is and will continue to 

impact the refuge’s ability to implement habitat management actions at a level needed to maintain 

and improve habitat conditions. This activity is perhaps the single highest priority for the refuge due 

to its critical nature in achieving wildlife objectives, and staff will continue to make every effort to 

address forest stand improvements. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Refuge staff will conduct monitoring protocols in line with adaptive management, 

the Forest Habitat Management Plan (2005), and the Comprehensive Conservation Plan to 

determine when habitat condition objectives are met, signaling treatment and monitoring achievement 

of habitat condition objectives post treatment. 

Offsetting revenues: Utilizing contract loggers to achieve forest habitat management goals is the 

only way to achieve improvement given the lack of resources to implement force account harvest 

activities. Receipts generated from the sale of forest products removed from the refuge are 

deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. The funds collected annually from all 

refuges are distributed to the counties on a prorated basis (acreage of refuge land within each 

county and appraised value of this land) as an “in-lieu-taxes” payment as directed by the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Logging activities result in some soil disturbance that results in minor soil compaction and erosion. 

Minor siltation and turbidity of streams may occur. Most streams on the refuge are intermittent and 

are mostly dry during normal logging seasons. Besides the removal of some trees on sales, minor 

damage of some residual trees and other vegetation will occur. No adverse long-term impacts are 

anticipated. For more detailed analysis, refer to the approved Forest Habitat Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment on file at the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
226 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Ensure adherence to the Forest Habitat Management Plan. 

y Sale of forest products is utilized only when it is the most efficient and cost effective method of 

managing refuge forests. 

y Harvested trees are sold under fair trade principles and in a manner in which the government will 

be compensated at a fair market value. 

y All roads, pipelines, and ditches must be kept clear of brush and debris. 

y All tops falling into rights-of-way must be immediately cleared. 

y To prevent rutting on access roads, entry is prohibited during periods of wet ground conditions. 

y No littering or fires. 

y No firearms or archery equipment may be transported in vehicles. 

y No tractors allowed. 

y Unmarked trees less than three inches in diameter may be cut to provide access to marked trees. 

y Personal protective equipment (glasses, gloves, chaps, etc.) are strongly recommended. 

y Additional conditions will apply to sale of forest products . 

Justification: 

The refuge forest needs a variety of treatments to enhance habitat conditions for all migratory and 

native wildlife species. Bottomland forests must have openings created to keep adequate understory 

and midstory for a variety of songbirds and white-tailed deer habitat. Thinning bottomland forests will 

create better conditions for remaining trees to grow larger and create better mast crop for wood ducks 

and white-tailed deer. Forest management, per timber harvest, is compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established and is the single most effective tool enabling the refuge to meet 

wildlife habitat objectives. 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Trapping 

Beavers, raccoons, and feral hogs are the species upon which management activities may be 

directed. All species are at a sufficiently high level on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem 

functions. As indicated in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, beaver activities have caused 

significant deterioration and loss of bottomland hardwoods throughout the refuge, and excessive 

numbers of raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest breeding birds and 

wild turkeys. In addition to competing with native wildlife for food, feral hogs are known to 

destroy turkey nests, to kill deer fawns, and to damage roads and levees. Feral hogs consume 

hard and soft mast, agricultural crops, and managed vegetation such as moist-soil plant species. 
Appendices 227

Further, feral hogs may carry serious diseases, such as swine brucellosis and pseudo rabies, that 

are transmissible to domestic animals and humans as well as other wildlife. 

Protection and restoration of bottomland hardwoods and improvements in game and non-game 

populations are central components of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. To this end, trapping 

and/or hunting remain the only viable methods to reduce population levels of beavers, raccoons, and 

feral hogs. The Service would issue special use permits to administer a trapping program consistent 

with sound biology, refuge purposes, and conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The 

existing staff can administer permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of beavers, raccoons, and feral hogs from portions 

of the refuge would reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. 

Control of beaver populations would help ensure the protection of important bottomland hardwood forests, 

including reforestation areas, and minimize beaver problems associated with the operation of water 

control structures on the refuge. Regulated trapping of raccoon populations would reduce the nest 

predation this species causes to neotropical migratory birds and wild turkeys. Reducing feral hogs on 

Tensas River NWR will ensure that road and levee damage is minimized; forest, re-forested, and 

managed habitats are not negatively impacted; and native wildlife species are not adversely affected. 

However, no trapping program, regardless of how well it is designed, can prevent the possible take of 

other species. Trappers would be required to report the incidental take of other species. A negligible 

impact on other wildlife species is expected in both the short- and long-term. Due to the design of traps 

used and trap placement, impacts due to incidental take of the Louisiana black bear is expected to be 

minimal. Close monitoring of trapping activities on the refuge will assure that such takes are minimal, and 

if problems arise, the allowance of this use will be reevaluated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: As a trapping program is implemented on the 

refuge, it would be closely monitored to assess the potential adverse effects on other wildlife, as well 

as the benefits to game and non-game species and their habitats. 

Modifications to the program would be implemented as needed to maintain compatibility. All trapping 

activities would be carried out under a refuge special use permit. Trappers would be limited by 

number, area, and season in order to target problem areas and minimize any negative impacts. Each 

trapper would be required to report the number and location of all traps and all wildlife taken. The 

implementation of a trapping program, under controlled conditions, provides an essential population 

control management tool and is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 
228 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification: 

The purposes of Tensas River NWR emphasize conservation of bottomland hardwood forests, 

wetlands, and migratory birds. Trapping is a wildlife population management tool used to regulate 

the population of certain wildlife species when those species are disrupting ecosystem functions. 

Beavers, raccoons, and feral hogs have been documented to cause negative impacts to forested 

wetlands and nesting birds. When these negative impacts become significant on the refuge, wildlife 

managers need trapping as a management tool to control the level of damage. Certainly, beavers 

and raccoons are important components of the ecosystem, but when their populations and negative 

impacts become significant, wildlife managers need a regulated trapping program to reduce their 

populations to acceptable levels. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__ X _ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ________________________ 

Use: All-Terrain Vehicle Use 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are generally defined as 3-, 4-, or 6-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 has 

historically used ATVs for access to remote areas for wildlife-dependent activities. Often ATV trails 

were historically being used prior to refuge establishment because they were initiated over logging 

trails. Use of ATVs is common on the refuge but with good compliance to stipulations. 

Where would the use be conducted? 

All ATV use is restricted to designated marked trails. There are several miles of marked trails on the 

refuge. 

When would the use be conducted? 

ATVs are prohibited from two hours after sunset to 4:00 AM. Trails are marked with signs and would 

be closed March 1 through August 31. Other restrictions may apply if it is determined that nesting 

and/or denning activities may be impacted by use of ATVs. 

How would the use be conducted? 

ATV access is by the general public for access to hunting and fishing areas. Raccoon hunters may 

not use ATVs. ATV tires are restricted to those no larger than 25x12 inches, with a maximum 1-inch 
Appendices 229

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 trailheads and parking areas and ridden on trails to 

access remote areas within the refuge prior to walking to hunting or fishing areas. ATVs are not 

permitted off the designated trails. 

 

Why is this use being proposed? 

Access to this refuge is very limited. ATV trails are a necessity for priority public uses of hunting and 

fishing. The existing designated trail system is close to optimum to conduct the public use program. 

Minor additions/deletions, re-routing, or seasonal opening date changes may be implemented from 

time-to-time to address needs as they occur. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

These lands have been open to public since they were acquired. Therefore, access trails, parking 

lots, signs, and other facilities, as well as staff to enforce regulations and maintain these facilities, 

have already been provided by the Service. Law enforcement is required for regulated use of trails 

and ATV specifications. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Every three to five years the annual maintenance costs may increase in order to 

provide gravel for parking lots and roads, to mow and flag trails, and to replace signs. 

Monitoring costs: Monitor consequences of 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. Habitat degradation in area of trails will need to be monitored. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

In the early history of the refuge, trails were established for ATV use as a concession to limited access. 

ATVs were historically used in the area before the refuge was established. Use of ATVs does result in 

some minimal 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 most trails to 

season use only minimizes overall potential impacts. The primary compatibility issues of concern are with 

disturbance to migratory waterfowl, endangered species, and habitat conservation. 

The use of ATVs serves to provide increased access for the management of the deer herd via 

recreational harvest. ATV use also increases opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent activities 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, and wildlife observation). ATV use has the potential for disturbance 

of the threatened Louisiana black bear (Urus americanis luteolus) as documented in the Biological 

Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 3, 1993. However, restrictive use of ATVs will 

reduce disturbances during certain times of the year. ATV use serves to maximize and evenly distribute 

the harvest of white-tailed deer thereby preventing overpopulation and the associated habitat degradation. 

Maintenance of habitat quality benefits the ecosystem as well as the Louisiana black bear. 
230 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Migratory waterfowl and other species of concern are not significantly impacted by ATV use. The 

refuge objective is to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl. Because of seasonal flooding (usually 

November through May), ATV trails are usually inaccessible during the winter months and during high 

waterfowl numbers of use. 

