Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Red River National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ...................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................... 2
Legal and Policy Context ................................................................................................................ 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ........................................................ 5
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ............................................................................................. 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................... 12
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 12
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 15
Ecological Threats and Problems ................................................................................................. 16
Wildlife Management in an Urban Environment ........................................................................... 16
Invasive and Nuisance Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 17
Invasive and Nuisance Plants ....................................................................................................... 18
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................... 20
Climate ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Geology and Topography ............................................................................................................. 21
Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 24
Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................................... 24
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 25
Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 33
Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................................ 33
Refuge Administration and Management .................................................................................... 34
Land Protection and Conservation ............................................................................................... 34
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 34
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance .................................................................................... 36
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 37
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 37
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 37
Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 38
Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 40
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 41
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 42
Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................................... 42
ii Red River National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 43
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 43
Vision ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................................................ 44
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 44
Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 56
Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 65
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 72
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 77
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 79
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 79
Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................... 79
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ................................................................................... 80
Habitat Management .................................................................................................................... 81
Resource Protection ..................................................................................................................... 82
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................. 83
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................................. 83
Funding and Personnel ................................................................................................................. 83
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................... 83
Step-Down Management Plans ..................................................................................................... 86
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 86
Plan Review and Revision ............................................................................................................. 87
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 89
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 89
Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................ 90
Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................... 90
Planning Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 90
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ........................................................................ 91
Compatibility ................................................................................................................................ 91
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 92
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 95
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 97
Formulation of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 97
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 97
Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action Alternative) ......................................... 97
Alternative B: Minimize Management And Public Use ................................................................. 98
Alternative C: Optimize Biological Program And Visitor Services ................................................ 98
(Proposed Action) ......................................................................................................................... 98
Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 99
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis .............................................. 111
Maximize Public Use Alternative ................................................................................................ 111
Table of Contents iii
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 113
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 113
Effects Common to All Alternatives ........................................................................................... 113
Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................. 113
Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 113
Regulatory Effects ...................................................................................................................... 114
Land Acquisition ......................................................................................................................... 114
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 114
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ........................................................................................................... 115
Other Effects ............................................................................................................................... 115
Summary of Effects by Alternative ............................................................................................. 115
Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 115
Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 116
Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 116
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 117
Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................ 117
Resident Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 118
Species of Concern .................................................................................................................... 118
Habitats ...................................................................................................................................... 118
Resource Protection ................................................................................................................... 119
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................... 120
Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................ 122
Other Human Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 123
Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 123
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 123
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 129
Human Resources ...................................................................................................................... 129
Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ................................... 129
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................... 130
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ...................................................... 130
Wildlife Disturbance .................................................................................................................... 131
Vegetation Disturbance .............................................................................................................. 131
User Group Conflicts .................................................................................................................. 131
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ................................................................................................ 131
Land Ownership and Site Development ..................................................................................... 132
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................... 132
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ........................................................................................ 132
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ...................................................................... 133
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 135
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 135
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................... 135
Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members .................................................................................. 135
iv Red River National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 151
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 155
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 167
Cover Letter ................................................................................................................................. 168
Public Comment Form ................................................................................................................. 169
News Release ............................................................................................................................... 171
Summary of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 172
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 177
Red River National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations .................................... 177
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 187
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 211
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................ 215
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 217
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. ............................................................ 10
Figure 2. General location, Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ........................................................ 11
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. .................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Watersheds of Red River National Widlife Refuge. ............................................................. 23
Figure 5. Vegetation map of Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................... 26
Figure 6. Reforestation on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................................... 27
Figure 7. Current public use on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................. 35
Figure 8. Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River National
Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 9. Headquarters Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River National Wildlife
Refuge. ............................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 10. Lower Cane Unit proposed acquisition boundary expansion, Red River National Wildlife
Refuge. ............................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 11. Proposed visitor service facilities on Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ......................... 73
Figure 12. Red River National Wildlife Refuge proposed organizational chart. .................................. 85
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Demographics of Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Natchitoches, and Red River parishes,
Louisiana. ............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 2. Invasive aquatic plant species and concerns. ....................................................................... 59
Table 3. Summary of projects with funding and staffing needs. ......................................................... 84
Table 4. Red River National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans. .................................... 87
Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by goals and objectives for
Red River National Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................. 100
Table 6. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Red River National Wildlife Refuge. ..... 124
vi Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
to guide the management actions and direction for Red River National Wildlife Refuge in northwestern
Louisiana. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent
recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not
detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best meet the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and its associated Environmental Assessment (Section B) describe the Service’s
proposed plan, as well as the other alternatives considered and their potential effects on the
environment. Both the draft plan and environmental assessment are being made available to state
and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and
comment. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 through the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries
involved with research and fish culture. This once-independent commission was renamed the
Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 with the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws; administers the Endangered Species Act; manages migratory bird
populations; restores nationally significant fisheries; conserves and restores wildlife habitat; and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines
for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the
refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and
􀁹􇤠 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 provide refuge managers with the authority to determine compatible public uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following illustrate a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands.
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges
were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert
bighorn sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted
breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Depression focused on
waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis
on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a
dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income.
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive
conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners
and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public
involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents.
4 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Appendix C provides selected legal summaries of the treaties and laws
relevant to the administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the management of Red
River National Wildlife Refuge.
These treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in
making decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and
cultural resources; and research and recreation on refuge lands. They also provide a framework for
cooperation between the Red River National Wildlife Refuge and its partners, such as the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Resource Conservation Service, The Nature
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and private landowners.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A
compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the
purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹���� ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses are hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It
provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitats
found on the refuges and their associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to
determine their refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at
multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, the role of the refuge within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available
science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this draft comprehensive conservation plan.
This draft plan supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan; the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation for the benefit of all birds in all
habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan; Partners in Flight; Waterbird Conservation for the Americas; and the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to the
levels that were present during the 1970s by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the
United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined
in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial, state, and
municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all
working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species, and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional
levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North
American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area
represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame
land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting
significant declines. The Partners in Flight Plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on
relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the
frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
Partners in Flight has developed bird conservation plans by bird conservation regions that set
conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Habitats found on the Red River
National Wildlife Refuge and associated bird species that are considered a priority in the West Gulf
6 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Coastal Plain include (for bottomland hardwood forest) the swallow-tailed kite, Swainson's warbler,
prothonotary warbler, white-eyed vireo, yellow-billed cuckoo and red-headed woodpecker.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
Red River National Wildlife Refuge is included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird
Planning Region and Bird Conservation Region. This plan recommends that public lands provide as
much fall shorebird habitat as possible to meet the goal of 520 hectares of fall habitat in Louisiana.
The Red River Valley’s importance to shorebirds is high and the following species are considered
high priority for the region: piping plover, American golden-plover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone,
red knot, sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock and Wilson’s phalarope.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and
management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants,
mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species.
Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested
wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed,
including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior
least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
state fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species
in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state-partnering agency with the
Service, charged with managing state natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of
coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. The LDWF coordinates the state’s wildlife
conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management
areas. The state’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation
planning process provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological
health and diversity of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the comprehensive planning process is the
integrating of common mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
In 2005, the LDWF published a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). The
components or steps of the CWCS are as follows:
1. Assess the distribution and abundance of wildlife species, including rare and declining species
that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife.
2. Describe the location and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to
conservation of these species.
3. Identify problems that adversely affect these species and habitats as well as research and
survey efforts needed to address these problems.
4. Identify conservation actions needed to conserve these species and habitats, and priorities for
implementing these actions.
5. Develop plans for monitoring these species and habitats, monitoring the effectiveness of
conservation actions, and adapting conservation actions to respond to new information or
changing conditions.
6. Develop procedures to review the conservation strategy at intervals not to exceed ten years.
7. Coordinate plan development and implementation with federal, state, and local governments
and other organizations that manage significant areas of the state or administer wildlife
conservation programs.
8. Encourage public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of the
conservation strategy.
8 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Red River National Wildlife Refuge is a unit of the North Louisiana Refuges Complex (Figure 1). This
Complex includes the D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake, and Red River
national wildlife refuges and the Service’s Louisiana Wetlands Management District. Each refuge has
its own unique issues that will require separate planning efforts and public involvement.
The Red River National Wildlife Refuge, stretching 120 miles along the Red River Valley from Colfax,
Louisiana near its southern boundary to the Arkansas state line, will play an important role regionally in
fulfilling the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Its proximity to a major metropolitan center will
afford the public the ability to participate in educational opportunities that promote wildlife stewardship.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
On October 13, 2000, House Resolution 4318, the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act, was
signed into law (Public Law 106-300). This legislation authorized the establishment of the Red River
National Wildlife Refuge to provide for the restoration and conservation of fish and wildlife habitats in
the Red River Valley ecosystem in northwest Louisiana. The legislation that established the refuge
stated that the refuge shall consist of up to 50,000 acres of federal lands, waters, and interests
therein within the boundaries of Colfax, Louisiana to the Arkansas State line (Figure 2). Currently,
the refuge has acquired less than a fifth of the allowed 50,000 acres. The legislation allowed that
when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired sufficient property within these boundaries to
constitute an area that could be effectively managed as a national wildlife refuge, then the
establishment of the refuge would take effect. Sufficient property was acquired and the refuge was
established on August 22, 2002, with the initial purchase of 1,377 acres in the Spanish Lake
Lowlands Focus Area at a cost of one million dollars.
To guide land acquisition efforts, the Service identified four focus areas plus an additional area to
establish a proposed headquarters and visitor center site, within the approved selection areas.
These four units comprise the refuge, with a Headquarters Unit near the Shreveport and Bossier City
area. The focus areas include Lower Cane River (Natchitoches Parish); Spanish Lake Lowlands
(Natchitoches Parish); Bayou Pierre Floodplain (DeSoto and Red River parishes); and Wardview
(Caddo and Bossier parishes). Figure 2 illustrates these locations.
The purposes for which the refuge was established are as follows:
1. To provide for the restoration and conservation of native plants and animal communities on
suitable sites in the Red River basin, including restoration of extirpated species;
2. To provide habitat for migratory birds; and
3. To provide technical assistance to private landowners in the restoration of their lands for the
benefit of fish and wildlife (114 Stat. 1056, dated October 13, 2000).
