Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Hagerman
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Sherman, Texas
Prepared by:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Planning
Region 2
500 Gold SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and
program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legal, Policy, and Administrative Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Ecosystem Approach to Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Area of Ecological Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Refuge Purposes and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Relationship to other Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CHAPTER 2 PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND REFUGE
ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Planning Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Refuge Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Expected Planning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CHAPTER 3 REFUGE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Refuge General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Refuge Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Rare or Declining Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Research Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Physiography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Visitor Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Socioeconomic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
CHAPTER 4 REFUGE ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
General Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Refuge Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Memorandums of Understanding and Other Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Other Land Management Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
ii
CHAPTER 5 HAGERMAN NWR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
CHAPTER 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Resource Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Current and Proposed Funding and Personnel
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Step-Down Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Refuge Program Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Monitoring and Evaluation of the CCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Intra-Service Section 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
APPENDICES:
A. Hagerman NWR Species List
B. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)
C. Maintenance Management System (MMS)
D. Compatibility Determinations
E. Key Legislation and Service Policies
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 1
by Bonnie Swarbrick
VISION
For the next 15 years, the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge will continue to manage for native
biological diversity of fish and wildlife species with an emphasis on migratory birds. In partnership
with private landowners, conservation organizations and governmental agencies, Refuge
management will focus on enhancing and restoring the mosaic of native grasslands, riparian forests,
woodlands, and wetland communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources. Public use
programs will continue to promote the public’s enjoyment of the outdoors and provide visitors with a
greater understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife species and their habitats. A new visitor
center will provide opportunities for visitors to learn about this unique wildlife haven on Lake
Texoma through expanded educational and interpretive programs. In addition to a visitor center, the
Refuge will provide the public with quality roads and trails, an auto tour loop, and an observation
deck overlooking Lake Texoma. People of all ages will be able to enjoy the Refuge and its inhabitants
through quality wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities such as wildlife observation,
photography, hunting and fishing activities.
Mutual stewardship is key to successful wildlife conservation. Through effective management and
partnering, the Refuge will continue to conserve the fish, wildlife and plant resources of north-central
Texas for the continuing benefit of the American people for present and future generations. It is
hoped that when visitors leave the Refuge, they will not only have enjoyed an outdoor experience, but
will have gained a better understanding and appreciation of their natural heritage.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 3
Cattle egret (photo by Rick Cantu).
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) has been
prepared for the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The goals and objectives contained in
this document reflect a “wildlife first” management theme. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 established the primacy of the management of wildlife on the nation’s
National Wildlife Refuges and focus on issues pertaining to the
Refuge. The Refuge will manage for biodiversity with emphasis on
protection and enhancement of habitat for waterfowl and other
wildlife. The Refuge, along with adjacent lands, form an area that will
be considered in this plan as the “Area of Ecological Concern” (USFWS
1985).
The Purpose and Need for Action
The management actions proposed in this document are intended to
result first and foremost in achievement of the refuge purposes, and
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System or
System). The purpose of comprehensive management planning is to
“provide long range guidance for the management of national wildlife
refuges.” As such, all lands of the Refuge System are to be managed in
accordance with an approved CCP that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for
achieving refuge purposes. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires
all refuges to have a CCP and provides the following legislative mandates to guide refuge
management and planning:
C Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
C Wildlife-dependent recreation involving compatible hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the
Refuge System.
C Other uses have lower priority in the Refuge System and are only allowed if they are
compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose of the individual refuge.
This Draft CCP provides management direction to present and future Refuge managers for the next
15 years. As noted earlier, the actions proposed are designed to help the Refuge achieve its official
purposes. It describes all management activities that occur on the Refuge and provides management
goals, measurable objectives, and management actions or strategies designed to enhance and protect
existing habitats and restore degraded habitats for the benefit of wildlife including threatened and
endangered species. The goals and objectives shall guide management toward the Refuge vision or
the ecologically desirable outcome for the Refuge.
The Service’s goals for the CCP process are to:
• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions (vision) for each refuge or planning unit;
• provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent, and compatibility of uses on
refuges-proved refuge neighbors and visitors with a clear understanding of the reasons for
management actions on and around the refuge;
• ensure that the refuge is managed to fulfill the mission of the System as well as ensure public
involvement in refuge management decisions by providing a process for effective
coordination, interaction, and cooperation with affected parties, including Federal agencies,
State conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and interested members of the public;
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 4
• encourage refuge planning that considers an ecosystem approach;
• demonstrate support for management decisions and their rationale by sound professional
judgement, biological initiatives, and public involvement;
• provide a uniform basis for budget requests for operational, maintenance, and capital
improvement programs.
Coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
This CCP recognizes that both the Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies have authorities
and responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife species on national wildlife refuges, as
described in 43 CFR 24. Consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Director of
the Service will interact, coordinate, cooperate and collaborate with the State fish and wildlife
agencies in a timely and effective manner on the acquisition and management of national wildlife
refuges. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and 43 CFR 24, the
Director and the Secretary’s designee will ensure that Refuge System regulations and management
plans are to the extent practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations and management plans.
Legal, Policy, and Administrative Guidance
Administration of national wildlife refuges is governed by the designated purpose of the refuge unit
as described in establishing legislation or executive orders, Service laws and policies and
international treaties. A list of most of the pertinent statutes establishing legal parameters and
policy direction for the Refuge System is included in Appendix E, along with a summary of those laws
that provide special guidance of the Service and national wildlife refuges. Many of the summaries
have been taken from The Evolution of National Wildlife Law by Michael J. Bean. For the bulk of
applicable laws and other mandates, legal summaries are available upon request.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are covered in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Title 50 of the Codes of Federal
Regulations, Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System), the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and most recently, through the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 amended portions of the Refuge
Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by including a
unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible uses on refuges,
and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a CCP. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife conservation is the priority of System lands and
that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the
Refuge System mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of
fish, wildlife, and plants on each refuge. Additionally, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 identifies and establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of six
wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge
System, these uses will receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and management.
Furthermore, a CCP must be in place for each refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an
opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is Service policy that CCPs
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 5
Mexican hat (photo by Johnny Beall).
are developed in an open public process and that the agency is committed to securing public input
throughout the process.
Lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple-use public lands in that they are
closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it
is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgement 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. Sound professional judgement is further defined as
a decision that is consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife management and administration,
available science and resources, and adherence with law. Priority public uses, and other uses, can be
allowed on refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and funding is available to
support them. Uses may be allowed through a special regulation process, individual special use
permits, and sometimes through State fishing and hunting regulations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals
Since the early 1900s, the Service mission and purpose has evolved,
while holding on to a fundamental national commitment to threatened
wildlife ranging from the endangered bison to migratory birds of all
types. The earliest national wildlife refuges and preserves are
examples of this. Pelican Island, the first refuge, was established in
1903 for the protection of colonial nesting birds such as herons and
egrets, which were then under threat of extinction due to the demands
for their plumes for the millinery trade. The National Bison Range
was instituted for the endangered bison in 1906. Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge was established in Oregon in 1908 to benefit all
migratory birds with emphasis on colonial nesting species on Malheur
Lake. Thus began the commitment of public lands for the preservation
of migratory birds and other wildlife. The Service’s responsibility broadened during the 1930s. As a
result of drought, populations nationwide became severely depleted. Passage of the Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act in 1934 made funds available to purchase acreage for
waterfowl habitat. During the next several decades, the special emphasis of the Service (then called
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) was restoration of critically depleted migratory waterfowl
populations.
The passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 refocused the activities of the Service as well as
other governmental agencies. This Act mandated the conservation of threatened and endangered
species of fish, wildlife, and plants both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment
of State programs. In the late 1970s, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was renamed the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to broaden its scope of wildlife conservation responsibilities to include
endangered species, as well as game and non-game species. Lands continued to be added to the
Refuge System for various wildlife protection purposes including endangered species conservation.
A myriad of conservation-oriented laws were passed throughout the 1970s. The Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 emphasized the conservation of non-game species and broadened
management responsibilities for non-game migratory birds on national wildlife refuges.
The Service mission has always been derived in consideration of the various laws and treaties that
collectively outlined public policy concerning wildlife conservation.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 6
The mission of the Service is:
“working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people.”
The goals of the Service, which are aimed at fulfilling this mission, are: 1) sustaining fish and wildlife
populations including migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous fish, and marine mammals;
2) conserving a network of lands and waters including the National Wildlife Refuge System; 3)
providing Americans opportunities to understand and participate in the conservation and use of fish
and wildlife resources.
By law and treaty, the Service has national and international management and law enforcement
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, fisheries and many marine
mammals. The Service assists state and tribal governments and other Federal agencies in helping to
protect America’s fish and wildlife resources, and the National Wildlife Refuge System plays an
important role in fulfilling many of these responsibilities.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The Refuge System is the only existing system of federally owned lands managed chiefly for the
conservation of wildlife. Established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Refuge System
consists of over 92 million acres in over 530 refuges and 38 wetland management districts in all 50
states and the U.S. territories. National wildlife refuges host a tremendous variety of plants and
animals supported by a variety of habitats from arctic tundra and prairie grasslands to subtropical
estuaries. Most national wildlife refuges are strategically located along major bird migration
corridors ensuring that ducks, geese, and songbirds have rest stops on their annual migrations. Many
refuges are integral to the protection and survival of plant and animal species listed as endangered.
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the
conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection.
The mission of the Refuge System is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and,
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57).
The goals of the Refuge System are to: 1) fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and
further the System mission; 2) conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; 3) perpetuate
migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish and marine populations; 4) conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife
and plants; 5) conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United
States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems; and 6) foster
understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by
providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such use
includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of trust resources such as
migratory birds. For example, waterfowl breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide
important wetland and grassland habitat to support breeding populations of waterfowl as required by
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 7
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Other refuges
such as Bosque del Apache NWR provide migration and wintering habitat for these populations. The
network of lands is critical to these birds’ survival. A deficiency in one location can affect the species
and the entire network’s ability to maintain adequate populations.
Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and endangered plants or animals. Refuges in
these situations ensure that populations are protected and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges,
by providing a broad network of lands throughout the United States, help prevent species from being
listed as threatened or endangered by providing secure habitat for their use and providing recovery
habitats in portions or all of a species range.
Resource management programs on refuges include water, grassland, forest, natural area, and
cropland management; historical/archaeological resource management, wilderness management; and
wildlife law enforcement activities. National wildlife refuges are extensively used for biological
research to benefit wildlife and to improve understanding of our environment. Scientific programs of
wildlife management, wetlands management, forestry, agriculture, and soil conservation are
combined for the enhancement and management of wildlife populations, In addition to protecting the
nation’s natural resources, national wildlife refuges offer the public a wide variety of recreational and
educational opportunities through fishing, hunting, wildlife trails, wildlife observation, nature
photography, visitor centers, and environmental education programs, all of which attract millions of
visitors each year.