The trails presently designated for ATV use are primitive in nature and were historically logging roads, 

old field roads, or rights-of-way. The terrain is relatively flat and drainage is poor. During seasonal 

flooding, the area is covered by several feet of water. Although the ground pressure exerted by ATVs 

is low, traffic eventually eliminates all vegetation within the trails and some rutting occurs when soils 

are saturated. Root damage to trees occurs when the soil cover has been eroded. This damage is 

also accompanied by disease such as butt rot. Limiting the use to trails confines and minimizes the 

damage to habitat. However, use of the trails during wet conditions creates ruts and mud holes, 

encouraging detours (which amplify the damage) at times, and management or enforcement may be 

needed. Generally, the impacts are temporary in that these areas tend to fill back or heal from one 

year to the next. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y ATVs may be used only to reach areas open to wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting and 

fishing. 

y Most ATV trails are open only from September 1 – February 28. 

y ATV tires are restricted to those no larger than 25x12 inches with a maximum 1-inch lug height 

and a maximum allowable tire pressure of 7 lbs psi, as indicated on the tire by the manufacturer. 

y Camping and fires are prohibited. 

y No equipment (vehicles, ATVs, blinds, decoys, stands, etc.) may be left over night. 

y Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

y 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. 

y ATV use is limited to designated trails only. Parking ATV trailers is restricted to parking areas and 

along public access roads. 
Appendices 231

Justification: 

A well distributed and adequate deer harvest is essential to maintain a healthy deer herd and habitat. 

ATV use is an effective and practical means of distributing hunters. Hunting deer, small game, and 

waterfowl is a traditional and extremely popular use of the bottomland hardwood forests that 

comprise the Tensas River NWR. ATV use improves the quality of the experience by preventing 

overcrowding in easily accessible areas. There are areas available on the refuge where ATV use is 

not allowed. ATV use is essential for access to the refuge hunting program for those users who are 

mobility impaired. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date:________________________ 

Use: Cooperative Farming Program 

Cooperative farming is utilized on the refuge to manage and maintain approximately 475 acres of 

cropland and 994 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 farming agreements specifying what crops will be grown in specific 

fields for both the refuge and cooperative farmer’s share. The cooperative farmer receives 80 

percent of the crop planted while the refuge receives 20 percent of the crop planted. 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, corn, and milo 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, bear, and other wildlife. 
232 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

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 ten 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: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Determination: 

 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 

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 Tensas River 

NWR 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. 
Appendices 233

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _______________________

Use: Research Studies 

This activity will allow university students and professors, non-governmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to the refuge’s natural environment to conduct both short- and longterm research projects. The outcome of this research will result in better knowledge of our natural 

resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect refuge resources. The refuge will 

support research by the Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others on the Louisiana black bear, 

neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, woodcock, bottomland hardwood restoration and 

management, fisheries, amphibians and reptiles, forest bats, and sandhill cranes. Efforts will be 

made to expand partnerships with Louisiana State University and other universities. 

Availability of Resources:

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Existing staff can administer permits 

and monitor use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

There should be no significant negative impacts from scientific research on the refuge. The 

knowledge gained from the research will provide information to improve management techniques and 

to better meet the needs of trust resource species. Impacts, such as trampling vegetation and 

temporary disturbance to wildlife, will occur but should not be significant. A small number of 

individual plants or animals may be collected for further study. These collections will have an 

insignificant effect on refuge plant and animal populations. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 
234 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each request for use of the refuge for research will be examined on its individual merit. Questions of 

who, what, when, where, and why will be asked to determine if requested research contributed to the 

refuge purposes and could best be conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the 

resources. If so, the researcher will be issued a special use permit. Progress will be monitored and 

the researcher will be required to submit annual progress reports and copies of all publications 

derived from the research. 

Justification: 

The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species and the 

environmental communities present on the refuge. These benefits far outweigh any short-term 

disturbance or loss of individual plants and animals that might occur. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Horse/Mule Special Use

(for raccoon hunting at night)

While not one of the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses listed or identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the use of horse/mule pack animals exists at Tensas River 

NWR to facilitate raccoon hunting at night.

Where would the use be conducted? 

Permits are required for using horses or mules for night-time raccoon hunting, which is allowed in 

designated open areas of the refuge. 

When would the use be conducted? 

Using horses and mules for raccoon hunting would be restricted to the season as set by refuge 

regulations. 
Appendices 235

How would the use be conducted? 

The use of horses and mules for raccoon hunting would be controlled by issuance of special use 

permits. A map with designated roads and trails and any other refuge-specific regulations would be 

stated on the special use permit. 

Why is this use being proposed? 

Those using horses for raccoon hunting have historically used this area for this wildlife-dependent 

activity. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Minimal resources would be required to handle the special use permits. Some law enforcement 

would be necessary to provide resource and visitor protection. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

None. The lands have been open to the public since they were acquired. Use of pack animals is a 

self-initiated activity with no amenities provided specifically for this activity. Thus, access trails, 

parking lots, and staff to enforce regulations have already been provided by the Service. 

Maintenance costs: Negligible, with road maintenance conducted for operations other than this 

public use. 

Monitoring costs: Minimal costs would be involved to monitor for resource impacts and to determine 

if use is above compatibility. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The purpose of this section is to critically and objectively evaluate the potential effects that horse and 

mule pack animals could have on the wildlife, habitat, and other public use elements encompassed in 

refuge purposes. One key concern is to maintain adverse impacts within acceptable limits. 

Therefore, one of the functions of this section is to point out whether adverse impacts are within or 

exceed these acceptable thresholds. 

Impacts related to use of pack animals include invasive plant seed dispersal, soil compaction and 

erosion, stream sedimentation, trail widening, vegetation trampling, direct wildlife disturbance, and 

direct and indirect conflicts with other recreationists. 

Invasive plants can be spread to new sites through manure. Horse digestive systems are relatively 

inefficient and seeds of invasive plants are often still viable after passing through the horse digestive 

system. This could result in introduction and/or spread of invasive species, limiting the ability to restore 

and maintain natural biological diversity within a refuge. However, while the above-mentioned 

relationship between horses and the spread of invasive species is well known in western states, there are 

no known problems of this type in southern bottomland hardwood habitat that is found on this refuge. For 
236 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

example, use of pack animals has occurred on this refuge for several years, and there has never been an 

instance of a new invasive species encroaching into this habitat associated with its use. 

Soil disturbance is often created through soil compaction with as much as 1,500 psi. exerted on the soil 

surface with each step. Additionally, hoof action tends to dig up and puncture the soil surface, which 

causes sediment loss and increases potential for disturbance-tolerant vegetation to establish. The use is 

minimal at this time with a special use permit system in place for monitoring for greater impacts. 

Trail widening can occur with horses or hikers with vegetation getting flattened and churning up soil. 

This can increase spread of previously established invasives by providing loose disturbed soil for 

germination. This impact initially increases invasive plant encroachment with light to moderate trail 

use and eventually can lower species richness values to near zero with heavy impacts. This type of 

impact occurs with several priority wildlife-dependent uses and must be continually monitored with 

refuge operations as well. 

There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activity on the land, but it is minimal. 

Studies have shown that activities restricted to trails and roads will often allow wildlife, especially 

migratory birds, to habituate to human presence due to the activity being consistently on a trail versus 

moving unpredictably (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). Disturbance, such as flushing a nesting bird, is 

inherent to these activities, but the disturbance is temporary and not significant. One study even 

identified that disturbance of waterfowl to horseback riders resulted in tolerance up to 46 meters versus 

75 meters with hikers (Miller et al., 1998) and 77 to 273 meters with boaters. Many wildlife species 

appear to be habituated to livestock, and thus are less likely to flee when approached through this 

method. However, any form of approach will likely result in some level of disturbance-related impact. 

Monitoring of disturbance would be conducted, and high levels of disturbance would be grounds for the 

manager to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses further to minimize harm. 

Anticipated impacts described suggest that unrestricted use of horses and mules could lead to 

invasive plant seed encroachment, vegetative trampling, and disturbance to wildlife. These impacts 

could be cumulative with associated impacts from other public use opportunities. These effects 

would not be focused on roads and trails when riding horses or mules for raccoon hunting in 

designated areas of the refuge. However, so few individuals request a permit for this activity that the 

impacts are expected to be minimal to negligible. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The permit holder and those accompanying him are responsible for knowing and complying with 

refuge regulations. 
Appendices 237

Open roads are subject to seasonal closures based on the presence of sensitive wildlife populations. 

Horse trailers are restricted to designated parking areas. 

Justification: 

While not listed as a primary wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended, use of horse and mules for raccoon hunting is often used as 

a means of transportation of game and appreciation of the outdoors. Therefore, horseback riding is 

determined compatible with the refuge mission of providing wildlife-dependent public use. 

The use of horse and mule pack animals is believed to be a compatible public use under the 

stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination. Primary reasons for this determination 

include: 

1. Permit requests are for horseback riding in support of raccoon hunting (a priority wildlifedependent recreational use). 

2. This use is infrequent and seasonal with only low levels expected. 

3. Impacts associated with this use are not believed to exceed impacts already caused by other 

public use activities. 