According to legislation, the refuge shall consist of up to 50,000 acres from the Headquarters Unit
and four focus areas within a selection area covering 220,000 acres. Currently, the Service has
acquired 9,787.90 acres and has 40,212.08 acres remaining to purchase. The lands within the five
10 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. General location, Red River National Wildlife Refuge.
12 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
units (the Wardview, Headquarters, Spanish Lake Lowlands, Bayou Pierre, and Lower Cane River
focus areas) will be acquired through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and
conservation easements, leases, and/or cooperative agreements from willing landowners. Currently,
fee title lands have been purchased within portions of all the focus areas except Wardview.
Historically, the Red River Valley was forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub
swamps. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, early settlers began to clear these areas for farms and
homesteads. This forest clearing rapidly accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise in soybean
prices. During the last three decades, the Red River Valley was used extensively for agricultural
production. The river itself was very turbid due to seasonal fluctuation and agricultural runoff. The
resulting wildlife and fishery habitats were poor compared to those in other parts of the state.
In 1964, Congress authorized construction of the Red River Waterway Project. This project,
completed in 1994, consists of five lock and dam complexes located between the Old River Lock on
the Mississippi River to a point just south of Shreveport and Bossier City. The river’s water levels are
now higher and more constant, which has greatly reduced turbidity. Higher seasonal retention of
water and improved water quality has resulted in a rich diversity of aquatic plants.
Programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), such as the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), are restoring
valuable wildlife habitats through the reforestation of previously converted wetlands and highly
erodible lands in the Red River Valley. Changes in agricultural practices have also resulted in an
increase in rice production and migratory bird habitat.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The refuge does not include any special designation sites such as Research Natural Areas.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Red River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is situated in the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Region, the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, and in the confluence of the Central
and Mississippi Flyways (Figure 3). The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) includes the
alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River and the delta
plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and
its tributaries (USFWS 2002). Louisiana has twelve water quality management basins delineated on
the basis of natural drainage patterns of the state’s major river basins (Lester et al. 2005).
Red River NWR is in the heart of protected bottomland hardwood forest and wetlands of north
Louisiana. Five national wildlife refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy
Brake and Tensas River), 36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service easements, and 36 Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries wildlife management areas are lands focused on preservation,
enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwood forest, moist-soil management, endangered
species management, environmental education, and compatible wildlife-oriented recreation in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The LMRE guides Service efforts to enhance, restore, and
conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types of the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem, while maintaining the economic productivity and recreational opportunities.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
14 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
The ecosystem serves as primary wintering habitat for midcontinental waterfowl populations, as well
as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain forests of the
past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from agriculture and flood
control projects.
The LMRE developed eight goals that this comprehensive conservation plan will consider and
promote when establishing the refuge’s goals and objectives, to ensure the refuge continues its
contribution to ecosystem conservation and integrity:
1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
2. Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
3. Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened,
and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
5. Restore, manage, and protect National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries.
6. Increase public awareness and support for Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem resources and
their management.
7. Enforce natural resource laws.
8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem.
The Red River originates in the plains of New Mexico, heads east to divide Texas and Oklahoma,
turns south through southwestern Arkansas, and then travels southeast through the Louisiana farm
belt toward the Mississippi River. In Louisiana, the Red River Valley contains some 800,000 acres of
land from Alexandria, Louisiana to the Arkansas border. Historically, the Red River Valley was
forested with bottomland hardwoods, cypress sloughs, and shrub swamps comprised of numerous
species that were adaptable to the varying and complex soil types and moisture conditions.
Early explorers to the Red River Valley in Louisiana found a beautiful river with gentle currents and
steep banks. A large prairie was reported north of Shreveport. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803,
early settlers began to clear these areas for farms and homesteads. The valley was almost totally
cleared of its forest cover beginning in the 1820s, primarily for cotton production. This forest clearing
rapidly accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise in soybean prices and conversion of forest to
soybean fields. As a result, the Red River Valley became the most highly altered and degraded
watershed in Louisiana. The river itself was subject to extreme seasonal fluctuations and maintained
a constant turbid state. Consequently, the wildlife and fishery habitats were relatively poor compared
to those in other parts of the state.
In the meantime, the expanding human population within this ecosystem is increasing demands on
land and water resources to accommodate agriculture; timber production; grazing; transportation;
urban expansion; and outdoor recreation pursuits such as birdwatching, fishing, hiking, boating and
hunting. Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of
private landowners and local communities as well as state and federal governments. This synergy of
federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only
protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources
to be directed where they are most needed.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region
The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem is covered primarily by two bird conservation regions: the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley and the West Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The Upper West Gulf Coastal
Plain includes all of Red River NWR. These forests are of high conservation priority for conserving
the natural communities and the bird populations within these habitats. The primary threats to these
forests include reservoir construction; stream modifications; destructive timber harvesting practices;
and conversion to pine plantations, pastures, and other land uses (Neal, http://www.lmvjv.org/wgcp).
The comprehensive conservation plan will develop conservation strategies to foster support for the
priorities of the West Gulf Coastal Plain.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
American Woodcock Management Plan
Woodcock trends in the United States have been declining annually for the last 15 years despite actions
that have been taken to ensure that hunting does not substantially promote declines, such as reduced
bag limits and limited season lengths. An American Woodcock Management Plan, initiated in the 1990s,
points out the need for improved breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance population growth
and survival. Much of the decline is thought to be a result of land use changes and the maturing of forest
habitats resulting in less early successional shrub/scrub habitats preferred by woodcock.