The Ecosystem Approach to Management
In 1994, the Service adopted an ecosystem approach to more effectively achieve its mission of fish and
wildlife conservation for future generations. The ecosystem approach is defined as “protecting or
restoring the natural function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem while recognizing
that all components are interrelated”.
Ecosystem management includes preservation of the natural ecological integrity, ecosystem health,
and sustainable levels of economic and recreational activity. This approach emphasizes the
identification of goals that represent resource priorities on which all parts of the Service will
collectively focus their efforts. These cross program partnerships within the Service and partnerships
with outside entities assist in the identification of common resource goals and contribute to the
accomplishment of those goals in an effective and timely manner.
The Service has defined 52 ecosystems within the United States, based primarily on watershed
designations. In order to implement the ecosystem approach, the Service has established ecosystem
teams consisting of members representing the various field stations and programs within the Service
in any given area. These teams are helping the Service present a more unified approach and will
work closely with traditional partners, as well as expanding partnerships with others. The Refuge
plays an integral role in the coordination of, and is an active participant in, projects identified by the
ecosystem team as priority projects in order to accomplish the overall goals of the team. Management
decisions incorporate pertinent biological and socioeconomic parameters within the ecosystem. Each
team has developed an ecosystem plan with input from its partners. This plan is used to implement
collaborative projects across Service programs and with partners. The ecosystem that the Refuge falls
within is the Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem (Ecosystem).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 8
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem Boundary
The Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem
The Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem contains approximately 245,000 square miles and extends from
the Rocky Mountains to the bayous of Louisiana. It contains all of Oklahoma and parts of seven other
states, and sprawls over four Service Regions (2, 3, 4, and 6). Elevations within the Arkansas/Red
Rivers Ecosystem range from over 14,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) to less than 300 feet msl
along the Red River in Louisiana. Because of the diversity in land forms, soils, average annual
precipitation, and other factors, the
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem
supports the greatest diversity of fish
and wildlife resources of any Service
ecosystem nationwide (USFWS 2000).
Portions of four Service Regions
(Regions 2,3,4, and 6) occur within the
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem.
Twenty-four Service field stations are
located here, including 16 National
Wildlife Refuges, four National Fish
Hatcheries, three Law Enforcement
Offices, and one Ecological Services
Field Office. The Ecosystem Plan
identifies 15 ecoregions, as defined in
Omerick (1987), that occur within the
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem. Each
of these is discussed briefly in the
Ecosystem Plan (USFWS 2000), as a
background to the management of
objectives and strategies identified in
the plan.
The Refuge is within the Central Oklahoma/Texas Plains ecoregion which is found from north-central
Oklahoma to southern Oklahoma, and includes much of the Red River drainage in northern Texas.
The natural vegetation consists of a mixture of post oak-blackjack oak forest and savannah and
tallgrass prairie communities. The topography is generally rolling to hilly, with the Arbuckle
Mountains of south-central Oklahoma forming a distinct feature of this ecoregion (USFWS 2000).
The proposed management priorities for the Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem focus on managing
Federal trust fish and wildlife resources, including traditional recreational opportunities and more
recent directions involving ecological integrity, water conservation issues, and private lands
initiatives. The following objectives have been determined by the Service for the Arkansas/Red Rivers
Ecosystem, which includes the Refuge:
# Water quantity maintenance and improvement
# Water quality maintenance and improvement
# Focus species conservation and restoration
# Conserve and restore focus habitats
# Increase public outreach efforts relative to Service programs
# Improve outdoor recreational opportunities
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 9
The Refuge staff and Service are integral to the development and implementation of the
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem Plan. Recognizing that it does not exist in isolation of its
surroundings, the Refuge continues to work towards initiating new partnerships with private
landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation groups and volunteers in an effort
to meet the challenges of resource management needs both on the Refuge and within the
Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem.
Area of Ecological Concern
While there is a larger defined area known as the Arkansas/Red Rivers Ecosystem, this CCP will
focus primarily on Service lands within an Area of Ecological Concern encompassing portions of the
Red River Basin. An area of ecological concern can be defined as “an essentially complete ecosystem
(or set of interrelated ecosystems) of which one part cannot be discussed without considering the
remainder” (USFWS 1985).
The Refuge encompasses more than 11,000 acres in Grayson County, located in north-central Texas.
Refuge lands consist of Blackland Prairie which is gently undulating to moderately rolling hills. The
Eastern Cross Timbers form a gently rolling sandy belt, and rugged topography marked by deep,
steep walled ravines closer to the Red River. At an average elevation of 650 feet above msl, the
Refuge is situated on the south central edge of the Red River Basin, on Lake Texoma, at the
confluence of the Red and Washita Rivers. Because land use and land management practices
conducted by the Refuge have an effect on the hydrology and natural resources within the Red River
watershed, the broader area of ecological concern is the Red River Basin.
The Red River Basin includes parts of the Llano Estacado of the High Plains, which is a nearly level,
practically undissected, high tableland with slow to moderate surface drainage and many small,
shallow lakes or playas. The area east of the High Plains is a broad, nearly level to rolling grass and
brush covered plain with moderate to rapid surface drainage and entrenched streams. Undulating
prairies and nearly level valleys characterize the eastern portion of the basin. The topography of the
basin ranges from flat prairie in the western reach at an elevation of approximately 4835 feet to
rolling hills in eastern Texas at an elevation of about 495 feet above sea level (Red River Authority of
Texas 2003).
The Red River is among the most unusual river systems in North America (American Rivers 2002). It
is an interstate stream originating in the high plains of Curry County, New Mexico as Tierra Blanca
Creek and flows to the eastern boundary of Childress County, Texas. From this point, the south bank
of the river becomes the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. The Red River then continues its
southeasterly direction into southwestern Arkansas and then turns south where it joins the
Atchafalaya River in Louisiana, where it discharges into the Mississippi (Red River Authority of
Texas 2003). Its name comes from its color, which in turn comes from the fact that the river carries
large quantities of red soil in flood periods. The Spanish called the stream Rio Rojo. It was also
known in frontier times as the Red River of Natchitoches and the Red River of the Cadodacho (Red
River Authority of Texas 2003). The river also has a high salt content. Ten natural salt sources,
including seeps, springs, and salt flats, contribute about 4100 tons of salt per day. The river hosts a
wide variety of unusual species and provides habitat for several endangered species, including the
interior least tern and the whooping crane (American Rivers 2002).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 10
Pintails (photo by Rick Cantu).
Refuge Purposes and History
Formal establishment of a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is usually based upon a
specific statute or executive order specifically enumerating the purpose of the particular unit.
However, refuges can also be established by the Service under the authorization offered in such laws
as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. In these cases, lands are
identified by the Service that have the right elements to contribute to the recovery of a species or the
maintenance of habitat types. Often, the Service
works in cooperation with private nonprofit
organizations in efforts to acquire suitable lands.
Each refuge in the system is managed to fulfill
the mission of the Refuge System as well as the
specific purposes for which the refuge was
established. Purpose statements are used as the
basis for determining primary management
activities, and for determining allowable uses of
refuges through a formal “compatibility” process.
Hagerman NWR Purpose
The Hagerman NWR is an overlay project of the
COE and was established by Public Land Order
(PLO) 314 on February 9, 1946, “....for refuge
and breeding ground purposes for migratory
birds and other wildlife....reservation as a
wildlife refuge....shall not interfere with any existing or future uses....in the operation and
maintenance of the Denison Dam and Reservoir Project....” Canada, snow, white-fronted, and Ross��
geese are the main management thrust of the Refuge. Wading birds, shorebirds, white-tailed deer,
coyote, bobcat, and others thrive on the Refuge as well. Visitors from around the country and the
world come to observe the varied and abundant wildlife of the north-central Texas area.
Nocona Unit Purpose
The Nocona Unit was established on April 1, 1992 under the authority of the Food Security Act of
1985 and the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CFRDA–The First [1985] Farm Bill) (7
U.S.C. 2002) which provides for suitable Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) lands to be set aside
“for conservation purposes,” including soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife. Taken in conjunction with
the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Service is permitted to accept transfers of land principally for
the preservation of wetlands, endangered species habitat, and floodplain areas. Lands so acquired are
administered in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd).
Accordingly, the Nocona Unit was desired for its potential for native prairie restoration and wetland
and riparian habitat values. In addition, the Nocona Unit falls within the narrow migration corridor
of the endangered whooping crane.
Refuge Overview: Past and Present
In cooperation with the COE, the Refuge was established in 1946 on lands originally purchased by
the U.S. Department of the Army (formally the War Department) for the Denison Dam Project.
Authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 (Public Law No. 761, 75th Congress, 3rd Session),
Denison Dam is a rolled, earthfilled embankment with a rock-protected upstream slope, measuring
approximately 15,200 feet long and 165 feet high. It was built for the purposes of flood control and
generation of hydroelectric power. Prior to the construction of Denison Dam, flood damage in the Red
River valley was chiefly confined to agricultural lands and crops. Very few man-made structures,
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 11
such as cities, villages, highways or railway bridges, or even farm buildings and dwellings, were
located in the floodplain (Higginbottam 1971).
Discussion about a dam on the Red River began nearly a hundred years ago. From a low flow of less
than 2000 cubic feet per second (cfs) under normal conditions, the “mighty Red” flowed at 470,000 cfs
in 1908, and at 600,000 cfs in 1843 (Higginbottam 1971). After the devastating flood of 1908,
intensive studies for flood control on the Red River became a priority issue. Early efforts focused
primarily on navigation along the Red River but when the idea of a hydroelectric flood control dam
surfaced, it began to attract the attention of many influential people. For several years, numerous
individuals campaigned on behalf of the project, sending committees to Washington to almost every
meeting which dealt with waterway improvement. Even Congressional leaders began spearheading
the movement in Washington. While numerous individuals supported the development of a dam,
there is general agreement that the person largely responsible for bringing about the realization of
what often seemed a dream is the late, Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives. Speaker Rayburn of Texas promoted and persistently worked for a dam across the
Red River in this vicinity. His long-time, first-hand knowledge of the effects of the devastating floods
on the Red River and the urgent need for flood control at this point account to a great extent for his
support of the project. Speaker Rayburn coaxed the necessary legislation through years of
Congressional hearings until Congress appropriated $5.6 million for the project in 1938 (Denison
Dam 2003). In August 1939, the COE began preliminary construction of the dam with the use of
German war prisoners captured by the British in North Africa and brought to America for
internment. Considered to be the first prisoner of war work project, these German prisoners began
clearing the initial 630 acres of timber at the proposed dam site. Eventually, more than 7300 acres
of timberland were cleared making this one of the largest land clearing projects in American annals.
The area to be affected by the creation of the dam consisted primarily of farming and grazing land
with large fruit and pecan orchards located in the valleys. The area was suffering from a serious
economic depression. Jobs were hard to find and many people were simply existing - living on
government relief or raising vegetables, hogs, cattle, and other farm products in an effort to feed their
families and have enough left over to sell and purchase other necessities (Higginbottam 1971).