It is understood from the summary of anticipated impacts that there are elements of allowing the use 

of horses and mules for raccoon hunting to have the potential of detrimental effects. Yet, this often is 

the case with several of the primary wildlife-dependent recreational uses that support the refuge 

mission and purpose (Pease et al., 2005). Hence the refuge has to constantly consider spatial and 

seasonal control of public access to minimize disturbance during critical times, such as when 

waterfowl are overwintering on the refuge, and fat deposition and energy conservation are important 

or during the nesting period. Hence, impacts would be monitored closely and if they, or any as yet 

not considered impacts are discovered, this compatibility determination would be re-evaluated. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date:

Use: Fire Management 

Fire management will be conducted at Tensas River NWR and at Farm Service Agency inventory 

lands the refuge administers in Madison, Tensas, Franklin, East Carroll, and Richland Parishes, 

Louisiana. Refuge personnel, with assistance from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and 

Forestry, through a cooperative agreement, will actively suppress all wildfire by employing accepted 

firefighting methods, ranging from the use of hand tools to tractor plows. Wildfire presuppression will 
238 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

be conducted by disking firebreaks at hardwood plantations determined to be the most vulnerable to 

wildfire. No prescribed burning will be undertaken in existing bottomland hardwood forests, but 

prescribed burning may be used to site-prepare fallow agricultural lands for reforestation purposes. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Refuge personnel would be required to assist in this effort. The time required would depend on the 

size of the effort and area targeted to be burned. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

Special heavy field equipment would be necessary during these activities due to the possibility of 

needing to create fire breaks. 

Maintenance costs: 

There would be recurring costs due to the need to periodically repeat fire management on selected sites. 

Monitoring costs: 

Refuge personnel would be needed throughout the activity to assure that all fires were contained to 

the designated treatment areas. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Anticipated impacts of fire management at Tensas River NWR are minimal due to a low-incidence fire 

history and low-intensity expected fire behavior in the main fuel types present. Degradation of soil, water, 

vegetation, and air quality could result from wildfire suppression, presuppression, or prescribed burning. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Compatibility determinations for Tensas River NWR will be available for public review as part of Draft 

CCP/EA review. The public will be notified via a notice of availability in the Federal Register, refuge 

postings, and newspaper articles. 

Refuge Determination: 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Fire management will be conducted according to the revised Fire Management Plan. 

Minimum-impact wildfire suppression techniques (mainly constraints on the use of mechanical 

equipment) will be applied where prolific tree or ground denning by threatened Louisiana black bears 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) is documented or where bears are observed. These constraints will also 
Appendices 239

be applied where hydric soils or steep terrain exist. Low-ground-pressure tracks will be used on 

dozers or tractor-plows to reduce soil compaction and rutting. Mechanical equipment will avoid 

known archaeological or historic sites and in the event a previously undiscovered site is encountered, 

an Unanticipated Site Discovery Plan will be followed. Whenever possible, at least a refuge resource 

advisor will accompany non-refuge firefighters to ensure protection of refuge resources. 

Presuppression activities (disking firebreaks at refuge plantations) will have prior approval from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under General Permit No. 49 to comply with Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act, as well as consultation with the Regional Archaeologist and the Louisiana State Historic 

Preservation Office to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Prior to any prescribed burning, a Prescribed Fire Plan outlining environmental constraints and 

pertinent actions will be completed. In addition to the Clean Water Act and National Historic 

Preservation Act compliance, voluntary smoke management guidelines administered by LOF will be 

adhered to in order to comply with Section 118 of the Clean Air Act. 

Justification:

Wildfire suppression and presuppression activities will protect lives, property, wildlife, and wildlife 

habitat. In particular, it will protect the habitat of the threatened Louisiana black bear. Prescribed 

burning to site-prepare fallow agricultural land will contribute to restoring a portion of the devastated 

bottomland hardwood ecosystem as well as restore bear habitat. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space.

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date:
240 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the CCP for Tensas 

River NWR. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the CCP, the 

approval signature becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
Appendices 241

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

REGION 4

 INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Kelly Purkey 

Telephone Number: 318-574-2664 

E-Mail: Kelly_purkey@fws.gov 

Date: 11/07/2007 

PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Number): Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

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: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): 

Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red River NWR by adopting the 

proposed alternative of Ecosystem Management that will provide guidance, management direction, 

and operation plans for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

 B. Complete the following table: 
242 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1 

Louisiana Black Bear T, PCH 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker E 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species 

VI. Location (see CCP Figure X):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Region 4, Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

B. County and State: Franklin, Madison, Tensas, Parishes, LA 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): T15N R10E Sections 1, 

2, 3, 9, & 16 and Parts of Sections 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, & 21; T15N R11E Sections 13 

& 23 and Parts of Sections 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16,17, & 24. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 10 miles Southwest of Tallulah. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: Louisiana black bears are common on the refuge and 

on surrounding lands. Ivory-billed woodpeckers historically, but not currently, used the 

refuge.

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):

Implementing Alternative C, Ecosystem Management, would have minimal disturbance to the 

Louisiana black bear and ivory-billed woodpecker. Louisiana black bears could potentially be 

disturbed due to increased human/bear interactions. However, public use has occurred on 

the refuge since 1983, during which time bear populations have greatly increased. Habitat 

management practices proposed in the CCP will advance the recovery of the Louisiana black 

bear in this area and contribute to the recovery and future delisting potential. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

Law enforcement officials will monitor public use to ensure that all activities are within legal 

regulations. The heaviest public use is expected to occur during the bear dening season, 

which will limit human/bear interactions. The refuge will continue to educate the public about 

the legal protection provided to the Louisiana black bear, how refuge management actions will 

contribute to the recovery, and the importance of its continued existence in the ecosystem. 
Appendices 243

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINATION1

RESPONSE1

REQUESTED

NE NA AA

Louisiana Black Bear/PCH X 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker X 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

____________________________ ________ 

signature (originating station) date

____________________________ 

title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed): 

_____________________________ _________

signature date

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

 title office
244 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 245

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 Tensas 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. 
246 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 247

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS 

Symbols which appear in this checklist represent the following: 

Seasonal appearance 

Sp - Spring - March, April, May 

S - Summer - June, July, August 

F - Fall - September, October, November 

W - Winter - December, January, February 

Seasonal abundance 

a - Abundant - Can be easily found 

c - Common - Can be regularly found 

u - Uncommon - Infrequently found 

r - Rare - Recorded on a few occasions 

e - Extirpated - No longer found in area

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps u u x u 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga r c c c 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus - u - u 

Least bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias u u c u 

Great egret Casmerodius albus - u c u 

Snowy egret Egretta thula - u u u 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea r a a a 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor - r r r 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis r c c c 

Green-backed heron Butorides striatus - u u u 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax - r r r 

Yellow-crowned nightheron Nycticorax violaceus c c c c 

White ibis Eudocimus albus - u u u 

Wood stork Mycteria Americana - - r r 

Greater white-fronted 

goose 

Anser albifrons r r - r 
248 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens u u - u 

Ross’ goose Chen rossii 

Canada goose Branta Canadensis r r - r 

Wood duck Aix sponsa a c c c 

Green-winged teal Anas crecca u u - u 

American black duck Anas rubripes u r - r 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos a c - c 

Northern pintail Anas acuta u r - r 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors u c r u 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata u r - r 

Gadwall Anas strepera u r - r 

American wigeon Anas Americana u u - r 

Canvasback Aythya valisneria 

Redhead Aythya Americana 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris r - r r 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis r r - r 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Hooded merganser Mergus cucullatus r r r r 

Common merganser Mergus merganser r - - - 

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Black vulture Coragyps atratus c u u u 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura u u u u 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus - r - - 

American swallow-tailed 

kite Elanoides forficatus - - r - 

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis - c u r 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus r - - - 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus u u - u 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus r r - r 

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii r r r r 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus c c c c 

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus - u u u 
Appendices 249

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis c c u c 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos r - - - 

American kestrel Falco sparverius u u r u 

Merlin Falco columbarius - r - r 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus r r e r 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo c c c c 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus u u u u 

King rail Rallus elegans r r r r 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola - - - - 

Sora rail Porzana Carolina r r - r 

Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica - r r r 

American coot Fulica Americana u r - r 

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica - c - r 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous u u u u 

American avocet Recurvirostra Americana - r - - 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca - c - c 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes r c - c 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria - u - u 

Willet Tringa semipalmata - r - - 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia - u - u 

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda u - - - 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla r - - - 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri r - - - 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla u u - u 

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis - r u r 

Baird's sandpiper Calidris bairdii - r - - 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos - c - c 

Dunlin Calidris alpine u u - u 

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis - c - - 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus - r - - 

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago c c - c 

American woodcock Scolopax minor u r r r 
250 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Rock dove Columba livia r r r r 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura a a a a 

Common ground-dove Columbina passerine r - r r 

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus - r - r 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus - c c c 

Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus - - r - 

Barn owl Tyto alba r r r r 

Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio a a a a 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus r r r r 

Barred owl Strix varia a a a a 

Long-eared owl Asio otus r - - - 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus - - - - 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor - u u u 

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis - u u r 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous - u u r 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica - u u u 

Ruby-throated 

hummingbird Archilochus colubris - a a a 

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon u - - u 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus c u u u 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus a a a a 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius u u - u 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens c c c c 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus u u u u 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus u u u u 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus c c c c 