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative’s goal is to restore northern bobwhite populations,
rangewide, to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in 1980
(58,857,000 acres). The bobwhite population objective for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Region is to add 131,033 new coveys, 21,833 of these in Louisiana. Habitat
management is the primary vehicle for accomplishing this goal with three special objectives, which
the refuge has considered during the development of this draft comprehensive conservation plan:
􀁹􇤠 Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing,
and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season
grasses.
����􇤠 Conserve and enhance the quality of rangelands by utilizing vegetation management
practices and grazing regimes that favor the retention and improvement of native plant
communities beneficial to bobwhites and other wildlife.
􀁹􇤠 Convert tame grasses to warm-season grasses on CRPs, establish filter strips on croplands,
and convert pastures to warm-season grasses.
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
The Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy is a program that seeks to direct the overall
effort by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries over the next ten years in assessing the
status of and managing, where appropriate, the varied habitats and wildlife species in Louisiana.
Conservation actions have been developed for each ecoregion in the state in order to address threats to
the habitats of these areas. The state will work with a variety of partners in carrying out these
recommended conservation actions. The state considers the Service an important partner in this process
and the Red River NWR an important part of actions to be taken in Red River Valley.
16 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
In order to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan that will establish goals and objectives on
how to manage the Red River NWR over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were
followed. One of those steps was an internal review of known ecological threats and problems that
may hinder the ability of refuge personnel to fulfill the objectives of the refuge. This review developed
the following list of concerns:
􀁹􇤠 Wildlife management in an urban environment
􀁹􇤠 Invasive and nuisance wildlife
􀁹􇤠 Invasive and nuisance plants
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT
The 600+ acre Headquarters Unit and visitor center area provides an opportunity for public/wildlife
interaction and public education that is enhanced by its location within a suburban environment. This
suburban setting also poses wildlife management problems.
As “natural” areas become reduced in size and more fragmented and isolated, urban/suburban “open
space” landscapes such as the Red River NWR Headquarters Unit become more important for
wildlife. As urbanization increases, habitats available to wildlife become more degraded, fragmented
and isolated, and species diversity decreases. Managers of urban wildlife must understand human
attitudes and social issues as well as they do ecological principles. The three species of concern
here are deer, raccoons, and feral hogs (the hogs are discussed in a separate section below).
Dense deer populations occur in many urban/suburban areas and the Headquarters Unit is no
exception. The deer herd at this unit is becoming more isolated as more of the land around the unit is
being converted to housing subdivisions. Deer may excessively damage gardens and ornamental
vegetation. They may also carry diseases or vectors of diseases. White-tailed deer are important
hosts of the nymphal and adult stages of the vector of Lyme disease in the eastern United States. In
addition, deer cross or feed alongside roadways and may cause auto accidents.
Because of the isolation of the Headquarters Unit deer herd, its size will have to be controlled.
Control of deer can be accomplished by several methods, but none are inexpensive or necessarily
always acceptable. The easiest way to keep deer out of a local area is to install a deer fence.
However, there is a limit to the acreage that can be fenced as well as to the staff resources that are
spent on fencing. Given the size and juxtaposition of the refuge, this would be nearly infeasible.
After fencing an area, there is still a small, closed, reproducing deer population inside the fence that
will have to be “controlled” by some means. Deer can also be shot or translocated. Controlled hunts
are an alternative, but shooting in a suburban setting will require close control. Trapping and
translocation is difficult, expensive, and not always successful.
Raccoons (and skunks and opossums) are probably the most efficient predators of birds, bird nests,
and turtle nests to the extent that many species are experiencing population declines as a result.
Raccoons are bold and probably the best adapted of North American carnivores for life in the “city.”
Individual raccoons that may pose a threat include those that learn to raid trash cans, live in or under
buildings, and raid vegetable gardens or pet food containers. Raccoons are one of the species that
serve as a reservoir of rabies. As such, the potential contact of raccoons with pets or their owners
poses a serious risk in some areas. Raccoons are also susceptible to other diseases carried by
domestic dogs, including distemper, but this poses little threat to people or pets. Informing the public
on how to manage raccoon problems will be an ongoing process at the Headquarters Unit.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
INVASIVE AND NUISANCE WILDLIFE
Two invasive and nuisance wildlife species are of concern in varying degrees throughout the refuge
because of their potential negative impacts to resource management: feral hogs (Sus scrofa spp.)
and beaver (Castor canadensis).
Feral Hogs
The feral hog population in Louisiana constitutes an introduced exotic species. These hogs occur
throughout all five units of the Red River NWR, and if not properly managed, have the potential of
causing extensive damage to native wildlife, habitat and agricultural resources. The hog's
Russian boar phenotype is considered by some to be a trophy game animal with an edible
carcass. Many landowners manage their feral hog populations as they do their white-tailed deer
herds. The presence of feral hogs on a hunting lease is sometimes considered more of an added
selling feature than a problem.