Creation of the reservoir prompted the relocation of railroads, highways, and utilities to maintain
services equivalent to those existing before construction of the reservoir. It also necessitated the
complete relocation of three towns. But the most unusual and by no means the simplest phase of the
project, was the removal of graves to higher ground beyond the reach of the reservoir. Three
thousand graves were moved from 49 cemeteries, ranging from family plots to community cemeteries.
Most of the graves were relocated to new cemeteries built by the COE, and others were taken at the
request of relatives, to various existing burial grounds. The actual cemetery and grave removal work
started in June 1942 and was completed in July of the following year.
At the time of its completion in February 1944, Denison Dam eventually served as a prototype for
dam construction in future COE projects throughout the arid plains of the American Southwest
(American Society of Civil Engineers 2002). When the reservoir began to fill in 1944, over 89,000
acres of land, including the small town of Hagerman, became submerged and formed what is now
known as Lake Texoma. On September 13, 1944, the reservoir impounded by Denison Dam was
officially named Lake Texoma by the Senate (Higgingbottam 1971).
Before the lake was completely filled, a proposal by the Service to the COE suggesting the creation of
two wildlife refuges along Lake Texoma was initiated in late 1944 by former Chief of Refuges, J.
Clark Salyer. One area encompassing approximately 10,000 acres would be established on the Upper
Arm of Lake Texoma in south-central Oklahoma, and another area of approximately 9000 acres
would be established on the south shore of Lake Texoma in north-central Texas. It had already been
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 12
decided that the refuge in Texas would be named after the town of Hagerman (USFWS 1995). Over
the next year, both agencies worked towards accomplishing this endeavor and on January 24, 1946,
PLO 312 was approved and signed by Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes establishing
the Tishomingo NWR in south-central Oklahoma. Two weeks later, PLO 314 was signed on
February 9 establishing the Hagerman NWR in north-central Texas. The fact that Lake Texoma was
strategically located within the Central Flyway was an important factor in the establishment of these
Refuges. Significant waterfowl use began shortly after the creation of Lake Texoma.
Refuge lands remain under ownership and overall jurisdiction of the COE. The Service has secondary
jurisdiction subject to the following original COE project purposes as stated in PLO 314....“The lands
herein reserved have been acquired or are being acquired in connection with flood control and
improvement of the Red River, and are under the primary jurisdiction of the War Department. Their
reservation as a wildlife refuge and use by the Department of the Interior, and enforcement of laws
and regulation thereon by said Department, shall not interfere with any existing or future uses or
regulations of the War Department in the operation and maintenance of the Denison Dam and
Reservoir Project for purposes of flood control, power development, navigation, or with any other uses
by the War Department.
In the administration of these lands as a wildlife refuge, the Department of the Interior shall have the
authority to utilize and dispose of the economic resources of the land in accordance with the laws and
regulations governing national wildlife refuges, and to administer and develop the lands in a manner
necessary for the proper management of wildlife, including the construction or use of administrative
buildings, fences, trails, fire breaks, check dams, control structures, but none of these things shall be
done prior to submission of plans to, and approval thereof by, the District Engineer, Engineer
Department at Large, in charge of the locality.”
Nocona Unit
On April 1, 1992, the Secretary of Agriculture transferred approximately 822 acres of land in
Montague County, Texas to the Secretary of Interior as an addition to the Hagerman NWR. The
Service received this tract of land from the Farmers Home Administration. Acquisition of these lands
by the Service was the result of Farm Bill guidelines that specified establishment of wetland
conservation easements or fee title wetlands. Located approximately 80 miles from the Refuge
headquarters, the Nocona Unit encompasses a segment of East Belknap Creek, a corridor of forested
bottomlands, as well as natural wetlands that with development and management, will provide
valuable habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife species. The transfer of this tract to the Service
meets the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, and the mandates of the Endangered Species Act. It also allows the retention of permanent
vegetative cover which will control erosion thus promoting the goals of the Food Security of Act of
1985 regarding soil conservation and wetlands.
Today, this 11,320 acre Refuge continues to provide sanctuary and breeding ground habitat for
migratory birds and other wildlife species in addition to providing wildlife-oriented recreational
activities for the visiting public. The biological value of the Refuge to this region is apparent by the
fish and wildlife species utilizing this area every year. The area has historically been an important
migration route for migrating waterfowl in this section of the Central Flyway. The Refuge’s farming
program provides grain and browse for migrating waterfowl and assists in reducing crop depredation
on adjacent lands.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 13
Lake Texoma (map courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
Lake Texoma
The lake and dam have approximately 1250 miles of shoreline and protect approximately 1,127,000
acres of land. Lake Texoma is a key feature in the main flood control plan for properties in Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. With a holding capacity of nearly 6-million acre-feet of water, it
contributes significantly to recreational opportunities and water-supply storage in the neighboring
areas of Texas and Oklahoma (American Society of Civil Engineers 2002). Power generation, water
supply, regulation of streamflows, improvement of navigation in the lower reaches of the Red River,
and fish and wildlife recreational opportunities are additional benefits of Lake Texoma. It is one of
the few reservoirs in the nation where striped bass reproduce naturally. Lake Texoma is considered
to be one of the most popular Federal recreation facilities in the country, with almost 6 million
visitors annually. In 1999, Lake Texoma ranked first among COE lake projects nationwide, with
visitors spending over 90 million hours at the lake (USACE 2001).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 17
Refuge location within the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
Venture
Relationship to other Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
There are several ongoing migratory bird conservation initiatives that all refuges should participate
in to the extent applicable and practical. The following documents influence the future management
of the Refuge as well as the Area of Ecological Concern. The Refuge is important to the following
initiatives and contributes significantly to their goals and objectives. The Refuge provides wintering
habitat and a stopover point for waterfowl species within the Central Flyway.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Waterfowl populations in North America had plummeted to record lows by 1985. Recognizing the
importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans, and the need for international
cooperation to help in the recovery of shared resources, the Canadian and United States governments
developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations to levels seen in the 1970s through habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement. The strategy was documented in the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
and was signed in 1986 by both countries.
In 1994, Mexico joined as a signatory when
the plan was updated.
The plan’s success depends upon
partnerships involving federal, state,
provincial, and local governments,
businesses, conservation organizations, and
individual citizens. These partnerships are
called joint ventures. Through these joint
ventures, NAWMP is able to achieve its
objectives with the assistance of its
partners to collectively accomplish what is
often difficult or impossible to do
individually.
Implementation of the plan is at the
regional level, through 12 regional habitat
“Joint Ventures” in the United States. The
Refuge is within the Lower Mississippi
Valley Joint Venture area. The lakes,
ponds, marshes, and wetland fringes on the
Refuge provide vital habitat for migratory
birds and resident wildlife. These areas are
important for resting, breeding, nesting
and/or winter residency for many species.
The lakes of northern Texas are an
important winter region for waterfowl in
the Central Flyway. Additional information
on NAWMP and joint ventures can be
found at http://northamerican.fws.gov.
Important Waterfowl Habitat Areas in North America
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 18
Partners in Flight
Partners In Flight (PIF)/Companeros en Vuelo/Partenaires d’Envol was organized in 1990 in
response to growing concerns about declines in the populations of many landbird species, and in
order to emphasize the conservation of birds not covered by existing conservation initiatives. The
initial focus was on species that breed in the Nearctic (North America) and winter in the Neotropics
(Central and South America and the Caribbean), but the focus has since expanded to include all of
the land birds of the continental United States. The goal of the plan is to focus the combined
resources of agencies, academia, and private organizations on the improvement of monitoring,
research, management, and education programs relating to neotropical migratory birds. Implicit in
the plan is the need to identify, protect, manage and restore essential habitats.
The Refuge is within the PIF Oaks and Prairies Physiographic Area, which extends from the Red
River of Oklahoma south to San Antonio, Texas, east to the sandy soils of the East Texas Pineywoods
and west to the Eastern Cross Timbers. Within this area, the Texas Blackland Prairie represents the
southernmost extension of the North America tallgrass prairie. Eleven plant associations have been
described in the Blackland Prairie, and dominant vegetation includes big bluestem (Andropogon
gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum) and brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum). Also present in the Oaks and
Prairies physiographic area are bottomland hardwood forests, where bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa),
Shumard oak (Q. shumardii), black walnut (Juglans nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), cedar
elm (U. crassifolia), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) are common components. Riparian forests
include cottonwood (Populus spp.), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), and
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Common trees of upland hardwood forests include Texas oak
(Quercus texana), Mexican plum (Prunus mexicana), and cedar elm. A dense scrub layer is often
associated within these forests and includes species such as aromatic sumac (Rhus aromatica), poison
oak (Toxicodendron), Carolina buckthorn (Frangula californica), and coral berry (Symphoricarpos
orbiculatus). There are occasional wetlands and freshwater marshes in the Oaks and Prairies area,
primarily associated with the peripheral areas of streams, rivers and reservoirs. Priority bird
populations and habitats in this Physiographic Area include: for Grassland/Scrub - greater prairie
chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanus bewickii), scissor-tailed flycatcher
(Tyrannus forficatus), Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), painted bunting (Passerina ciris), and northern
bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). These species are indicators of the condition of the grasslands,
bottomland hardwood forests, and scrub habitats within this area. Their populations have been
emphasized as a priority for monitoring. Most of these species (except for the greater prairie chicken)
occur on the Refuge and, except for the Bell’s vireo, regularly nest on the Refuge. According to the
PIF document, over 99 percent of Blackland Prairie within the Oaks and Prairies Physiographic Area
has been converted to agricultural uses. Therefore, large “islands” of native habitats such as the
Refuge play a critical role in sustaining these bird populations. Additional information on PIF and
species priorities for this area can also be found at: http://www.partnersinflight.org.
North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan (NACWCP) was initiated in July 1998 to
advance the conservation of colonial-nesting waterbirds and their habitats in North America. It is a
partnership of non-governmental agencies, researchers, private individuals, academia, and federal
and state governmental agencies. The goal is to develop a plan whose implementation will result in
sustainable populations, distributions, and habitats of colonial-nesting waterbirds throughout North
America, including breeding, migratory and wintering ranges. The plan is still under development,
but when completed the plan may have impacts on future Refuge planning. Additional information on
the NACWCP can be found at: http://www.nacwcp.org/.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 19
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout the
United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. The organizations and individuals
working on the plan have developed conservation goals for each region of the country, identified
critical habitat conservation needs and key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. The plan has three major
goals at different scales. At a regional scale, the goal of the plan is to ensure that adequate quantity
and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to support the different shorebirds that breed in,
winter in, and migrate through each region. At a national scale, the goal is to stabilize populations of
all shorebird species known or suspected of being in decline due to limiting factors occurring within
the U.S., while ensuring that common species are also protected from future threats. At a
hemispheric scale, the goal is to restore and maintain the populations of all shorebird species in the
Western Hemisphere through cooperative international efforts.