Ivory-billed woodpecker Campephilus principalis e e e e 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi - r - r 

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens - c c c 

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris - u - u 

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens - c c c 

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum - u - u 
Appendices 251

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii - u - u 

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus - u - u 

Eastern phoebe Ayornis phoebe c u - u 

Vermillion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus - c c c 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus - c u c 

Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus - r - r 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris c c u c 

Purple martin Progne subis - c u c 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor r c u c 

Northern rough-winged 

swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis - u r u 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia - r - r 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota - r - r 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica - c u c 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata a a a a 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos c c c c 

Fish crow Corvus ossifragus u u u u 

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis a a a a 

Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor a a a a 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta Canadensis 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis u u u u 

Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla 

Brown creeper Certhia Americana u u - u 

Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus a a a a 

House wren Troglodytes aedon u u - u 

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes u u - u 

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis u u - u 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris u u - u 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa c u - c 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula c c - c 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea r c c c 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis u u r u 
252 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Veery Catharus fuscescens - u - u 

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus - u - u 

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus - c - c 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus c c - c 

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina - c c c 

American robin Turdus migratorius a c - c 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis r c u c 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos c c c c 

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum c a u a 

American pipit Anthus rubescens c c - c 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum c c r - 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus u u u u 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris a a c a 

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus r a a a 

Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius u u - u 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons - c c c 

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus - r r r 

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus - u - u 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus - a a a 

Bachman's warbler Vermivora bachmanii - e e e 

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus - u - u 

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera - u - u 

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrine - a - a 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata u u - u 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla - u - u 

Northern parula Parula Americana - a a c 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia - u - u 

Chesnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica - c - c 

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia - c - c 

Black-throated blue 

warbler Dendroica caerulescens - r - - 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata a a - a 

Black-throated green Dendroica virens - c - c 
Appendices 253

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

warbler 

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca - u - u 

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica - c c c 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus r - r r 

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor - r - r 

Palm warbler Dendroica palmrum 

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea - c - c 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata - c - c 

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulean - u r u 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia - c r c 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla - c c c 

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea - a a a 

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus - u - u 

Swainson's warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii - c c c 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus - c - u 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis - a - a 

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla - a - a 

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus - c c c 

Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis - r - - 

Mourning warbler Oporornis Philadelphia - r - - 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas u c c c 

Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrine - c c c 

Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla - r - r 

Canada warbler Wilsonia Canadensis - c - c 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens - u u u 

Summer tanager Piranga rubra - c c c 

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea - u - u 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis a a a a 

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus - c - c 

Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea - c u c 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea - a a a 

Painted bunting Passerina ciris - c c c 

Dickcissel Spiza Americana - a a u 
254 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name W Sp Su F 

Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus c c c c 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine u u - u 

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla u u - u 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus u u - u 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis c c - c 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum r r - r 

Le conte's sparrow Ammodramus leconteii - r - r 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca u u - u 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia c c - c 

Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii r r - r 

Swamp sparrow Melospiza Georgiana c c - c 

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis a a - a 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Harris’ sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis a c - c 

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus u u - u 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus - u - u 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus c c c c 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna c c c c 

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus c u - u 

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus u u - u 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula a c c c 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater c c c c 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurious - c c c 

Northern oriole Icterus galbula - u r u 

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus u u - u 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus u u - u 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis c c u c 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

House sparrow Passer domesticus u u u u 
Appendices 255

MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR ON TENSAS RIVER NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus onvemcinctus 

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Least shrew Cryptotis parva 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Red bat Lasiurus borealis 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus 

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius 

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis 

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Plecotus refinesquii 

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans 

American beaver Castor canadensis 

Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris 

Fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana 

Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Black rat Rattus rattus 
256 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 

Nutria Myocaster coypus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

Mink Mustela vison 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

River otter Lutra canadensis 

Cougar Felis concolor 

Bobcat Lynx felis 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 
Appendices 257

REPTILES THAT COULD OCCUR ON TENSAS RIVER NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

Green anole Anolis carolinensis 

Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulates 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps 

Ground skink Scincella lateralis 

Common snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii 

Mississippi map turtle Graptemys kohni 

Ouachita map turtle Graptemys ouachitensis 

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta 

River cooter Chrysemys concinna 

Cooter Pseudemys floridana 

Common slider Trachemys scripta 

Chicken turtle Deirochelys reticulatia 

Razorback musk turtle Sternotherus carinatus 

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus 

Common mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum 

Gulf coast box turtle Terrapene carolina 

Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifer 

Green water snake Nerodia cyclopion 

Plainbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster 

Southern water snake Nerodia fasciata 

Diamondback water snake Nerodia rhombifera 

Glossy water snake Nerodia rigida 

Brown snake Storeria dekyi 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 
258 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Glossy crayfish snake Regina rigida 

Graham’s crayfish snake Regina grahamii 

Western worm snake Carphophis vermis 

Eastern hognose snake Heterdon platyrhinos 

Mud snake Rarancia abacura 

Mississippi green water snake Nerodia cyclopion 

Plain-bellied water snake Nerodia erythrogaster 

Banded water snake Nerodia fasciata 

Diamond-backed water snake Nerodia rhombifer 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Blue racer Coluber constrictor 

DeKay’s snake Storeria dekayi 

Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus 

Common garter snake Thamnopis sirtalis 

Rough earth snake Virginia striatula 

Smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae 

Ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus 

Rat snake Elaphe obsolete 

Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus 

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum 

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus 

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus 

Texas coral snake Micrurus tenere 
Appendices 259

FISH THAT COULD OCCUR ON TENSAS RIVER NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 

Redfin pickerel Esox americanus 

Chain pickerel Esox niger 

Common carp Cyprinus carpoi 

Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 

Speckled chub Hybognathus aestivalis 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 

River shiner Notropis blennius 

Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani 

Ironcolor shiner Notropis chalybaeus 

Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi 

Weed shiner Notropis texanus 

Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus 

Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax 

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis 

Blacktail shiner Cyprinella venusta 

Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratillis 

Speckled chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis 

Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 

Pugnose minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae 

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus 
260 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger 

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 

Blacktail redhourse Moxostoma poecilurum 

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis 

Channel carfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Stonecat Noturus flavus 

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus 

Flathead catfish Ameiurus melas 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus ntalis 

Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 

Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notalus 

Starhead topminnow Fundulus blairae 

Blackspotted topminnow Fundulus olivaceus 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Brook silversides Labidesthes sicculus 

Inland silversides Menidia beryllina 

Gulf pipefish Syngnathus scovelli 

Striped bass Morone saxatilis 

White bass Morone chrysops 

Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Banded pygmy sunfish Elassoma zonatum 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 
Appendices 261

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus 

Dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus 

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis 

Redead sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Spotted sunfish Lepomis punctatus 

Bantam sunfish Lepomis symmetricus 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosomum 

Creole darter Etheostoma collettei 

Cypress darter Etheostoma proeliare 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Sauger Stizostedion canadense 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 
262 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

AMPHIBIANS THAT COULD OCCUR ON TENSAS RIVER NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Three-toed amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum 

Western lesser siren Siren intermedia 

Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum 

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Central newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

Dwarf American toad Bufo americanus 

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans 

Spring creeper Hyla crucifer 

Cope’s gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis 

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea 

Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor 

Striped chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata 

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Green frog Rana clamitans 

Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala 

Pickerel frog Rana palustris 
Appendices 263

PLANTS THAT COULD OCCUR ON TENSAS RIVER NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Horsetail Equisetum hyemale 

Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron 

Southern lady fern Athyrium filax-femina aspleniodes 

Holly fern Cyrtomium fortunei 

Mariana maiden fern Macrothelypteris torresiana 

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis 

Resurrection fern Polypodium polypodioides 

Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides 

Southern shield fern Thelypteris kunthii 

Shield fern Thelypteris hispidula 

Blunt-lobed woodsia Woodsia obtuse 

Japanese climbing-fern Lygodium japonicum 

Mosquito fern Azolla caroliniana 

Waterclover Marsilea uncinata 

Hairy waterclover Marsilea vestita 

Southern grape fern Botrychium biternatum 

Rattlesnake-fern Botrychium virginianum 

Bulbous adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum crotalophoroides 

Common adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum vulgatum 

Doedor cedar Cedrus deodora 

Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana 

Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata 

Slash pine Pinus elliottii 

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Tule Typha domingensis 

Cattail Typha latifolia 

Pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius 

Pondweed Potamogeton nodosus 

Southern naiad Najas quadalupensis 

Creeping burhead Echinodorus cordifolius 
264 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Arrowhead Sagittaria calycina 