Numerous reports have documented severe problems with feral hogs in parks, recreational areas,
national seashores, refuges, wildlife management areas, and forest districts across the United States
(Mayer and Brisbin 1991). Land and wildlife management agencies are finding that the feral hog is
an aggressive and difficult invader species that threatens their natural resources and habitat. Hogs
can cause resource management problems in the following ways:
􀁹􇤠 Feral hog populations cause damage to field crops. The variety of field crop resources
damaged by hogs include corn, milo, rice, watermelon, peanuts, hay, turf, wheat, and other
grains. Hog-caused damage to field crops results both from feeding and from feeding-related
activities (such as trampling and rooting).
􀁹􇤠 Feral hogs prey on fawns and ground-nesting birds. Feral hogs have an acute sense of smell,
are omnivorous and opportunistic, and can be efficient predators.
􀁹􇤠 Feral hog populations compete with resident deer and turkey populations for limited resources.
Feral hogs are omnivorous and feed on a wide variety of items, many of which are staples for
native fauna. One of the more important seasonal food item types for feral hogs is a fruit/nut crop,
especially oak mast (Wood and Roark 1980). Oak mast is also an important food source for deer,
wood duck, squirrels, and turkey. When feral hogs actively compete for mast food, resident deer
and turkey may enter the winter with deficient fat reserves (Yarrow 1988).
􀁹􇤠 A feral hog population is a potential reservoir for numerous diseases and parasites that
threaten livestock and deer. Because feral hogs tend to occupy the same areas as deer and
livestock, disease and parasite spread is possible. One of the most probable points of contact
is communal watering holes. Due to its inability to thermoregulate (control its own body
temperature when it is hot), the hog is attracted to watering areas to wallow. In areas where
water is plentiful, a wallowed-out watering hole may be avoided by other animals. But, during
times of drought and in areas where water is limited, all animals are often obliged to water
from wallowed-out watering holes. Infected pigs can spread parasites and diseases through
both direct contact and by contaminating drinking water.
18 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 The feral hog's rooting and wallowing activities damage pastures, spoil watering holes and
generally deteriorate riparian habitat. Feral hogs are persistent in their rooting behavior. They
methodically work an area until they have depleted the food item of interest. Given optimum
conditions (i.e., pliable soils), hogs can do considerable damage.
Hogs are too large, too prolific, too destructive, and too widely spread throughout the refuge to be
ignored. This introduced animal must be recognized as an exotic species that should be eradicated
for the well-being of the refuge’s native plants and wildlife.
Beaver
As long as beaver activity occurs where there is no negative impact on a significant cultural or natural
resource or refuge development, typically few problems occur. Refuge management will act to protect
beaver just as it would any other natural resource, according to the Service’s policies and regulations.
Beaver typically become a problem when their tree-cutting or pond construction activities adversely
affect significant resources or developments inside or outside of the refuge. Some examples of the
kinds of adverse impacts, which either have occurred or could occur, are:
􀁹􇤠 Flooding that erodes, weakens or makes impassible roads, trails and railroads;
􀁹􇤠 Flooding that damages or prevents access to structures, facilities, or agricultural lands;
􀁹􇤠 Flooding that can kill thousands of acres of forest;
􀁹􇤠 Damming of drainage structures such as culverts, bridges, spillways and ditches, which
protect facilities and developments;
􀁹􇤠 Redirection of normal water flow into new areas where erosion can occur; and
􀁹􇤠 Tree cutting near roads, parking lots, or other facilities that damages or threatens property, or
creates a safety hazard.
The presence of private lands and public roads within and contiguous to refuge boundaries
aggravates many of these problems. The location and geography of the refuge provide an
environment with a large potential for beaver-related problems. A concentrated and complex network
including roads, trails, and highways is imposed on a natural drainage system of the river and its
numerous tributaries. Hundreds of drainage structures must be maintained to preserve cultural
features, protect facilities and provide safe transportation for the public. Balancing these complicated
and sometimes competing concerns will be a difficult but necessary task for refuge management.
INVASIVE AND NUISANCE PLANTS
Many species of exotic plants occur on the refuge and are rapidly spreading. Terrestrial exotic plants
are the most serious threat to the biological integrity of the refuge. Many species have been
recorded, such as tree-of-heaven, royal palownia, privet, Johnsongrass, and Sesbania. At least four
species of invasive and nuisance plants are of concern in varying degrees throughout the refuge
because of their potential negative impacts to resource management:
􀁹􇤠 Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera)
􀁹􇤠 Royal paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa)
􀁹􇤠 Water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes)
􀁹􇤠 American lotus (Nelumbo lutea)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Chinese Tallow
Chinese tallow grows in abandoned fields, pastures, waste areas, and forests. It grows in a wide
range of environmental conditions, from wet to dry and from shade to full sun. It reproduces by seeds
only, but one plant can produce hundreds of seeds, which have a tremendous ability to germinate
under adverse conditions. It is a fast-growing tree, hence its popularity as a shade tree ornamental.
To a horticulturalist this sounds like a dream tree, but to ecologists and land managers, it can be a
nightmare, especially when it invades an area and displaces native vegetation.