The plan was developed by state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
individual researchers throughout the country. Major partners include all 50 states, the Service, the
North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office, most of the Joint Ventures established through the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, The
Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian Wildlife Service,
the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and many other
regional organizations. The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences initiated the project, obtained
the funding to develop the plan, and hired the coordinator who oversaw all aspects of the project to
date as well as publication of reports.
The Shorebird Plan is designed to complement the existing landscape scale conservation efforts of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, PIF, and the North American Colonial Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Each of these initiatives addresses different groups of birds, but all share many
common conservation challenges. One major task is to integrate these efforts to ensure coordinated
delivery of bird conservation on the ground in the form of specific habitat management, restoration,
and protection programs. Additional information on the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan may be
found at: http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/USShorebird.htm.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
The primary role of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is to coordinate, not
duplicate, the efforts of the four major land bird plans: North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Colonial Waterbird
Plan. Many of the birds targeted by these plans share the same habitats. By leveraging the plans
limited resources, both human and financial, we will improve the outlook for bird conservation across
all of North America. The NABCI, a coalition of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governmental agencies
and private organizations, is the most inclusive framework for bird conservation ever assembled on
this or any other continent.
The purpose of the NABCI is to ensure the long-term health of North America’s native bird
populations by increasing the effectiveness of existing and new bird conservation initiatives,
enhancing coordination among the initiatives, and fostering greater cooperation among the
continent’s three national governments and their people. All of this will be done with appreciation of
the cultural and biological differences that make each country unique.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 20
Location of Refuge within the Oaks and Prairies BCR.
This conservation approach is expressed through NABCI’s goal of delivering the full spectrum of bird
conservation through regionally based, biologically driven, landscaped-oriented partnerships.
“Regionally based” partnerships involve all stakeholders across ecoregions and are the proven means
of effectively delivering bird conservation. “Biologically driven” means that there must be explicit
linkages among population objectives, habitat goals, and conservation actions. It also means that
evaluation and adaptability are critical components of successful conservation efforts. “Landscaped
oriented” recognizes the response of bird populations to habitat conditions across broad ecoregions
and the need for conservation to operate at multiple geographic scales.
The NABCI vision is one of habitat partnerships, based upon the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan’s joint venture model, covering the continent coast-to-coast. It is hoped that each
existing and new partnership will consider delivering conservation to all birds in all habitats and
that these partnerships eventually move toward conservation of biological diversity using Bird
Conservation Regions (BCR) as the ecological unit in which to achieve their goals.
The Refuge is located within the Oaks and Prairies BCR. This transition zone between the Great
Plains and the forests of the eastern United States is a complex mix of prairie, savannah, cross
timbers, and shrubland. Some of the continent’s priority bird species that use this mix of woodland
and open country are the scissor-tailed flycatcher, painted bunting and Mississippi kite with a small
population of black-capped vireos inhabiting areas of denser shrub. Agriculture and urbanization
have made tremendous impacts on this region, leaving very little natural habitat available for
healthy priority bird populations. Additional information on NABCI can be found at
http://www.nabci-us.org.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 21
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT AND REFUGE ISSUES
The Refuge represents one unit of a multi-faceted system of lands dedicated to the conservation and
management of wildlife resources. The development of this CCP has incorporated the directives,
policies, and regulations of the Service, the Refuge System, and the purpose for which the Refuge was
established, to assist in providing guidance to the Refuge for long-range management decisions.
Planning Perspectives
This comprehensive planning effort will integrate three perspectives so that management direction
over the next 15 years will produce holistic management approaches for the Refuge. The plan
includes:
1. A broad perspective for overall environmental contextual issues including endangered
species, ecological integrity, water issues, inter-jurisdictional cooperation, and socioeconomic
considerations.
2. A focused perspective for the Refuge System related to policy issues which affect the Refuge’s
programs (compatibility, endangered species management, water rights, water quality, etc.).
3. A local perspective for Refuge related activities and programs affecting land and species
management (habitat management, land protection, endangered species management,
research, contaminants, recreational use, etc.).
An understanding of these perspectives and the relationship between them have led to the
formulation of an integral set of Refuge goals, objectives, and management actions for the next 15
years.
Public Involvement
To ensure that future management of the Refuge is reflective of the issues, concerns and
opportunities expressed by all interested parties, a variety of public involvement techniques are being
used. To begin the CCP process, the Service and its contractor, Research Management Consultants,
Inc. (RMCI) prepared and distributed a fact sheet. The fact sheet described the CCP process and
defined the comment period. The fact sheet was mailed to interested parties on October 18, 1999 and
the Notice of Intent and comment period was published in the Federal Register on November 17,
1999. Two open houses were held to inform interested parties about the CCP process. The first open
house was held November 16, 1999 at the Refuge near Sherman, Texas. The second open house was
held November 18, 1999 at the Montague County Courthouse in Montague, Texas to discuss issues
concerning the CCP process and the addition of the Nocona Unit to the Refuge. The fact sheets,
drafts, and other relevant information for public review have been available at the Refuge
headquarters. Public comments have been reviewed and considered throughout the CCP process.
Comments received during the review of the draft CCP have been included in the final document as
an appendix.
Draft CCPs and Environmental Assessments (EA) are made available for public review and
comment, providing the public an opportunity to discuss issues and offer solutions. Draft CCPs
include public comments received prior to release of the drafts and the final EA will reflect public
input into the process. Public meetings are provided based on public response to the CCP process.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 22
Special mailings, newspaper articles, and announcements will inform interested parties and people
in the general area of the current status of the project as well as the time and place of any meetings
considered throughout the planning process.
The CCP must be formally revised within 15 years (or earlier, if it is determined that conditions
affecting the Refuge have changed significantly). Implementation of the CCP will be monitored to
ensure that the strategies and decisions noted within are accomplished. Data collected in association
with routine inspections or programmatic evaluations will be used to continually update and adjust
management activities.
Refuge Issues and Challenges
The following is a list of issues and challenges related to the management of the Refuge. The
questions were derived from ongoing management concerns since the Refuge’s establishment. Goals
and objectives (pp.75) have been designed to effect habitat restoration and protection of existing
habitat for the benefit of a diversity of wildlife and plants. The questions under the issues that follow
are addressed in the text of the CCP and/or within the goals and objectives section.
Issue 1. Inventories and Monitoring
Biological baseline information for the Refuge is incomplete. A thorough inventory of the Refuge’s
vegetation communities and wildlife species should be completed so that areas for restoration can be
identified. A thorough database of biological information would enhance resource decision-making.
The following questions evoke the interrelationship between developing a biological baseline and the
resource decision-making process.
• What strategies should be adopted by the Refuge that would benefit a variety of species?
• What baseline surveys are necessary to inventory existing biological resources, including
vegetative species?
• What additional inventory, analysis, and monitoring is necessary to adequately understand
what is occurring on the Refuge?
• What strategies should be adopted to improve the monitoring and evaluation of plant and
wildlife resources on the Refuge?
• To what degree should recreational impacts on plant and wildlife resources be formally
assessed?
• To what degree should the Refuge establish long-term monitoring programs to better
understand the present and future status of sensitive or species of concern?
Issue 2. Grassland Management
Throughout the last century, improper grazing and inadequate burning activities have resulted in
declines in grassland quality for native wildlife and migratory birds. New fencing is necessary
throughout the Refuge. This includes interior as well as boundary fencing. Properly managed
grazing and prescribed fire serve to maintain and encourage native grasses and forbs, and to cycle
nutrients through the ecosystem. Key issue questions include:
• What strategies should the Refuge implement to restore, maintain, and protect grasslands
to benefit native plant and animal communities?
• What are the minimum, appropriate tools necessary to better inventory, monitor and
evaluate resources?
• Should a permanent monitoring program be established to evaluate the transition from a
degraded grassland habitat to a restored grassland habitat?
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 23
Issue 3. Water Management
Active water management is limited. The Big Mineral Creek is the major water source in the area.
The primary purpose of Lake Texoma is to provide municipal, domestic, and industrial water for
surrounding towns. Changes in local and regional water flows have affected the natural communities
within the Red River Basin and Big Mineral Creek. Initial creek restoration can be achieved by
implementing water quality monitoring studies on Lake Texoma and Big Mineral Creek. Wetland
areas can be enhanced through efficient water delivery, distribution, and implementation of moist
soil management. Key issue questions include:
• What are the minimum appropriate tools necessary to better inventory, monitor, and
evaluate resources?
• Should a permanent monitoring program be established to evaluate riparian habitat?
• What strategies should the Refuge implement to maintain and protect sections of the natural
stream and floodplain zones of the Red River tributaries to benefit native plant and animal
communities?
• What other strategies could be used to protect valuable riparian habitat?
• Should additional water rights for the Refuge be obtained to permit better wetland
management?
• What is the best way to coordinate water management activities with other water users?
Issue 4. Nocona Unit - Management
Initiate management of the Nocona Unit to provide protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats
for the benefit of the public. The Nocona Unit has potential for prairie restoration, waterfowl habitat
enhancement, and limited public use.
• What baseline surveys are necessary to inventory existing biological resources, including
vegetative species at the Nocona Unit?
• What types of compatible uses and land management activities should be developed and
implemented for the Nocona Unit?
• What staffing and funding may be required in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Nocona Unit plan?
Issue 5. Environmental Education and Community Outreach
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 encourages managers to incorporate
compatible environmental education and interpretation opportunities for the public. The Refuge has
many opportunities to increase community involvement and assistance in natural resource programs,
enhance compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, and expand wildlife education and
community outreach. Community outreach and environmental education would be instrumental in
building a supportive constituency and furthering the understanding, appreciation, and stewardship
of our natural resources. Key questions include:
• What environmental education and interpretation programs and products should be offered?
• What information should be included in brochures and other literature distributed by the
Refuge?
• What interpretive efforts can be implemented for the Refuge?
• What educational services/experiences should the Refuge offer to area schools and teachers?
• What emphasis should be given to off site educational and informational programs?
• What accessibility arrangements are needed on the Refuge?
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 24
• What additional inventory, analysis, and monitoring is necessary to adequately understand
public use activities and their impacts on the Refuge?
• What strategies should be adopted to improve the monitoring and evaluation of public use
activities on the Refuge?
Issue 6. Funding and Staffing
Current base funding and staffing levels only provide for Refuge operations to focus on habitat
management and maintenance projects. There are many opportunities for the Refuge to expand its
operations to include programs that engage the visitor, encourage visitation, and serve the
community by increasing public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the area’s natural
resources. Implementation of any of these opportunities may be dependent on additional funds and
staff. Key issue questions include:
• What staffing and funding is required in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the CCP?
• What specific staffing should be identified for the near term that will help in plan
implementation?
• To what degree is the current funding adequate to meet the long-term goals of the Refuge?