Duck-potato Sagittaria latifolia 

Giant arrowleaf Sagittaria montevidensis 

Arrowhead Sagittaria platyphylla 

Smooth joyweed Alternanthera paronichyoides 

Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides 

Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus albus 

Southern amaranth Amaranthus australis 

Green amaranth Amaranthus hybridus 

Carelessweed Amaranthus palmeri 

Rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus 

Water hemp Amaranthus rudis 

Spiny amaranth Amaranthus spinosus 

Roughfruit amaranth Amaranthus tuberculatus 

Slender snakecotton Froelichia gracilis 

Frog’s bit Limnobium spongia 

Spring bentgrass Agrostis hyemalis 

Foxtail Alopocurus carolinianus 

Bushy bluestem Andropogon glomeratus 

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus 

Prairie three-awn grass Aristida oligantha 

Giant cane Arundinaria gigantha 

Giant reed Arundo donax 

Oats Avena sativa 

Carpetgrass Axonopus affinis 

Big carpetgrass Axonopus furcatus 

King ranch bluestem Bothriochloa ischaemum 

Signalgrass Brachiaria platyphylla 

Little quaking-grass Briza minor 

Japanese chess Bromus japonicus 

Bromegrass Bromus racemosus 

Rescuegrass Bromus unioloides 

Coastal sandbar Cenchrus incertus 
Appendices 265

Common Name Scientific Name 

Inland sea oats Chasmanthium latifolium 

Chasmanthium Chasmanthium laxum 

Chasmanthium Chasmanthium sessiliflorum 

Showy chloris Chloris virgata 

Stout woodreed Cinna arundinacea 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon 

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata 

Panicgrass Dichanthelium acuminatum implicatum 

Panicgrass Dichanthelium acuminatum lindheimeri 

Panicgrass Dichanthelium commutatum 

Openflower panicgrass Dichanthelium laxiflorum 

Crabgrass Digitaria ciliaris 

Smooth crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum 

Northern crabgrass Digitaria sanquinalis 

Crabgrass Digitaria villosa 

Junglerice Echinochloa colonum 

Barnyardgrass Echinochloa crusgalli 

Walter’s millet Echinochloa walteri 

Goosegrass Eleusine indica 

Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus 

Lovegrass Eragrostis barrelieri 

Lacegrass Eragrostis capillaries 

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis 

Lovegrass Eragrostis glomerata 

Teal lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides 

Lovegrass Eragrostis minor 

Lovegrass Eragrostis pectinecea 

India lovegrass Eragrostis pilosa 

Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis 

Sugarcane plumgrass Erianthus giganteus 

Prairie cupgrass Eriochloa contracta 

Cupgrass Eriochloa gracilis 

Nodding fescue Festuca obtuse 
266 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis 

Arkansas mannagrass Glyceria septentrionalis arkansana 

Velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 

Little barley Hordeum pusillum 

Barley Hordeum vulgare 

Southern cutgrass Leersia hexandra 

Catchfly-grass Leersia lenticularis 

Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides 

Whitegrass Leersia virginica 

Sprangletop Leptochloa canadense 

Red sprangletop Leptochloa filiformis 

Amazon sprangletop Leptochloa panicoides 

Ryegrass Lolium perenne 

Nimblewill muhly Muhlenbergia schreberi 

Basketgrass Oplismenus hirtellus setarius 

Rice Oryza sativa 

Witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Fall panicgrass Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Panicgrass Dichanthelium dichotomum 

Savannah panicum Phanopyrum gymnocarpon 

Gaping panicum Steinchisma hians 

Panicgrass Panicum ramosum 

Torpedograss Panicum repens 

Redtop panicum Panicum rigidulum 

Bull paspalum Paspalum boscianum 

Dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum 

Knotgrass Paspalum distichum 

Florida paspalum Paspalum floridanum 

Water paspalum Paspalum fluitans 

Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum 

Early paspalum Paspalum praecox 

Hairy-seed paspalum Paspalum pubiflorum 

Thin paspalum Paspalum setaceum 
Appendices 267

Common Name Scientific Name 

Vaseygrass Paspalum urvillei 

Canarygrass Phalaris angusta 

Carolina canarygrass Phalaris caroliniana 

Annual bluegrass Poa annua 

Fall bluegrass Poa autumnalis 

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 

American cupscale Sacciolepis striata 

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 

Foxtail Setaria faberi 

Foxtail Setaria geniculata 

Yellow foxtail Setaria glauca 

Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense 

Sloughgrass Spartina pectinata 

Priarie wedgescale Sphenopholus obtusata 

Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Smutgrass Sporobolus indicus 

Dropseed Sporobolus pyramidatus 

Smutgrass Sporobolus vaginiflorus 

St. Augustine Stenotaphrum secundatum 

White tridens Tridens albescens 

Purpletop Tridens flavus 

Longspile tridens Tridens strictus 

Eastern gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides 

Wheat Triticum aestivum 

Six-weeks fescue Vulpia octaflora 

Corn Zea mays 

Southern wildrice Zizaniopsis miliacea 

Caric-sedge Carex albolutescens 

Caric-sedge Carex amphibola 

Yellowfruit sedge Carex annectens 

Caric-sedge Carex atlantica 

Caric-sedge Carex blanda 
268 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Caric-sedge Carex caroliniana 

Caric-sedge Carex cephalophora 

Cherokee sedge Carex cherokeensis 

Caric-sedge Carex complanata 

Crowfoot sedge Carex crus-corvi 

Caric-sedge Carex festucacea 

Caric-sedge Carex flaccosperma 

Caric-sedge Carex frankii 

Caric-sedge Carex gigantea 

Caric-sedge Carex granularis 

Caric-sedge Carex hyalinolepis 

Caric-sedge Carex intumescens 

Hop sedge Carex lupulina 

Caric-sedge Carex muriculata 

Caric-sedge Carex nigromarginata 

Caric-sedge Carex oxylepis 

Sedge Carex retroflexa 

Caric-sedge Carex squarrosa 

Caric-sedge Carex triangularis 

Caric-sedge Carex tribuloidea 

Caric-sedge Carex typhina 

Caric-sedge Carex vulpinoides 

Flatsedge Cyperus acuminatus 

Flatsedge Cyperus aristatus 

Flatsedge Cyperus brevifolius 

Flatsedge Cyperus compressus 

Flatsedge Cyperus erythrorhizos 

Flatsedge Cyperus esculentus 

Flatsedge Cyperus globulosus 

Flatsedge Cyperus iria 

Flatsedge Cyperus odoratus 

Flatsedge Cyperus ovularis 

Flatsedge Cyperus polystachyos 
Appendices 269

Common Name Scientific Name 

Nutgrass Cyperus pseudovegetus 

Flatsedge Cyperus rotundus 

Flatsedge Cyperus strigosus 

Flatsedge Cyperus surinamensis 

Flatsedge Cyperus tenuiflorus 

Flatsedge Cyperus virens 

Spikesedge Eleocharis albida 

Spikesedge Eleocharis microcarpa 

Spikesedge Eleocharis montevidensis 

Blunt spikesedge Eleocharis obtuse 

Dwarf spikesedge Eleocharis parvula 

Spikesedge Eleocharis tenuis 

Fimbristylis Fimbristylis autumnalis 

Fimbristylis Fimbristylis vahlii 

Umbrellasedge Rhynchospora corniculata 

Beakrush Scirpus koilolepis 

Stonerush Scleria oligantha 

Dwarf palmetto Sabal minor 

Virginia snakeroot Aristolochia serpentaria 

Green dragon Arisaema dracontium 

Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema quinatum 

Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum 

Elephant ear Colocasia esculenta 

Duckweed Lemna minor 

Duckweed Lemna perpusilla 

Great duckweed Spirodela oligorrhiza 

Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza 

Watermeal Wolffia columbiana 

Watermeal Wolffia papulifera 

Florida mudmidget Wolfiella floridana 

Mudmidget Wolfiella lingulata 

Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 

Dayflower Commelina communis 
270 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Widow’s-tears Commelina diffusa 

Dayflower Commelina erecta 

Dayflower Commelina virginica 

Spiderwort Tradescantia occidentalis 

Spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis 

Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes 

Mud-plaintain Heteranthera limosa 

Mud-plaintain Heteranthera reniformis 

Bog rush Juncus acuminatus 

Bog rush Juncus biflorus 

Rush Juncus brachycarpus 

Bog rush Juncus dichotomus 

Diffuse rush Juncus diffusissimus 

Soft rush Juncus effuses 

Bog rush Juncus marginatus 

Bog rush Juncus scirpoides 

Slender rush Juncus tenuis 

Bog rush Juncus tenuis dudleyi 

Bog rush Juncus torreyi 

Garlic Allium ampeloprasum 

Crwo poison Allium bivalve 

Canada garlic Allium canadense 

Fragrant onion Allium inodorum 

Garlic Allium sativum 

False garlic Allium vineale 

Daylily Hemerocallis fulva 

Hyacinth Hyacinthus orientale 

Spring star-flower Ipheion uniflorum 

Grape hyacinth Muscari rarcemosum 

Star-of-Bethlehem Ornithogalum umbellatum 

Auriculed greenbrier Smilax auriculata 

Catbrier Smilax bona-nox 

Catbrier Smilax glauca 
Appendices 271

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bristly greenbrier Smilax hispida 

Common greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbrier Smilax smallii 