Over the last 30 years, Chinese tallow has become a common tree in old fields and bottomland
forests in Louisiana. Several studies at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research
Center in Lafayette are aimed at understanding the factors that contribute to Chinese tallow growth,
spread, and management. When tallow invades, it eventually monopolizes an area, creating a forest
without native animal or plant species. This tree exhibits the classic traits of most nonnative invaders:
it is attractive so people want to distribute it, it grows quickly and in a variety of soils, it has incredible
resiliency, and it resists pests. Tallow reproduces and grows quickly and can cause large-scale
ecosystem modification. For example, where it completely replaces native vegetation, it has a
negative effect on birds by degrading the habitat.
Royal Paulownia
Royal paulownia is an introduced ornamental that has become well-established in North America. It
is also known as princess-tree, empress-tree, or paulownia. It has a tropical look with very large
catalpa-like leaves. The tree is a prodigious seeder and grows extremely fast. Unfortunately,
because of this ability to grow nearly anywhere and at a rapid rate, it is now considered an invasive
exotic tree species.
This native of China gives a most dramatic, coarse-textured appearance, with its huge heart-shaped
leaves and large clusters of lavender flowers in the spring. Flowers are borne before leaf
emergence so they stand out nicely, especially against an evergreen background. With a rapid
growth rate, the princess-tree can reach 50 feet in height with an equal spread in an open
landscape. Most trees are seen 30 to 40 feet tall and wide. It thrives best in deep, moist but
well-drained soil, sheltered from the wind, and has become naturalized in many parts of the
South. This Asian tree was initially promoted as a host tree for moth silk production. It rapidly
spread because of its ability to grow quickly under adverse conditions.
Water Hyacinth
Water hyacinth is native to South America, but has been naturalized in most of the southern United
States. Water hyacinth plants have a tremendous growth and reproductive rate and the free-floating
mats cause substantial problems. Water hyacinth can form impenetrable mats of floating vegetation.
It reproduces by seeds and by daughter plants which form on rhizomes and produce dense plant
beds. Individual plants break off the mat and can be dispersed by wind and water currents. As many
as 5,000 seeds can be produced by a single plant and these seeds are eaten and transported by
waterfowl. Seedlings are common on mud banks exposed by low water levels. Large colonies of
water hyacinth can interfere with small boat navigation and fishing, as well as provide habitat for
mosquitoes. Water hyacinth is controlled through a number of methods including harvesting, aquatic
herbicides, and biological control agents.
20 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
American Lotus
American lotus is a native, weedy aquatic species. Its leaves are circular and can be as large as
three feet in diameter. Leaves may float on the water surface or extend as much as three feet above
the water. Leaves and flowers are borne on an erect tuberous rootstock or stalk. This attractive plant
is abundant in Southern ponds, lakes, swamps, and slow-moving streams. It can spread in dense
mats of near-monoculture across vast areas, diminishing the potential value of these areas as wildlife
and waterfowl habitat. Large colonies of American lotus can interfere with small boat navigation and
fishing, as well as provide habitat for mosquitoes.
The value of vegetation in maintaining diverse aquatic and semiaquatic ecosystems, and the fact that
aquatic plants are an important component of functioning fish and wildlife habitat, have been well
documented. Aquatic and littoral vegetation provides fish, waterfowl, and some mammals with (1)
oxygen, (2) habitat, (3) food sources, (4) breeding areas, (5) refuge for predators and prey, and (6)
stabilized bottom sediments and nutrients (Kilgore et al. 1993). These resources are needed for
healthy aquatic and littoral ecosystems, for good sport fisheries as well as other water-associated
recreational activities, and for the aesthetic enjoyment of aquatic areas.
The spread of invasive or nuisance vegetation will alter the structure of aquatic ecosystems and
result in ecosystem degradation, changes in water quality, and changes in habitat for fish and
wildlife populations. Invasive aquatic vegetation spreads rapidly and colonizes water bodies with
the ecological characteristics of early successional species, and will invade both degraded and
healthy aquatic ecosystems. Invasive submersed aquatic vegetation typically creates
monocultural stands with dense canopies above or below the surface that result in decreased
water mixing and oxygen exchange, increased nutrient loading, and widely fluctuating
temperatures (Charlebois 2002). This morphology reduces activity in other plants, so that the
invasion of a lake by species such as water hyacinth or American lotus is often accompanied by
the decline of indigenous aquatic vegetation. In addition to affecting water quality and reducing
the density of indigenous aquatic vegetation, invasive aquatic vegetation alters animal
communities in littoral zones and wetlands.
Controlling these terrestrial and aquatic plant species will be an ongoing management problem at
the Red River Refuge. A variety of management techniques will need to be employed on a
continuing basis in order to control and mitigate impacts to resource management. Public
education, particularly for residents adjacent to the refuge’s Headquarters Unit, will be an
important element in this control program.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The climate, topography, geology, air quality, soils, and waterways form the foundation of the
physical environment of the refuge.
CLIMATE
The climate at Red River NWR is humid-subtropical and is primarily influenced by the refuge’s
subtropical latitude and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The climate is controlled by two principal air
masses. Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico generally dominates in the spring and summer, and
cooler, drier air from the Central Plains prevails during the winter months. Extended, hot, sultry
summers and moderately cool winters are the norm. The average annual air temperature is 65
degrees Fahrenheit. During the winter, the average temperature is 50 degrees, with an average daily
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
minimum of 39 degrees. Average seasonal snowfall is less than one inch. The average temperature
is 81 degrees during the summer, but temperatures above 90 degrees occur almost daily.
The mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Half of this rainfall (30 inches) usually falls during April
through September. The growing season is about 235 days long and begins in mid-March and ends
during early November. Thunderstorms occur on average about 70 days each year, with most
occurring during the summer months. The average relative humidity in the mid-afternoon is about 60
percent. Humidities are higher at night.
The sun shines 60 percent of the time during the summer, and 50 percent during winter. The
prevailing wind is from the south. Average wind speed is highest, nine miles per hour, during the
spring months. These climatic values play an important role in influencing the area’s hydrologic
regime, which subsequently shapes ecosystem process and functions.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
As the climate has changed on the Earth, marine and deltaic sediments have been deposited in
alternating cycles in Louisiana. Geologists have determined from studying these deposits that a
major river system, corresponding to the modern Red River, has persisted here at least since the Gulf
of Mexico began to form (Louisiana Geologic Survey 1990).
The topography of the refuge has been greatly influenced by the actions of the Red River and much
of the geology is from Quaternary alluvial deposits. Although the continental ice sheets did not reach
this far south, the lower Red River valley carried glacial meltwaters and outwash in a braided-stream
pattern that concurrently widened and aggraded the valley during periods of waning glaciation. As
each glacial cycle progressed and the sediment loads and stream discharges declined, the river
abandoned its braided stream configuration in favor of a single-channel meandering pattern. This
alluvium has been sorted, reworked, and deposited many times by riverine processes.
The Red River has a narrow floodplain, averaging 6 to 8 miles in width. The lands in the valley can,
in general, be classified as alluvial floodplain or terrace uplands. The formations of alluvium
described above comprise the bulk of the refuge. Relict channels and natural levees, often referred
to as ridge and swale topography, are easily seen by visitors to the refuge. Human disturbances,
including artificial levees and channelization projects, have drastically altered these natural alluvial
processes within the Red River floodplain.
The elevation at the refuge averages 150 feet above sea level at its lower end below Natchitoches to
250 feet near the Arkansas border. The topography is complex, with numerous stream channels,
small tributaries and depressions, old river meanders and oxbow lakes, multiple river terraces in
various stages of erosion and deposition, and adjacent poorly drained lowlands. Added to this
complexity are farming activities that have modified the hydrology of the area, resulting in a subtle but
complex topography that has given rise to the flora and fauna found on the refuge.
SOILS
The soils of the floodplains range from loamy to clayey and from well-drained to very poorly drained.
The loamy soils are on higher, natural levees of rivers and bayous. These soils are fertile and have
few limitations for crops. Some of the clayey soils are flooded by runoff and stream overflow. The
clayey soils, which are in the lower areas, are limited by wetness. The soils historically supported a
diverse bottomland hardwood forest.
22 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY
Drainage in Louisiana is into the Gulf of Mexico. The Red River basin comprises the largest drainage
area in the state. The Red River joins with the Atchafalaya and Old rivers, the latter forming an outlet
to the Mississippi River. Most of the water from the Red River flows to the Gulf through the
Atchafalaya system. At times, the Mississippi River is at higher levels causing much of its flow to be
through Old River and then into the Atchafalaya. In times of high water, the lower Black basin, near
the confluence of the Black and Red rivers, becomes a backwater storage basin. Because of an
extensive artificial levee system, there is not much drainage directly into the Mississippi within the
state. Lowlands bordering the Red and upper Atchafalaya are also protected by levees.
The five units of Red River NWR are located within three distinct watersheds of the Red River: the
Bayou Pierre, Middle Red–Coushatta, and Lower Red–Lake Iatt watersheds (Figure 4). The
Headquarters, Bayou Pierre, and Spanish Lakes units are located in the Bayou Pierre watershed
which consists of approximately 395,715 acres of cropland, pasture/hayland, forestland and urban
land. The major resource concerns are diminished water quality in Bayou Pierre and its tributary
associated with intensive row crop agriculture and/or confined animal operations. The Wardview Unit
is located in the Middle Red–Coushatta Watershed which runs parallel to the Red River. Lower Cane
Unit is located in the Lower Red–Lake latt Watershed to the south of the Little River.
The hydrology of the refuge is dominated by the Red River, the three distinct watersheds, and the
impacts of the Red River Waterway Project. For 500 years or more before it was finally cleared in
1870, the Great Red River Raft dominated hydrologic character along the stretch of the Red River
that is now occupied by the five units of the refuge. The Red River raft was a result of the highly
erodible soils of the Red River alluvial valley being carved by each high water event on the river. As
the river moved back and forth across its alluvial plain, trees were undermined along the riverbanks
and fell into the river. These trees formed a discontinuous series of logjams that extended
approximately 150 miles along the river from the vicinity of present day Natchitoches to the Louisiana-
Arkansas state line. The raft artificially raised the banks of the river and forced the creation of
numerous distributaries of the Red, evidence of which can still be seen today.