• What could be done to improve staff accessibility to the public?
• What opportunities should the Refuge pursue to enhance and expand existing Refuge
management and public use programs?
• Are current Refuge facilities adequate?
Issue 7. Oil and Gas Activities
Ongoing oil and gas activities occur on the Refuge that affect the quality of wildlife habitat. Though
most of the major oil companies are environmentally conscientious, seasonal disturbances to wildlife
can occur with certain oil and gas operations. Potential impacts to nesting shorebirds and/or sensitive
species, such as federally-listed least terns, may occur from people and equipment disturbances
within lakeshore-oil pad sites. There is the potential for oil spills, gas leaks, and brine pipeline spills,
all of which can seriously threaten wildlife and their habitats. An integrated plan is needed to
address oil and gas operations on the Refuge. Key questions include:
• What is the appropriate oil/brine spill protocol in the event of a major spill?
• Who are the key contacts in the event of an oil or brine spill?
• What wildlife treatment facilities and equipment are needed to adequately respond to and
treat contaminated wildlife?
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 25
Armadillo (photo by Chris Perez).
Wilderness Designation
Wilderness areas are Service lands designated
by Congress to be managed as a unit of the
National Wilderness Preservation System, in
accordance with the terms of the Wilderness
Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). An area of
wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act
(U.S.C 1121 (note)) is “an area of
underdeveloped Federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human
habitation, which is protected and managed so
as to preserve its natural conditions and which
(1) “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprints of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive
and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as
to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain
ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value”.
Designated wilderness areas are set aside for preservation through strict limitations on use of
mechanized transportation or tools. Motorized vehicle use is generally prohibited in wilderness areas,
as is use of power tools. Exceptions to these restrictions are typically allowed only for emergency or
other unusual conditions, on a case-by-case basis.
Per policies of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, all Refuge CCPs must include
a review of the Refuge’s potential suitability for wilderness designation. The Refuge has reviewed its
lands for the potential of designating wilderness areas. The Refuge does not conform to the definition
of a wilderness, as described in the Wilderness Act. The Refuge as a whole was evaluated for the
presence of physical structures, legal requirements/constraints, and management priorities that
would preclude such designation. The area has been noticeably affected by humans (historic
homesteads and farming). In addition, due to existing inholdings and associated rights-of-way, there
are no extensive undisturbed areas that provide for outstanding solitude and primitive recreational
opportunities. In conclusion, the Service has determined that designation of wilderness areas on
existing Refuge lands is not appropriate at this time.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 26
Expected Planning Outcomes
The following components specific to comprehensive conservation planning should evolve from this
planning effort:
1. Ensure that the management of the Refuge reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge
System and the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
2. Ensure that the Refuge contributes to the conservation of ecological integrity and to the
structure and function of the ecosystem in which it is located.
3. Provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for the Refuge as a result of the
successful accomplishment of the Refuge’s stated goals and objectives.
4. Provide a systematic process to aid decision making by identifying opportunities, issues, and
concerns; collecting, organizing, and analyzing information, and developing and considering
a range of management alternatives.
5. Provide a forum for determining the compatibility of uses on the Refuge.
6. Assure National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance on all public activities and
Service management programs.
7. Ensure that other Service programs, other agencies, and the public have opportunities to
participate in management decisions for the Refuge.
8. Provide a consistent approach for budget requests for operational, maintenance, and capital
development programs that accomplish Refuge and Service purposes.
9. Provide a basis for monitoring progress and evaluating plan implementation on the Refuge.
10. Provide long-term continuity in the management of the Refuge.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 27
The Nocona Unit.
CHAPTER 3: REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
Refuge General Description
The Refuge is located in Grayson County, Texas approximately 75 miles north of Dallas and within
15 miles of both Sherman (population 31,600), and Denison (population 22,600), Texas. Strategically
situated on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma, the Refuge provides valuable sanctuary for
the natural resources of the Great Plains. The Refuge is
located on the Big Mineral Arm of Lake Texoma where the
gently rolling prairies meet the south side of Lake Texoma
and the hilly terrain of Sandy Creek. The Refuge is located
at the heart of a culturally diverse community in rural
north-central Texas with increasing influences from the
nearby urban areas of Dallas and Forth Worth. The distinct
landscape, diversity of biological communities, and secluded
location are inherent characteristics that contribute to the
area’s value as a natural preserve. The Refuge provides a
variety of protected habitats for wildlife, open space and
nature-oriented recreational activities for the public. The
Tishomingo NWR, another key component within the
Central Flyway, is located on the north side of Lake
Texoma, approximately 10-miles north of the Refuge.
Nocona Unit
This 822 acre tract of land is located in Montague County
approximately 80 miles west of the Refuge headquarters. This
parcel was transferred to the Service for its wildlife habitat values.
The Nocona Unit is mostly open, gently rolling topography with a
variety of native grasses on the uplands and riparian areas along
East Belknap Creek. At the present time, Service activity at this
location has been limited to protection by posting boundary signs
and gates. Existing roads at the Nocona Unit are in poor condition.
Future management of this area is dependent on access. This area
must, by statute, remain closed to public access until specifically
opened for those uses authorized by regulation.
This northcentral area of Texas has always been a historic
waterfowl area. Farming of grain crops, and the availability of small
lakes and stock tanks, provided the necessary habitats for migrating
birds, especially waterfowl. Today, the Refuge continues to offer food
and sanctuary to migratory waterfowl in the fall, winter and spring.
The value of these lands that were set aside and dedicated to
providing waterfowl habitat, benefit other migratory bird species
throughout the year. Each spring and fall sees thousands of
shorebirds thronging the mudflats on the lakeshore. Hundreds of
wading birds flock to the Refuge to feed on food resources left by
falling water levels in late summer.
The Refuge’s land and water restoration activities are designed and implemented to improve
waterfowl habitat, and to benefit more than 270 species of birds, 34 species of mammals, 65 species of
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 28
Location of the Refuge and the Nocona Unit.
reptiles and amphibians and 62 species of fish. While the primary challenges on the Refuge have
centered primarily on restoration of habitat for migrating waterfowl, the Refuge also provides habitat
for federally listed threatened and endangered species, and several other species of concern, including
the least tern (Sterna antillarum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), piping plover (Charadrius
melodus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), loggerhead shrike, white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi),
Texas-horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), paddlefish, and the canebrake/timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus atricaudaus).
The Service has long recognized the importance of maintaining and restoring biodiversity on refuges.
According to the Service Manual, biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes, including
the variety of living organisms and the genetic differences between them and the communities
and ecosystems in which they occur.
The Refuge recognizes it does not exist in isolation of its surroundings. Habitat on the Refuge can be
threatened by external factors such as contaminated air and water or altered or depleted surface and
subsurface water supply. In order to keep the Refuge healthy, it will continue to be managed in
concert with adjacent lands. Nearly 70 percent of all fish and wildlife habitat in the United States is
in private ownership. The Refuge will continue to maintain a close partnership with private land
owners and will work to improve the
conditions for all natural resources.
Maintaining an ecosystem’s biodiversity
will most likely lead to conserving
additional lands and waters through
conservation agreements with partners
or acquisitions from willing sellers. As a
unit of the Refuge System, the Refuge is
a key component in the Service’s
national responsibility to maintain
and restore native ecosystems and to
provide for wildlife-oriented
recreational and educational
opportunities for the public.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 29
Refuge Resources
The Refuge is located in a transitional zone between two major vegetational areas known as the
Blackland Prairies and the Eastern Cross Timbers and within a minor vegetational area (found in
North Central Texas) identified as the Red River Area (Diggs, Lipscomb and O’Kennon 1999). The
Blackland Prairies, comprised of black, waxy, clay soils, are found to the east and south of the Refuge
while the sandy soils of the Eastern Cross Timbers are located west of the Refuge. Of the 11,320
acres that make up the Refuge, approximately 2600 acres are classified as wetlands and 7278 acres
are uplands. Of the uplands, 3740 acres are grasslands, 1500 acres are woodlands, and 700 acres are
croplands with 350 acres as administrative lands. The Nocona Unit is comprised of approximately
822 acres of former rangelands with uplands and bottomlands consisting of grasses and forbs in the
uplands and oak, pecan (Carya illinoensis), and cottonwoods in the bottomland and riparian areas.
Management of Refuge habitats involves a variety of techniques to control and enhance habitat
conditions. The primary objective of habitat management is to provide wildlife species with diverse
habitats to meet a variety of requirements for resting, feeding and nesting. Habitat is fundamental
for self-sustaining populations of wildlife and plants as well as for functional ecosystems. The
Refuge’s goal is to conserve wildlife species by protecting and restoring the habitat on which they
depend.
Vegetation
The influences of the Blackland Prairies and Eastern Cross Timbers contribute to the diversity of
plant species on the Refuge. Stream banks and overflow floodplains support typical bottomland
hardwood vegetation. The Blackland Prairies and Eastern Cross Timbers encompass approximately
26,000 square miles in north and central Texas and represents the primary ecological region of north-central
Texas (TPWD 2002).
Eastern Cross Timbers
The Eastern Cross Timbers is comprised of a narrow band of black jack and post oak, separating the
region of Black Prairies on the east from the Grand Prairies on the west. The Eastern Cross Timbers
are formed by a narrow band of woodland extending along the Red River (Cross Timbers 2002). Early
travelers through north Texas coined the name “Cross Timbers” by their repeated crossings of these
timbered areas that proved to be a barrier to their travel on the open prairies to the east and west.
The location of the East and West Cross Timbers was well known by these early travelers (TPWD
2002).
The soil of the Eastern Cross Timbers is very fertile, producing large trees and a wider variety of
trees and shrubs. In pioneer times the band of timber was a famous landmark. It was also a
formidable obstacle to travelers because of the density of growth. It served as a dividing line between
the hunting grounds of the Plains Indians and East Texas Indians (Cross Timbers 2002). Cross
Timbers oaks are used for firewood, railroad ties, and poles, but the most important function of the
timber belt is preserving water. The timber prevents rain water from immediately running off the
surface and causes much of it to soak into sand that supplies artesian water for hundreds of wells to
the east and south of the Cross Timbers (Cross Timbers 2002). Today, few large tracts of undisturbed
woodlands remain in the Eastern Cross Timbers which is perhaps the most fragmented vegetative
region in Texas (TPWD 2002).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 30
Black-eyed Susans (photo by Johnny Beall).