Tulip Tulipa eichleri 

False aloe Manfreda virginica 

Spanish bayonet Yucca aloifolia 

Bear grass Yucca filamentosa 

Desert horsepurslane Trianthema portulacastrum 

Spiderlily Hymenocallis americana 

Spiderlily Hymenocallis liriosme 

Snowflake Leucojum aestivum 

Surprise lily Lycoris radiate 

Daffodil Narcissus incomparabilis 

Jonquil Narcissus jonquilla 

Daffodil Narcissus odorus 

False narcissus Narcissus pseudonarcissus 

Polyanthus narcissus Narcissus tazetta 

Zephyr lily Zephyranthes candida 

Gladiolus Gladiolus x gandavensis 

Red flag Iris fulva 

Flag Iris x germanica 

Southern blue flag Iris virginica 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium exile 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium minus 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium mucronatum 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium rosulatum 

Indian shot Canna flaccida 

Southern twayblade Listera australis 

Pale green orchid Platanthera flava 

Ladies tresses Spiranthes odorata 

Oval ladies tresses Spiranthes ovalis 

Spring ladies tresses Spiranthes vernalis 
272 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Lizard’s tail Saururus cernuus 

White poplar Populus alba 

Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoids 

Swamp cottonwood Populus heterophylla 

Lombardy poplar Populus nigra 

Weeping willow Salix babylonica 

Sandbar willow Salix exigua interior 

Black willow Salix nigra 

Bitter pecan Carya aquatica 

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis 

Pecan Carya illinoensis 

Black hickory Carya texana 

Black walnut Juglans nigra 

River birch Betula nigra 

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 

Compton oak Quercus comptoniae 

Cherrybark oak Quercus falcate 

Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 

Overcup oak Quercus lyrata 

Cow oak Quercus michauxii 

Small live oak Quercus minima 

Water oak Quercus nigra 

Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii 

Mouse-ear cress Arabidopsis thaliana 

Lake cress Aromoracia aquatica 

Bird rape Brassica campestrius 

Leaf mustard Brassica juncea 

Rape Brassica napus 

Black mustard Brassica nigra 

Common kale Brassica oleracea 

Bird rape Brassica rapa 

Shepard’s-purse Capsella bursa-partoris 

Spring cress Cardamine bulbosa 
Appendices 273

Common Name Scientific Name 

Hairy bittercress Cardamine hirsuta 

Smallflowered cress Cardamine prviflora 

Bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica 

Swinecress Coronopus didymus 

Whitlowgrass Braba brachycarpa 

Peppergrass Lepidium verginicum 

Bog marshcress Rorippa palustris cernua 

Yellowcress Rorippa sessiliflora 

Rockcress Sibara virginica 

White mustard Sinapis alba 

Charlock Sinapis arvensis 

Hedgemustard Sisymbrium officinale 

Cat-whiskers Cleome spinosa 

Ditch stonecap Penthorum sedoides 

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Parsley piert Alchemilla microcarpa 

Flowering quince Choenomeles lagenaria 

Bigtree hawthorn Crataegus berberifolia 

Cockspurthorn Crataegus crus-galli 

Parsley haw Crataegus marshallii 

Pasture haw Crataegus spathulata 

Green hawthorn Crataegus viridis 

Indian strawberry Duchesnea indica 

White avens Geum canadense 

Apple Malus pumila 

Wild plum Prunus americana 

Chickasaw plum Prunus angustifolia 

Laurel cherry Prunus caroliniana 

Hortulana plum Prunus hortulana 

Bigtree plum Prunus mexicana 

Wildgoose plum Prunus munsoniana 

Peach Prunus persica 
274 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Black cherry Prunus serotina 

Flatwood plum Prunus umbrellata 

Fierythorn Pyracantha coccinea 

Common pear Pyrus communis 

Rose Rosa anemoneflora 

Macartney rose Rosa bracteata 

Rose Rosa cathayensis 

French rose Rosa gallica 

Cherokee rose Rosa laevigata 

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora 

Blackberry Rubus betulifolius 

Northern dewberry Rubus flagellaris 

Louisiana blackberry Rubus louisianus 

Southern dewberry Rubus trivialis 

Spiraea Spiraea crenata 

Spiraea Spiraea vanhouttei 

Jointvetch Aeschynomene indica 

Mimosa Albizzia julibrissin 

Leadplant Amorpha fruticosa 

Amorpha Amorpha laevigata 

Hog peanut Amphicarpa bracteata 

American potato bean Apios americana 

Peanut Arachis hypogaea 

Emperor’s candlesticks Cassia alata 

Partridge pea Cassia fasciculate 

Wild senna Cassia marilandica 

Wild sensitive plant Cassia nictitans 

Sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 

Coffee senna Cassia occidentalis 

Redbud Cercis canadensis 

Showy crotalaria Crotalaria spectabilis 

Illinois bunchflower Desmanthus illinoensis 

Beggerticks Desmodium canescens 
Appendices 275

Common Name Scientific Name 

Tick-clover Desmodium cuspidatum 

Tick-clover Desmodium glabellum 

Beggerticks Desmodium laevigatum 

Beggerticks Desmodium paniculatum 

Boykin clusterpea Dioclea multiflora 

Milk pea Galactia regularis 

Waterlocust Gleditsia aquatica 

Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos 

Soybean Glycine max 

Yellow vetchling Lathyrus aphaca 

Singletary pea Lathyrus hirsutus 

Creeping bush clover Lespedeza repens 

Japanese clover Lespedeza striate 

Spotted burclover Medicago arabica 

Black medic Medicago lupulina 

Burclover Medicago polymorpha 

White sweet clover Melilotus alba 

Sour clover Melilotus indica 

Powder puff Mimosa strigillosa 

Pea vine Pisum sativum 

Mesquite Prosopis pallida 

Kudzu Pueraria lobata 

Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 

Rattlebush Sesbania drummondii 

Coffeebean Sesbania exaltata 

Bagpod coffeebean Sesbania vesicaria 

Trailing wild bean Strophostyles helvola 

Rabbitfoot clover Trifolium arvense 

Big hop-clover Trifolium campestre 

Least hop-clover Trifolium dubium 

Crimson clover Trifolium incarnatum 

Clover Trifolium lappaceum 

Red clover Trifolium pretense 
276 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

White clover Trifolium repens 

Persian clover Trifolium resupinatum 

Arrowleaf clover Trifolium vesiculosum 

Smooth vetch Vicia dasycarpa 

Deerpea Vicia ludoviciana 

Pigmy-flowered vetch Vicia minutiflora 

Common vetch Vicia sativa 

Narrow-leaved vetch Vicia sativa nigra 

Hairy vetch Vicia villosa 

Cowpea Vigna unguiculata 

Wisteria Wisteria frutescens 

Kentucky wisteria Wisteria macrostachya 

Dissected cranesbill Geranium dissectum 

Cranesbill Geranium sphaerospermum 

Creeping ladies’-sorrel Oxalis corniculata 

Shamrock sorrel Oxalis rubra 

Yellow wood-sorrel Oxalis stricta 

Punctureweed Tribulus terrestris 

Trifoliate orange Poncirus trifoliate 

Prickly ash Zanthoxylum clava-hervulis 

Chinaberry tree Melia azedarach 

Three-seeded mercury Acalypha gracilens 

Three-seeded mercury Acalypha ostryifolia 

Three-seeded mercury Acalypha rhomboidea 

Three-seeded mercury Acalypha virginica 

Caperonia Caperonia palustris 

Wolly croton Croton capitatus 

Goat croton Croton glandulosa 

Croton Croton monanthagynus 

Spurge Euphorbia dentate 

Summer poinsetta Euphorbia heterophylla 

Spurge Euphorbia humistrata 

Spotted spurge Euphorbia maculate 
Appendices 277

Common Name Scientific Name 

Snow-on-the-mountain Euphorbia marginata 

Eyebane Euphorbia nutans 

Spurge Euphorbia prostrate 

Spurge Euphorbia serpens 

Spurge Euphorbia spathulata 

Leaf-flower Phyllanthus caroliniensis 

Leaf-flower Phyllanthus urinaria 

Castor-oil plant Ricinus communis 

Chinese tallowtree Sapium sebiferum 

Terrestrial starwort Callitriche deflexa austinii 

Water starwort Callitriche heterophylla 

Water starwort Callitriche peploides 

Winged sumac Rhus copallinum 

Smooth sumac Rhus glabra 

Poison ivy Toxicodendron redicans 

Pawpaw Asimina triloba 

Bufford holly Ilex cornata 

Decidous holly Ilex deciduas 

American holly Ilex opaca 

Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 

Spindletree Euonymus japonicus 

Box elder Acer negundo 

Drummond’s red maple Acer rubrum drummondii 

Red maple Acer rubrum 

Silver maple Acer saccharinum 

Balloonvine Cardiospermum halicacabum 

Western soapberry Sapindus saponaria 

Touch-me-not Impatiens capensis 

Nandina Nandina domestica 

Mandrake Podophyllum peltatum 

Rattanvice Berchemia scandens 

Redvine Brunnichia ovata 

Carolina buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana 
278 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Peppervine Ampelopsis ardorea 

Heartleaf peppervine Ampelopsis cordata 

Marinevine Cissus incisa 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Summer grape Vitis aestivalis 