Blackland Prairies
The Blackland Prairies constitute a true prairie ecosystem and have some of the richest, naturally
fertile soils in the world. Characterized by gently rolling to nearly level topography, the land is well
dissected and marked by rapid surface drainage. Pecan, cedar elm, various oaks (Quercus spp.),
soapberry (Sapinus spp.), honey locust (Gleditsiam
triacanthos), hackberry (Celtis spp.) and Osage orange
(Maclura pomifera) are scattered throughout the landscape,
with some mesquite invasion. A true tall-grass prairie, the
dominant grass is little bluestem. Other important grasses
include big bluestem, Indiangrass, eastern gammagrass
(Tripsacum dactyloides), switchgrass and sideoats grama
(Bouteloua curtipendula). Scientists believe the richness of
the prairie soils is derived from the abundant invertebrate
fauna and fungal flora found in the soils themselves. The
Blackland Prairies are today almost entirely brought under
the plow, with only 5000 acres of the original 12 million
remaining. For this reason, many authorities believe that
the Blackland Prairies represent some of the rarest
landscapes in Texas. The Blackland Prairies harbor few rare plants or animals. What is so special
and unique about this ecosystem today, are the grassland communities themselves (TPWD 2002).
The following general plant communities are found on the Refuge: wetlands, native prairie and
introduced grassland-cropland, and woodland.
Uplands
While much of the uplands were historically prairie grassland, woody species existed along streams
and in protected areas, presumably where moisture levels were higher and fires did not carry
through wooded areas. On the Refuge, the upland landscape is characterized by gently rolling
grasslands with invading brushy growth. Hardwoods are found in the lowland valleys. Some steep
bluffs of low relief are found along Sandy Creek. Forest types range from bottomland hardwood
timber to heavy brush in the floodplains and into savannah and scattered brush uplands.
Interspersed in the grasslands are stands of cedar elm and pecan, and brushy invaders such as honey
locust and Osage orange. Post (Quercus stellata) and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) are found in
sandy soil in the western portion of the Refuge. No timber stand improvement or grazing is practiced,
but partial control of woody invaders is accomplished by controlled burning. This habitat provides a
niche for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), bobcat (Lynx
rufus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Native Prairie
A mixture of short, intermediate, and tallgrass species comprise the vegetation on approximately
3740 acres of grasslands. Less than 18 percent of this is native grassland. There is a preponderance
of big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, purpletop tridens (Tridens flavus), switch grass, and
sideoats grama, with meadow dropseed (Sporobolus asper hookeri) invading. Native forbs include
Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani), bundleflowers (Desmanthus spp.), heath aster (Aster
ericoides), and milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). The vegetation supports ideal habitat for eastern and
western meadowlarks, bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and various sparrows. It also provides
nesting cover for wild turkeys.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 31
American lotus (photo by Rick Cantu).
An overall decrease in the diversity of native grasslands has occurred in north-central Texas as a
result of agricultural expansion and overgrazing. It is well-documented by numerous historical
accounts that grasslands dominated the early landscape. These rich native grasslands were magnets
for cultural activities, including livestock grazing and farming (USFWS 2002). By the middle 1920s
more than 80 percent of the original vegetation had been lost to cultivation. In the second half of the
century urbanization continued to reduce the remaining prairie. Another activity with dramatic
effect on the vegetation has been the suppression of fire activity, virtually eliminating the primary
force that maintained the grasslands by periodically eliminating encroaching woody vegetation as it
swept across the landscape. In recent decades, in the absence of fire, much of the Refuge uplands that
once supported grassland has now been invaded by woody vegetation and transformed into
increasingly dense stands of relatively young woody growth. Cultural influences have led to the
proliferation of woody species and the sharp decline in the quality and abundance of tall grass
prairie. As a result, the distribution and types of vegetation found on the Refuge today bare only faint
similarity to what was found in the area by early settlers,
and comparatively little grassland exists today (USFWS
2002). The majority of remaining prairie is under private
ownership (World Wildlife Fund 2001).
Wetlands
The riparian-palustrine community occurs near and
adjacent to the drainage of Big Mineral Creek. The
surrounding terrain of the creek is generally flat with
occasional shallow depressions, surfaced by clay and
sandy loams that support water-tolerant hardwoods,
conifers, and various grasses (Big Mineral Creek 2002).
The creek channel itself has riparian species such as box
elder (Acer negundo), black willow, and Plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides var. occidentalis).
Vegetation in wetland areas include sedges (Carex spp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spp.), narrow-leaf
(Populus angustifolia) and broad-leaf cottonwoods (P. deltoides). Various species of aquatic plants
such as native millet (Panicum miliaceum), pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus), smartweed
(Polygonum spp.), arrowleaf (Sagitaria spp.), cattail (Typha spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), bulrush
(Scirpus pendulus), and sedges grow in seasonally flooded and permanent wetlands if moist soil
conditions are conducive for seed germination. Lush wetlands help create the unique diversity of
habitat on the Refuge that makes the area so attractive to a variety of breeding migratory birds.
Open water areas serve as loafing areas for waterfowl, year-round habitat for marsh birds, and
seasonal habitat for shorebirds. At least eight impoundments afford shallow, seasonally flooded
wetlands and deepwater lakes, vegetated wetland marshes for nesting and brood rearing, and
aquatic plants and invertebrates for forage.
Introduced Grasses-Cropland
The Refuge currently farms approximately 700 acres of cropland. Approximately 280 acres of this is
farmed adjacent to the lakeshore and is subject to heavier goose use than the remaining fields.
Management objectives are primarily to provide browse for wintering and spring feeding needs, but
also includes “hot foods” (i.e., grains of high caloric value like corn utilized during high stress periods)
production to hold geese after hunting season to alleviate depredation off Refuge. Crops currently
grown include Japanese millet, winter wheat, and corn. Other wildlife species such as white-tailed
deer, northern bobwhite quail and wild turkeys, benefit and utilize the foodstuffs planted for
migrating waterfowl.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 32
Exotic, Invasive and Pest Plants
Invasive plant species are a threat to the Refuge because they can displace native plant and wildlife
species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife
habitat values. They have the potential to out compete native species by dominating light, water, and
nutrient resources. Once established, getting rid of invasive plants is expensive and labor-intensive.
Unfortunately, their characteristic abilities to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse
readily, make eradication difficult. Many of these plants can cause measurable economic impacts,
particularly in agricultural fields. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for maintaining
biodiversity and native plant populations. The control of existing, affected areas will require
extensive partnerships with adjacent landowners, state, and local governments.
The altered, disturbed and fragmented landscape of the Refuge provides an ideal situation for the
introduction, establishment and proliferation of invasive plant species. Several invasive plant
species, or noxious weeds, are well established on and around the Refuge, requiring action on the
part of management to restore and maintain habitat useful to migratory birds, other species and
general ecosystem health. Exotic species (non-native) comprise roughly 13 percent of the total of 684
total plant species documented on the Refuge. Of these exotic species, several are known to be
invasive, including curly dock (Rumex crispus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule), pigweed or lambsquarter (Chenopodium album), Chinese bust clover
(Sericia lespedeza), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), jointed goat grass (Aegilops cylindrica),
several mustards of assorted genera, brome grasses (Bromus spp.), wild oats (Avena fatua), and old
world bluestems of various genera.
Some native plants pose management problems due to their negative effects on habitat and are
considered pest species. Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), ragweed
(Ambrosia spp.) devil’s claw (Proboscidea louisianica), and balloon vine (Cardiospermum
halicacabum) are among the most notable of these native pest species.
Numerous native woody species are also considered pest species due to their habit of invading
grasslands in the absence of fire, drastically changing the habitat type and quality through plant
succession. This group includes eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
cedar elm, honey locust, honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and Osage orange.
The success of control efforts depends largely on the soundness of the control strategy employed.
Understanding the biology of each invading species, how it got there and how it spreads is critical to
designing an effective control regime. Developing an integrated strategy for control based on these
variable factors will provide a strategy utilizing the best management practices for each species and
location.
Integrated pest management is incorporated into all aspects of Refuge operations. Refuge farming
operations utilize mechanical and chemical means when warranted. The Refuge’s cooperative farmer
uses Roundup for Johnson grass control. Venoco Oil Company also uses Roundup to control weeds
around their oil facilities.
In addition to control and eradication of invasive species currently found, the Refuge recognizes
additional steps need to be taken to prevent the inadvertent spread of those species to other parts of
the Refuge and the introduction of additional species or infestations brought in from outside the
Refuge. Chapter 5 discusses the steps the Refuge is proposing to implement for control and
eradication of invasive species.
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 35
Nocona Unit
No recent evaluations have been conducted on the status of habitats at the Nocona Unit. However,
prior to acquisition by the Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) completed a conservation plan for the landowner at the time. Range
evaluations were done and indicated fair to poor range conditions on the greater part of the parcel.
Vegetation was composed of small amounts of sideoats grama, hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta),
silver bluestem (Bothriochloa laguroides), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), Texas winter grass
(Nassella leucotricha), and more than 50 percent annual grasses and forbs such as broomweed
(Gutierrezia spp.) and ragweed. The uplands are beginning to see an invasion of honey mesquite.
Remnants of higher quality prairie plants are present and could be encouraged with proper
management.
Wildlife
The Refuge supports a diversity of plants and animals of the Red River Basin. These species,
including plants, game and nongame vertebrates, and invertebrates, are important contributors to
the overall biodiversity on the Refuge. Conservation of migratory birds is often considered the central
connecting theme of the Refuge System. Approximately 50 species of waterfowl and other migratory
gamebirds have been Service priorities since the 1930s. The Refuge was established primarily to
provide habitat for “migratory birds and other wildlife,” such as ducks, shorebirds, geese and cranes.
Species that depend on the Refuge, especially during the winter or as migratory bird stopover
habitats include bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), snow geese (Chen caerulescens), Ross’ geese
(C. rossii), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), and white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons). The Refuge
has documented 316 species of birds, 34 species of mammals, 65 species of reptiles and amphibians,
and 62 species of fish. Management of many of these species remains a collaborative effort with the
TPWD. The Refuge’s rich mixture of tall grass prairie, riverine bottomland hardwoods, and wetland
habitats also support other rare and declining migratory birds, particularly neotropical songbirds and
federally listed species. The Refuge also represents the largest tract of contiguous native habitat in
Grayson County.
Nocona Unit
No recent wildlife surveys have been conducted on the Nocona Unit. Prior to acquisition, the Service
conducted a cursory survey and determined the area to have valuable wildlife resources worthy of
protection. The property consists of riparian habitat, prairie grasslands, forested bottomlands and
wetlands. The riparian corridor habitat is essential for migratory birds, waterfowl and game species,
such as white-tailed deer. The forested bottomlands with its natural wetlands, provides resting cover
and feeding habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The uplands contain prairie grasslands
that would benefit wildlife species which depend on this habitat.