Gray grape Vitis cinerea 

Red grape Vitis palmate 

Riverbank grape Vitis riparia 

Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Fox grape Vitis vulpine 

Velvetleaf butterprint Abutilon theophrasti 

Spurred anoda Anoda cristata 

Upland cotton Gossypium hirsutum 

Okra Abelmoschus esculentus 

Halberd-leaved rose-mallow Hibiscus laevis 

Wolly rose-mallow Hibiscus moscheutos lasiocarpus 

Rose-of-sharon Hibiscus syriacus 

Malachra Malachra capitata 

Wax mallow Malvaviscus arboreus 

Carolina mallow Mediola caroliniana 

Teaweed Sida rhombifolia 

Prickly teaweed Sida spinosa 

Chocolate-weed Melochia corchorifolia 

Saint Andrew’s cross Ascyrum hypericoides 

Nits-and-lice Hypericum drumondii 

Saint John’s wort Hypericum mutilum 

Saint John’s wort Hypericum punctatum 

Saint John’s wort Triadenum walteri 

Pinweed Lechea villosa 

Field pansy Viola bicolor 

Violet Viola langloisii 

Violet Viola missouriensis 

Violet Viola walteri 
Appendices 279

Common Name Scientific Name 

Maypop Passiflora edulis 

Passionflower Passiflora lutea 

Toothcup Ammannia coccinea 

Crepe-myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 

Loosestrife Lythrum alatum 

Loosestrife Lythrum alatum lanceolatum 

Toothcup Rotala ramosior 

Velvetleaf gaura Gaura parviflora 

Primrose-willow Ludwigia decurrens 

Cylindric-fruited ludwigia Ludwigia glandulosa 

Water-primrose Ludwigia leptocarpa 

Marsh purslane Ludwigia palustris 

Water-primrose Ludwigia peploides 

Primrose Ludwigia uruguayensis 

Common evening primrose Oenothera biennis 

Cut-leaved evening primrose Oenothera laciniata 

Showy primrose Oenothera speciosa 

Desert horsepurslane Trianthema portulacastrum 

Watermilfoil Myriophyllum heterophyllum 

Parrotfeather Myriophyllum pinnatum 

Mermaidweed Proserpinaca palustris 

Devil’s walkingstick Aralia spinosa 

English ivy Hedera helix 

Sand parsley Ammoselinum butleri 

Dill Anethum graveolens 

Wild chervil Chaerophyllum tainturieri 

Marsh parsley Ciclospermum leptophyllum 

Spotted water hemlock Cicuta maculata 

Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis 

Finger dogshade Cynosciadium digitatum 

Queen Anne’s lace Daucus carota 

Rattlesnakeweed Daucus pusillus 

Eryngo Eryngium hookeri 
280 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Button eryngo Eryngium prostratum 

Pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides 

Water pennywort Hydrocotyle verticillata 

Limnosciadium Limnosciadium pinnatum 

Mock bishopweed Ptilimnium capillaceum 

Ribbed mock bishopweed Ptilimnium costatum 

Laceflower Ptilimnium nuttallii 

Black snakeroot Sanicula canadensis 

Sanicle Sanicula smallii 

Prickly scaleseed Spermolepis echinata 

Scaleseed Spermolepis inermis 

Hedge parsley Torilis arvensis 

Knotted hedge parsley Torilis nodosa 

Trepocarpus Trepocarpus aethusae 

Roughleaf dogwood Cornus drummondii 

Dogwood Cornus florida 

Dogwood Cornus foemina 

Balck gum Nyssa sylvatica 

Featherfoil Hottonia inflate 

Water-pimpernel Lysimachia redicans 

Water-pimpernel Samolus parviflorus 

False buckthorn Bumelia lanuginose 

Chittimwood Bumelia lycioides 

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

Small snowbell Styrax americana 

Swamp privet Forestiera acuminate 

White ash Fraxinus americana 

Carolina ash Fraxinus caroliniana 

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Pumpkin ash Fraxinus profunda 

Bigleaf privet Ligustrum ovalifolium 

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense 

Miterwort Cynoctonum mitreola 
Appendices 281

Common Name Scientific Name 

Juniperleaf Polypremum procumbens 

Blue star Amsonia tabernaemontana 

Indian hemp Apocynum cannabinum 

Climbing dogbane Trachelospermum difforme 

Periwinkle Vinca major 

Aquatic milkweed Asclepias perennis 

Redring milkweed Asclepias variegata 

Green antelopehorn Asclepias viridis 

Blue vine Cynachum laeve 

Climbing milkweed Matelea decipiens 

Trailing spring rod Matelea gonocarpa 

Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron 

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium 

Field bindweed Convovulus arvensis 

Dodder Cuscuta compacta 

Dodder Cuscuta glabrior 

Dodder Cuscuta gronovii 

Pony’s foot Dichondra carolinensis 

Scarlet morning-glory Ipomoea coccinea 

Ivyleaf morning-glory Ipomoea hederacea 

Morning-glory Ipomoea indica acuminate 

Small white morning-glory Ipomoea lacunose 

Wild sweet potato Ipomoea pandurata 

Common morning-glory Ipomoea purpurea 

Coastal morning-glory Ipomoea trichocarpa 

Moonvine Ipomoea turbinate 

Morning-glory Ipomoea wrightii 

Tievine Jacquemontia tamnifolia 

Phlox Phlox drummondii 

Perennial phlox Phlox paniculata 

Downy phlox Phlox pilosa 

Hydrolea Hydrolea ovata 

Waterleaf Hydrolea uniflora 
282 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Baby blue-eyes Nemophila aphylla 

Stickseed Hackelia virginiana 

Turnsole Heliotropium indicum 

Heliotrope Heliotropium procumbens 

Field gromwell Lithospermum arvense 

Field gromwell Lithospermum tuberosum 

Forget-me-not Myosotis macrosperma 

Forget-me-not Myosotis verna 

French mulberry Callicarpa americana 

Northern frogfruit Phyla lanceolata 

South american vervain Verbena bonariensis 

Prostate vervain Verbena bracteata 

Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis 

Rose vervain Verbena canadensis 

Texas vervain Verbena halei 

Vervain Verbena montivedensis 

Tuber vervain Verbena rigida 

White vervain Verbena urticifolia 

Gulf vervain Verbena xutha 

Bugleweed Ajuga reptans 

Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea 

Henbit Lamium amplexicaule 

Purple deadnettle Lamium purpureum 

Lion’s ears Leonotis nepetifolia 

Bugleweed Lycopus rubellus 

Peppermint Mentha piperita 

Basil beebalm Monarda clinopodioides 

Beefsteakplant Perilla frutescens 

Heal-all Prunella vulgaris 

Lyreleaf sage Salvia lyrata 

Mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora 

Skullcap Scutellaria parvula 

Shade betany Stachys agraria 
Appendices 283

Common Name Scientific Name 

Florida betany Stachys floridana 

Hedgenettle Stachys tenuifolia 

American geremander Teucruim canadense 

Oakleaf thornapple Datura quercifolia 

Jimsonweed Datura stramonium 

Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum 

Common gardin petunia Petunia hybrida 

Petunia Petunia parviflora 

Groundcherry Physalis anqulata 

Groundcherry Physalis cordata 

Clammy groundcherry Physalis heterophylla 

Downy groundcherry Physalis pubescens 

Groundcherry Physalis pumila 

Groundcherry Physalis virginiana 

Groundcherry Physalis viscosa 

Nightshade Solanum americanum 

Horsenettle Solanum carolinense 

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium 

Buffalo-bur Solanum rostratum 

Prairie agalinis Agalinis heterophylla 

Water-hyssop Bacopa monnieri 

Disc water-hyssop Bacopa rotundifolia 

Hedge hyssop Gratiola neglecta 

Hedge hyssop Gratiola virginiana 

Leucospora Leucospora multifida 

Oldfield toadflax Linaria canadensis 

Texas toadflax Linaria texana 

Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris 

False pimpernel Lindernia anagallidea 

False pimpernel Lindernia dubia 

Mazus Mazus japonicus 

Mecardonia Mecardonia acuminate 

Monkeyflower Mimulus alatus 
284 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Royal empresstree Paulownia tomentosa 

Beard-tongue Penstemon laevigatus 

Beard-tongue Penstemon tenuis 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 

Wayside speedwell Veronica agrestis 

Corn speedwell Veronica arvensis 

Purslane speedwell Veronica peregrine 

Persian speedwell Veronica persica 

Crossvine Bignonia capreolata 

Trumpetcreeper Campsis redicans 

Southern catalpa Catalpa bignonioides 

Bladderwort Utricularia biflora 

Bladderwort Utricularia gibba 

Bladderwort Utricularia radiate 

Wild mudwort Dicliptera brachiata 

Lanceleaf water-willow Justicia ovata lanceolata 

Wild petunia Ruellia caroliniensis 

Fring-leaf wild petunia Ruellia humilis 

Stalked wild petunia Ruellia pedunculata 

Wild petunia Ruellia strepens 

Lopseed Phryma leptostachya 

Buckthorn Plantago aristata 

Plaintain Plantago heterophylla 

Common plaintain Plantago major 

Plaintain Plantago rugelii 

Pale-seeded plaintain Plantago virginica 

Plaintain Plantago wrightiana 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Poor joe Diodia teres 

Buttonweed Diodia virginiana 

Catchfly bedstraw Galium aparine 

Widl licorice Galium circaezans 

Blunt bedstraw Galium obtusum 
Appendices 285

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bedstraw Galium pedemontanum 

Hairy bedstraw Galium pilosum 

Dye bedstraw Galium tinctorium 

Small bluets Houstonia minima 

Bluets Houstonia pusilla 

Partridgeberry Michella repens 

Pentodon Pentodon pentandrus 

Field madder Sherardia arvensis 

Smooth buttonweed Spermococe glabra 

Winter honeysuckle Lonicera fragrantissima 

Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica 

Honeysuckle Lonicera semperviren 

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 

Corn salad Valerianella radiate 

Manso Cayaponia quinqueloba 

Watermelon Citrullus lanatus 

Dudaim melon Cucumis melo 

Yellow-floered gourd Cucurbita pepo 

Melonettee Melothria pendula 

Balsam apple Monardica palsamina 

One-seeded bur-cucumber Sicyos angulatus 

Cardinalflower Lobelia cardinalis 

Venus’ looking-glass Triodanis biflora 

Venus’ looking-glass Triodanis lamprosperma 

Venus’ looking-glass Triodanis perfoliata 

Purple cudweed Gamochaeta purpurea 

Rabbit tobacco Gnaphalium obtusifolium 

Cudweed Gnaphalium purpureum falcatum 

Scratch daisy Haplopappus divaricatus 

Bitterweed Helenium amarum 

Swamp sunflower Helianthus angustifolius 

Common sunflower Helianthus annus 

Tall sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus 
286 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Hairy sunflower Helianthus hirsutus 

Muck sunflower Helianthus simulans 

Paleleaf woodland sunflower Helianthus strumosus 

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberrosus 

Golden aster Heterotheca pilosa 

Golden aster Heterotheca subaxillaris 

Queendevil Hieracium gronovii 

Sumpweed Iva annua 

Potato dandelion Krigia dandelion 

Dwarf dandelion Krigia cespitosa 

Dwarf dandelion Krigia virginica 

Lettuce Lactuca canadensis 

Woodland lettuce Lactuca floridana 

Biannual lettuce Lactuca ludoviciana 

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 

Disc mayweed Matricaria discoidea 

Pineapple weed Matricaria matricarioides 

Melanthera Melanthera nivea 

Climbing helpweed Mikania cordifolia 

Climbing helpweed Mikania scandens 

Butterweed Packera glabella 

Santa maria feverfew Parthenium hysterophorus 

Camphorweed Pluchea camphorata 

Saltmarsh fleabane Pluchea odorata 

Canela Pluchea purpurescens 

Heller's cudweed Pseudognaphalium helleri 

Rabbit-tobacco Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium 

False dandelion Pyrrhopappus carolinianus 

Smallflower desert-chicory Pyrrhopappus pauciflorus 

Black-eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta 

Butterweed Senecio glabellus 

Starry rosinweed Silphium asteriscus 

Wholeleaf rosinweed Silphium integrifolium 
Appendices 287

Common Name Scientific Name 

Milk thistle Silybum marianum 

Bear’s-foot Smallanthus uvedalia 

Goldenrod Solidago altissima 

Blue stemmed goldenrod Solidago caesia 

Goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Anisescented goldenrod Solidago odora 

Wrinkleleaf goldenrod Solidago rugosa 

Butter burweed Soliva mutisii 

Stickerweed Soliva pterosperma 

Field burrweed Soliva sessilis 

Sow thistle Sonchus asper 

Sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus 

Southern annual saltmarsh aster Symphyotrichum divaricatum 

Drummond's aster Symphyotrichum drummondii 

Rice button aster Symphyotrichum dumosum 

White panicle aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 

Calico aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 

Pringle's aster Symphyotrichum pilosum 

Smooth white oldfield aster Symphyotrichum racemosum 

American spotflower Spilanthes americana 

Dandelion Taraxacum officianle 

White crownbeard Verbesina virginica 

Ironweed Veronia gigantean 

Missouri ironweed Vernonia missurica 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Youngia Youngia japonica 

Zinnia Zinnia elegans 

Common yarrow Achillea millefolium 

Oppositeleaf spotflower Acmella oppositifolia 

White snakeroot Ageratina altissima 

Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Lanceleaf ragweed Ambrosia bidentata 

Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya 
288 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida 

Dogfennel Anthemis cotula 

Sweet wormwood Artemisia anna 

Bushy aster Aster dumosus 

White woodland aster Aster lateriflorus 

New england aster Aster novae-angliae 

Frost aster Aster pilosus 

Aster Aster praealtus 

Slim aster Aster subulatus 

Aster Aster subulatus ligulatus 

White aster Aster vimineus 

Salt bush Baccharis halimifolia 

Bearded beggarticks Bidens aristosa 

Spanish needles Bidens bipinnata 

Discoid beggarticks Bidens discoides 

Stick-tights Bidens frondosa 

Beggarticks Bidens laevis 

Bur marigold Bidens mitis 

Beggarticks Bidens pilosa 

Boltonia Boltonia asteroides 

Boltonia Boltonia diffusa 

Cornflower Centaurea cyanus 

Soft golden aster Chrysopsis pilosa 

Common chicory Cichorium intybus 

Tall thistle Cirsium altissimum 

Plumed thistle Cirsium discolor 

Horrid thistle Cirsium horridulum 

Blue mistflower Conoclinium coelestinum 

Horseweed Conyza bonariensis 

Horseweed Conyza canadensis 

Horseweed Conyza ramosissima 

Garden tickweed Coreopsis tinctoria 

Spanish needles Cosmos bipinnatus 
Appendices 289

Common Name Scientific Name 

Hawksbeard Crepis pulchra 

Clasping coneflower Dracopis amplexicaulis 

Purple coneflower Echinacea purpurea 

Yerba del Tago Eclipta alba 

False daisy Eclipta prostrata 

Elephant’s foot Elephantopus carolinianus 

Devil's grandmother Elephantopus tomentosus 

Fireweed Erechtites hieraciifolia 

Whitetop fleabane Erigeron annuus 

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus 

Oakleaf fleabane Erigeron quercifolius 

Whitetop fleabane Erigeron strigosus 

Slender-leaf fleabane Erigeron tenuis 

Cypressweed Eupatorium capillifolium 

Yankeeweed Eupatorium compositifolium 

Throughwort Eupatorium perfoliatum 

White snakeroot Eupatorium rothrockii 

Roundleaf thoroughwort Eupatorium rotundifolium 

Smallflower thoroughwort Eupatorium semiserratum 

Late-flowering boneset Eupatorium serotinum 

Flat-topped goldenrod Euthamia leptocephala 

Facelis Facelis retusa 

Boneset Fleischmannia incarnate 

Narrowleaf everlasting Gamochaeta falcata 

Cudweed Gamochaeta pennsylvanica 

Spoonleaf purple everlasting Gamochaeta purpurea 

Button burrweed Gymnostyles anthemifolia 
290 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

RARE, THREATENED, & ENDANGERED SPECIES & NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

(Tracked by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program in Franklin, Madison, and Tensas Parishes – 

March 2007) 

Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Short-eared owl Asto flammeus 

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus 

Bottomland Hardwood Forests 

Red wolf Canis rufus 

Cypress-knee sedge Carex decomposita 

Western worm snake Carphophis amoenus vermis 

Cypress-tupelo Swamp 

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulean 

Purple cornflower Echinacea purpurea 

Three-angle spikerush Eleocharis tricostata 

Wolf spikerush Eleocharis wolfi 

Spike Elliptio dilatata 

Ebonyshell Fusconata ebena 

Eastern managrass Glyceria seplentrionalis 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Fatmucket Lampsilis siliguoidea 

While heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata 

Alligator snapping turtle Macrocroclemys temminckii 

Snow melanthera Melanthera nivea 

Mesic Hardwood Forests 

Square-stemmed monkey-flower Mimulus ringens 

Mississippi terrace prairie 

Meadow evening primrose Oenothera pilosetta 

Pyrimid pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum 
Appendices 291

Silty horsetail Pleurocera canaliculata 

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

Fat pocketbook Potamtius capax 

Long-beaked baldrush Rhynchospora scirpoides 

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus 

Small Stream Forest 

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Interior least tern Sterna antillarus athalassos 

Squaw-foot Strophitus undalatus 

Sweetgum-Water Oak Bottomland Forest 

Gulf pipefish Syngnathus scovelli 

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus 

Waterbird Nesting Colony 

Wet hardwood flatwoods 
292 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 293

Appendix J. List of Preparers 

The core planning team consisted of the listed individuals. 

Kelly Purkey – Project Leader 

Brett Hortman – Acting Project Leader (former) 

Jerome Ford – Project Leader (former) 

George Chandler – North LA NWR Project Leader 

Ron Hollis – Deputy Project Leader 

Stan Howarter – Wildlife Biologist (former) 

Jean Mikeal – Wildlife Technician 

Amanda Wilkinson – Park Ranger 

Yancy Magee – Forester 

John Dickson – Wildlife Biologist 

Tommy Tuma – Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Lowery Moak – Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Tina Chouinard – Planning Biologist 

Randy Williams – Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group, Service contractor 

Meghan Morse – Mangi Environmental Group