Birds
The Refuge is located within the Central Flyway, a route traveled annually by numerous species of
waterfowl and migratory birds. The Refuge enjoys a reputation as a birding mecca in north-central
Texas. Although a total of 316 bird species have been recorded on the Refuge since it was established
in 1946, recent surveys show 273 different bird species regularly occur on the Refuge, of which 80
species nest and 193 are migratory. Painted buntings (Passerina ciris), cardinals (Cardinalis
cardinalis), scissor-tailed flycatchers (Tyrannus forficatus), blue grosbeaks (Guiraca caerulea),
eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), blue jays
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern bobwhites, and red-bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) are
common nesting birds. Neotropical migrants such as warblers, flycatchers, tanagers, orioles,
sparrows, and others pass through the Refuge each spring and fall with many of these species
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 36
Refuge location within the Central Flyway route.
remaining to nest. Game birds on the Refuge include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern
bobwhite quail and wild turkey. The wild turkey population numbers about 200-300 birds and are not
hunted on the Refuge. Many declining species either occasionally or commonly occur on the Refuge,
including the American golden plover (Pluvialis dominica), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea), painted bunting and Hudsonian godwit (Limosa haemastica). Other rarely seen birds that
occur on the Refuge include the peregrine falcon, king rail (Rallus elegans), cinnamon teal (Anas
cyanoptera), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) and least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis).
The Refuge attracts 15 species of raptors during the fall and spring migration period including
ospreys (Pandion haliaeetus), rough-legged (Buteo lagopus) and Swainson’s hawks (B. swainsoni),
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sharp-shinned (Accipiter striatus) and Coopers’ hawks
(A. cooperii). The Refuge provides excellent wintering habitat for bald eagles and several to many
are seen each year, particularly along Lake Texoma. Nesting raptors include red-tailed (Buteo
jamaicensis) and red-shouldered hawks (B. lineatus), northern harriers, Mississippi kites (Ictinia
mississipiensis), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Broad-winged hawks (Buteo platypterus)
also occasionally nest on the Refuge. Other raptors infrequently observed on the Refuge include the
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), peregrine, merlin (Falco columbarius) and prairie falcons (F.
mexicanus).
Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl
The Flyway System was initiated in 1948 to
allow for differing regulations in the
management of waterfowl populations
migrating through each “flyway”. The term
“flyway has long been used to designate the
migration routes of birds. For management
purposes, four waterfowl flyways - Pacific,
Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic, were
established in the United States. This was
the beginning of large-scale species
management. Further efforts towards species
management came into effect when bag limits
were reduced or seasons were closed on
specific species that were in danger of being
over hunted. Flock management within
flyways was put into effect to allow more
refinement in regulations for specific groups
of birds (USGS 2000). To varying degrees the
waterfowl populations using each of these
flyways differ in abundance, species
composition, migration pathways, and
breeding ground origin. There are differences
also in levels of shooting pressure and
harvest. The Refuge is located within the
Central Flyway. The portion of this flyway
within the United States is comprised of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma,
Texas, and portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
The management objectives of the Refuge contribute to the objectives of the Central Flyway
Management Program. The Refuge serves the objectives of its establishment by providing a protected
i
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 37
Snow geese (USFWS photo).
Little blue heron (photo by Rick Cantu).
roost site for geese and quality winter habitat to sustain the condition of migratory waterfowl for
spring migration and reproductive success. Many factors within the lands of the Central Flyway can
affect migratory birds. Conversely, management activities that occur on these refuges can have wide
ranging effects on the bird populations of the entire
Central Flyway. Maintaining the health and condition
of the birds wintering at the Refuge affects their
spring migrational and reproductive successes each
year. Other factors influencing the bird use of this
area include the activities of other countries, local
farming practices on neighboring farms, the activities
of federal and state agencies, private organizations,
local governments, the influence of treaties affecting
migratory species and wildlands, and finally, natural
factors such as climate patterns.
One of the Refuge’s outstanding features is the high
concentrations of wintering and migratory waterfowl.
Up to 7500 Canada geese, 10,000 snow geese, and several hundred white-fronted and Ross’ geese
winter on the Refuge. Canada geese show up around October followed by snow geese in November.
They remain until about March where they return to their northerly breeding grounds. Continental
duck populations have recently rebounded from low levels in the 1980s and early 1990s primarily due
to greatly improved habitat conditions in northern breeding areas and wetland conservation efforts in
wintering areas. The greatest numbers of ducks are in the fall and spring with peak numbers
approaching 20,000 in October.
Long-legged wading birds attract almost as much attention on the Refuge as the waterfowl. Great
blue herons (Ardea herodias) and great egrets (Casmerodius albus) are the most numerous and are
found year-round. Little blue herons (Egretta caerulea), green herons (Butorides striatus), cattle
egrets (Bubulcus ibis) and snowy egrets (Egretta thula) are common. Night herons (black-crowned,
Nycticorax nycticorax and yellow-crowned, N. violaceus), and white-faced ibis are also seen each year.
Spring and fall migrations are highlighted by thousands of white
pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) moving through the Refuge.
More than 30 species of shorebirds migrate through the Refuge with
peak numbers occurring in April and August.
Shorebird numbers rise and fall with the lake levels. If receding water
levels coincide with the migration, numbers and diversity of
shorebirds can be impressive. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and
Baird’s (Calidrus bairdii), western (C. mauri) and spotted sandpipers
(Actitis macularia) are the most abundant shorebirds. The Refuge
consistently ranks among the Top Twenty locations to see high
numbers of several species, including upland, buff-breasted (Tryngites
subruficollis) and solitary sandpipers (Tringa solitaria), and willets
(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus).
Mammals
The Refuge provides habitat for some 34 species of mammals including: white-tailed deer, bobcat,
coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), racoon, striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), muskrat (Odantra zibethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), longtail weasel
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 38
Gray tree frog (photo by Johnny Beall).
(Mustela frenata), mink (M. vison), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), and the thirteen-lined
ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus).
White-tailed deer, the only “big game” mammal on the Refuge, vary in numbers between 400 to 600,
which seems to be within the carrying capacity of the Refuge. In recent years, feral hogs have become
a concern on the Refuge because they tend to damage crops and destroy wildlife habitat. Since feral
hogs are considered a non-game species, there is no state-regulated hunting season or bag limit.
Currently, feral hogs may be taken on the Refuge during the deer archery hunt and hog trapping by
special permit also helps to reduce the population.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The exceptional mosaic of upland, bottomland, and wetland habitats on the Refuge supports a wide
variety of reptiles and amphibians. Reptiles and amphibians most often seen (or heard) on the Refuge
include: western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon contortrix laticinctus), western pygmy rattlesnake
(Sistrurus miliarius streckeri), canebrake (timber) rattlesnake, western diamondback rattlesnake
(Crotalus atrox), eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus
ventralis), Texas blind snake (Leptotyphlops dulcis dulcis),
ground skink (Scincella lateralis), broad-headed skink
(Eumeces laticeps), eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus
collaris collaris), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus hyacinthinus), Texas spiny lizard (S. olivaceus),
Texas spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus emoryi),
ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata ornata), Mississippi
mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis), stinkpot
(common musk turtle) (Sternotherus odoratus), common
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina),
three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis),
western narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne olivacea),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), leopard frog (Rana pipiens),
spotted chorus frog (Pseudacris clarki), gray tree frog (Hyla
versiclor), East Texas toad (Bufo woodhousii velatus),
Rocky Mountain toad (Bufo woodhousii woodhousii),
small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum), and
barred tiger salamander (A. tigrinum mavortium). At least 65 reptiles and amphibians have been
observed, and several are documented by specimen in university collections. Another nine species are
expected to range in the area but have not been confirmed by specimen collection.
Fish and Invertebrates
The Lake Texoma fishery is abundant and varied with about 62 fish species known from the Refuge.
The lake is highly regarded as the place to go for big “stripers” or striped bass (Morone saxatilis).
Free-flowing current in the Red River makes Lake Texoma one of the few lakes in Texas with a self-sustaining
population of striped bass, and one of only eight inland freshwater reservoirs worldwide
where this species has spawned (TPWD 2003). Baseline fish data indicate that the dominant species
in the Refuge lakes are: shad (Dorosoma spp.), gar (Lepisosteus spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white bass (Morone chrysops), crappie (Pomoxis spp.),
striped bass, and several species of catfish (Ictalurus spp.).
Common aquatic invertebrates of the Refuge include damselfly (Order Odonata), diving beetles
(Order Coleoptera), water fleas (Subphylum Crustacea), dragonfly nymphs (Order Odonata)
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 39
Least tern (photo by Rick Cantu).
backswimmers (Order Hemiptera), snails (Phylum Mollusca), crayfish (Order Decopoda), and a
variety of species common to brackish and freshwater habitats. Chironomids (non-biting midges
(Order Diptera), are particularly important marsh species, as the larvae furnish an important
waterfowl food source.
Rare or Declining Species
The Refuge provides habitat for a variety of rare or declining species, including several federally
proposed, listed (threatened or endangered) and candidate species and other species of concern.
Declines are often related to loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat, increasingly large areas
being cultivated for crops, lack of natural fire regime, and the replacement of native grasses with
exotic grasses. Some species inhabit the Refuge on a regular or seasonal basis while others are
migrants or accidental visitors that are infrequently sighted on the Refuge. There are no known
federally listed or other rare or sensitive plants on the Refuge. Management actions taken on the
Refuge adhere to compatibility standards, NEPA, Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance, and
Service regulations to ensure that endangered species are not adversely impacted.
Federally Endangered, Threatened and Proposed Species
The purpose of the ESA is to conserve “the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened
species depend” and to conserve and recover listed species. Under the law, species may be listed as
either “endangered” or “threatened”. Endangered means a species is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened means a species is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are
eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. Proposed species means any species of fish, wildlife,
or plant that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed
under section 4 of the ESA. The Refuge has no documented
resident endangered or threatened species. The least tern,
bald eagle, and piping plover utilize the Refuge during
migrations or as nesting or wintering grounds.
Least Tern
Least terns were fairly common through the late 1880s, but
were nearly extirpated by market hunters around 1900 for
their delicate plumate used for fashionable hats at that
time. After the signing of the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, commercial harvesting became illegal and the species
began to increase through the 1940s. However, human
development of tern nesting beaches for housing, resorts,
and recreation subsequently led to another rapid population
decline. In the interior United States, river channelization,
irrigation diversions, and the construction of dams
contributed to the destruction of much of the tern’s sandbar
nesting habitat. By the mid 1970s, least tern populations had decreased by more than 80 percent
from the 1940s. This prompted the Service to list the least tern as endangered on May 28, 1985.
Texas also lists this species as endangered.
This colony-nesting waterbird is a species that seldom swims, spending much of its time on the wing
(Hubbard 1985). The flight is light, swift, and graceful, and it is developed to the point that allows the
birds to easily snatch fish, crustaceans, and insect food from the surface, almost without missing a
beat. They nest on the ground, on sandbars in rivers, lakes or pond edges, typically on sites that are
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 40
Bald eagle (USFWS photo).
Piping plover (USFWS photo).
sandy and relatively free of vegetation. Least terns are migratory
and breed along the Red, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and
Rio Grande river systems.
Least terns arrive on the Refuge about May and nest successfully in
fair numbers within the Big Mineral Area along Lake Texoma’s
shorelines. Up to 22 nests have been documented on the Refuge in a
given year. They nest on the gravel oil company roads that jut out
into Lake Texoma. The lakeshore is also used as a migration staging
area and terns depart from the Refuge about August and head south
to winter mostly in Central and South America.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, as a
result of population declines due to pesticide-induced reproductive
failure, loss of riparian habitat, and human disturbances, such as
shooting, poisoning and trapping. On August 11, 1995, the bald
eagle was down listed from endangered to threatened status in the
majority of the contiguous U.S., including Texas, due to nationwide
recovery efforts (USFWS 1995a). In 1999, the bald eagle was
proposed for de-listing (USFWS 1999). Texas currently lists the bald eagle as threatened.
As many as 10 bald eagles have wintered on the Refuge, arriving between October and November
with a population peak around January. Eagles traditionally roost in the cottonwood trees along the
shores of Lake Texoma. Cottonwood roost sites, open water, abundant waterfowl, and fish on or near
the Refuge make it an attractive and protected haven for wintering bald eagles.
Piping Plover
The piping plover is a bird of sandy beaches or sandflats along the ocean
or inland lakes preferring exposed, gravelly, sparsely vegetated sites for
nesting. Texas wintering habitat is comprised of beaches, sandflats,
mudflats, algal mats, and dunes along the Gulf Coast and adjacent
offshore islands, including spoil islands. Piping plovers are “site
tenacious” or consistently return to the same breeding and wintering
areas each season. They feed on freshwater and marine invertebrates
washed up along the shoreline. Their diet also includes terrestrial
invertebrates such as beetle and fly larvae.
Piping plovers suffered significant population declines due to the loss
and/or modification of their habitat and from detrimental human
activities (Haig 1992). Beach development, dune stabilization, damming
and channelization of rivers, and wetland drainage are factors directly
associated with habitat losses. Other threats include harassment of
destruction of birds or nests by people, vehicles, and domestic pets. River
damming and channelization have adversely affected the species’ habitat
by eliminating sandbars or shoreline habitat, allowing vegetation encroachment, and altering water
flow regimes. This prompted the Service to list the Great Lakes watershed populations of piping
plovers as endangered in 1985, while the remaining populations were listed as threatened. Piping
plovers occurring in Texas are federally and state threatened. Currently, the Great Lakes and
northern Great Plains populations are continuing to decline (Haig 1992).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 41
Peregrine falcon (USFWS photo).
Piping plovers begin migrating from their breeding grounds around July to September. Those that
winter along the Texas Gulf Coast arrive by late July to November. By March to mid-April, the birds
make their way back north. Piping plovers are seen occasionally within the Refuge’s shoreline habitat
during these migratory stopovers on their way to and from the Gulf Coast.
Other federally listed species that may occur but are “accidentals” on the Refuge include the
endangered whooping crane and brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). To date, there has been only
one tentative sighting of a whooping crane that occurred during the migrational period. Additionally,
whooping cranes were also observed in the proximity of the Nocona Unit, which lies squarely within
their migration corridor.
Federally and state endangered brown pelicans have also been documented on the Refuge on Lake
Texoma. Brown pelicans inhabit coastal beaches and lagoons and rarely occur in freshwater habitats,
particularly this far inland. More frequently, they are turning up in places they do not normally occur
(i.e., reservoirs all over Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona) (B. Howe, pers. comm.). It is
thought to be an indication of overall population increases and post-breeding wandering (B. Howe,
pers. comm.). Still a straggler inland, brown pelicans may irregularly occur on the Refuge and at
other sites across the state.
Candidate Species
Candidate species are those species for which the Service has enough information to warrant
proposing them for listing as endangered or threatened, but these species have not yet been proposed
for listing due to other higher priority listing activities. The Service works with states and private
partners to carry out conservation actions for candidate species to prevent their further decline and
possibly eliminate the need to list them as endangered or threatened. Currently, there are no
federally proposed or candidate species that occur on the Refuge.
Other Species of Concern
Species of concern are species for which further biological research
and field study are needed to resolve their conservation status or are
considered sensitive, rare, or declining on lists maintained by
Natural Heritage Programs, state wildlife agencies, other Federal
agencies, or professional scientific societies. This includes state-listed
endangered or threatened species not included above. The
following species of concern are known to occur and/or there is
potential habitat on the Refuge:
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons are mostly migratory, medium-sized hawks that
are found along mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastlines.
Peregrines usually nest on cliff ledges but have readily accepted
urban nesting sites such as on the ledges of tall buildings or bridges.
Peregrines feed primarily on other passerine birds that opportunity
presents (Craig 1986). When hunting, the peregrine will dive or
“stoop” on prey striking them in mid-air, sometimes at speeds of
over 180 miles-per-hour. Peregrines also use a wide variety of
habitats for foraging, including riparian woodlands, coniferous and
deciduous forests, shrublands, and prairies (Finch 1992).
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 42
Although peregrines were never very abundant, populations began to suffer a rapid decline in the
late 1940s. This was coincident with the widespread use of hydrochlorinated pesticides such as DDT.
Scientists discovered high levels of DDT in peregrine body tissues and determined that the source
was by feeding on birds that had eaten DDT-contaminated insects or seeds (USFWS 1995b). DDT
interferes with eggshell formation causing reproductive failure. By June 1970, the peregrine falcon
was federally listed as endangered. In 1972, DDT was banned for most uses in the U.S. Nonetheless,
peregrine falcon populations continued to decline and were reduced by 80 to 90 percent by the mid-
1970s (USFWS 1995b). However, the Service established falcon recovery teams comprised of federal,
state, and independent biologists to undertake necessary recovery efforts, such as a captive breeding
and release program. As part of a private and multi-agency cooperative restoration effort, over 4000
peregrine falcons were released from 1974 to the early 1990s. The banning of DDT and breed-release
recovery efforts led to the federal de-listing of the Arctic peregrine subspecies in October 1994, and
the American subspecies on August 25, 1999 (USFWS 1999a). The peregrine falcon is still listed as
state endangered in Texas.
In Texas, peregrines nest in the far western portion of the state, primarily on high, vertical cliffs.
According to TPWD (2002b), the American peregrine subspecies is a resident of the Trans-Pecos
region, including the Chisos, Davis and Guadalupe mountain ranges. Adequate nesting places are
essentially unavailable in the north-central part of Texas. Peregrines are infrequently observed
during the spring and fall migrations on the Refuge. They use the Refuge as resting and feeding
stopovers during migration. Aptly named “duck hawks,” peregrines are attracted to the abundant
duck and other waterfowl populations occurring on the Refuge.
White-faced Ibis
The white-faced ibis is a chestnut-colored long-legged wading bird of marshes, swamps, ponds, and
rivers. It is generally seen in association with shoreline and marsh habitats that border open water.
Vegetation within these areas often consists of cattails and bulrush, but other plants (including
occasional woody shrub and tree species) are frequently present. The white-faced ibis may also occur
in flooded hay meadows, agricultural fields, and estuarine wetlands (Ryder et al. 1994). Nesting
colonies are located in shrubs and low trees or in dense standing reeds and cattails near or in
marshes. They are sensitive to human disturbances and may abandon their nests resulting in
reproductive losses. They feed on earthworms, crayfish, frogs, grasshoppers, and other invertebrates
in shallow ponds, marshes, irrigated lands, and wet meadows (Finch 1992). The white-faced ibis is
declining throughout North America, where continuing threats include the draining of wetlands and
the widespread use of pesticides (TPWD 1996). The white-faced ibis is a species of management
concern and is state threatened in Texas.
The white-faced ibis is locally common and nests in several marshes in the western United States,
particularly in the Great Basin, and winters in large flocks in Mexico, western coastal Louisiana, and
eastern Texas (Ryder et al. 1994). In Texas, they winter and nest mostly along the Gulf Coast.
Northernmost populations regularly undertake north-south migrations but Texas (and Louisiana)
nesting birds are mainly resident (Ryder et al. 1994). The Refuge provides migration, resting, and
feeding sites for the white-faced ibis. This species is usually found within the moist soil management
areas from spring through fall.
Texas-horned Lizard
The Texas horned lizard, the state reptile, has declined in abundance in spite of a fairly wide
geographic range including south central U.S. to northern Mexico and is found in arid and semiarid
habitats in open areas throughout much of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico. The horned
lizard has virtually disappeared in eastern and central portions of its range in Texas resulting from
human disturbances such as habitat conversion to agriculture and urban development (Hodges 1996).
The use of pesticides to kill ants and invasions of the imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) are
Hagerman NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 43
Texas-horned lizard (USFWS photo).
additional factors responsible for declines of horned lizards
(Hodges 1996). As a result, the horned lizard is listed as
threatened by the State of Texas. Open habitats on the
Refuge provide suitable habitat for the species. However,
horned lizards are extremely rare and have not been
documented recently.
Paddlefish
The primitive paddlefish is one of the oldest surviving
species in North America and one of only four native Texas
cartilaginous fishes (TPWD 2002a). The Spanish explorer
Hernando de Soto first documented the paddlefish in the
Mississippi River in 1542 (Springer 2000). It was thought
to be a new species of freshwater shark and like sharks, they lack a bony skeleton. Paddlefish are
swimming dinosaurs that measure up to 87 inches long and can live up to 30 years. They can weigh
as much as 200 pounds but most are usually between 10-15 pounds (TPWD 2002a). This species feeds
on tiny plant and animal plankton and prefers slow-moving water of larger rivers as well as oxbows
and lakes.
The paddlefish ranges from the Mississippi River basin to as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. In
Texas, they occurred in the Red River’s tributaries, Sulphur River, Big Cypress Bayou, Sabine River,
Neches River, Angelina River, Trinity River, and the San Jacinto River (TPWD 2002a). However,
paddlefish populations steeply declined around the early to mid 1900s, following a period of dam
building, and were absent from many parts of their former range by the late 1970s. Paddlefish need
large amounts of flowing water for successful spawning and the construction of dams has limited
their spawning runs (from March through June) and dispersal. Other factors associated with their
decline include excessive habitat loss and commercial harvest. In Texas, the paddlefish is a state
threatened species and fishing of the species is not allowed while Oklahoma does allow paddlefish
fishing.
Recently, Tishomingo National Fish Hatchery biologists and involved states restored paddlefish to
the Red River above Denison Dam after a 50-year hiatus; this involved cesarean spawning and
captive rearing. Restoration efforts in Oklahoma and Kansas created fishing opportunities where
none existed for years. In 1999, 5400 paddlefish were placed in Lake Texoma along/near the Refuge,
as part of this restoration effort.
Canebrake/Timber Rattlesnake
The canebrake/timber rattlesnake is widely distributed across the lowlands of southeast Virginia to
northern Florida and west to central Texas; north to the Mississippi Valley and southern Illinois
down to southeast Texas. Habitat of the species includes can thickets, swamp