Numerous raft lakes also formed in river low spots along the tributaries to the Red. These raft lakes
were transitory in nature. The raft was not stationary; rather, it was inexorably moving upstream at
about a fifth of a mile per year. As pieces of the raft broke up and floated downstream on the lower
end, new logs and debris were added to the upper end. As the channel naturally cleared on the
lower end, the Red River channel would deepen and drain the raft lakes and close off the
distributaries, leaving a single river channel.
Piecemeal attempts were made to clear the raft starting in the 1830s. Portions of the raft were
cleared for a brief period but it would eventually reform. Captain Henry Miller Shreve dramatically
increased the pace of the natural clearing of the logjam with the invention of the snag-boat. By the
mid 1870s, the raft had been cleared. Steamboats plying the Mississippi River could now go up the
Red River to Shreveport and points north, as well as west into Texas along Cypress Bayou to
Jefferson, Texas. However, as the railroad commerce expanded in the late 1800s, steamboat
commerce declined. Removal of the Red River raft caused the river to scour its channel deeper
making the river have unusually high banks. Because of these unnaturally high banks, bank erosion
became a tremendous problem on the river. Thousands and thousands of acres of productive land
were eroded by the river and deposited downstream as less productive sandbars. This continual
erosion also led to shoaling in the river, making navigation treacherous.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 4. Watersheds of Red River National Widlife Refuge.
24 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
High turbidity levels, wide fluctuations in river depth, and edge-to-edge farm practices had a dramatic
impact on the carrying capacity of the land for wildlife. This began to change with the initiation of the
Red River Waterway project, which Congress authorized in 1964. This project, completed in 1994,
consists of five lock and dam complexes located between the Old River Lock on the Mississippi River
to a point just south of Shreveport and Bossier City. The river’s water levels are now higher and more
constant, and its turbidity levels have been greatly reduced. Water quality has also improved, and
the seasonal retention of water levels has resulted in a rich diversity of aquatic plants.
Increased water levels on the river have improved some adjacent habitats. Flooded timber and
marginal agricultural fields characterized by wet, depressional areas are now common. The USDA’s
Wetlands Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Program are restoring valuable wildlife
habitats through the reforestation of previously cleared and highly erodible lands in the Red River
Valley. Changes in agricultural practices have also resulted in an increase in rice production which
created additional migratory bird habitat.
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary air
quality standards to protect public health. The EPA has also set secondary standards to protect public
welfare. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from
harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
The EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air
pollutants (also called “criteria pollutants”). They are ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter
(PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb).
The ambient air quality within the boundaries of the five units of the refuge can vary considerably
from impacts due to varying sources such as electric power generation, paper mills, and proximity to
a major metropolitan area. The Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Statistical Area in northwest
Louisiana has recorded ambient ozone concentrations that approach the maximum concentration
permitted by the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone concentrations (Chambers et al. 2005).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Water quality within the Red River has been affected by mercury contamination from an unknown
source (LDEQ 1998). Recently, 26 refuges in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley were surveyed for
chemical contamination. Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected and passive sampling
devices deployed. Residues of current use pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury were measured and limited toxicity testing
was conducted (Shea et al. 2001). All of these chemical contaminants were detected at Lake
Ophelia NWR (located at the base of the Red River watershed), but none were detected at levels of
concern to human health or fish/wildlife. Furthermore, the EPA’s Index of Watershed Indicators
shows that most water bodies within the lower Red River watershed are meeting designated uses,
and that the streams in this area are characterized as having good overall water quality and a low
vulnerability to problems related to runoff.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Currently, the five units of the refuge include 3,742 acres of reforested bottomland hardwood forest; 317
acres of bottomland forest; 261 acres of riparian habitat; 194 acres of cypress swamp; 600 acres of
moist soils; 1,125 acres of agricultural fields; 124 acres in a pecan orchard, acres dominated by
groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia); a 217-acre area of honey locust; and a 153-acre old field that
was grazed and currently invaded by wild plum and invasives (Figure 5). In addition, about 443 acres
of the refuge is permanent water consisting of oxbow lakes, tributaries of the Red River, borrow pits,
and irrigation ditches.
Prior to European settlement, the predominant habitat type throughout the area was bottomland
hardwood forest. One goal of the refuge is to restore this once-dominant habitat type. The primary
woody species in the lowest areas of bottomland hardwood forest are baldcypress, buttonbush, and
swamp privet. Slightly higher on the floodplain are overcup oak, water hickory, Nuttall oak, persimmon,
cedar elm, willow oak and water locust. The understory largely consists of swamp privet, greenbrier,
poison ivy, and buttonbush. Riparian habitats consist of black willow, cottonwood, and sycamore.
The cleared bottomlands have been planted back to species that would have originally inhabited the
area which include willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, Nuttall oak, shumard oak, cherrybark oak,
sweet pecan, sycamore, sweetgum, green ash and baldcypress (Figure 6).
Bottomland hardwood forests can be classified in this area into four primary habitat types:
1. Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) – Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
2. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) – Water Hickory (Carya aquatica)
3. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) – Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
4. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) – Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
Baldcypress – Water Tupelo
Baldcypress and water tupelo together make up the majority of stocking in this forest type, which
occurs in swamps, deep sloughs, and very low poorly drained flats. The sites are always very wet,
and surface water stands well into or throughout the growing season. Soils are generally mucks,
clays, or fine sand. Common trees associated with this type are black willow (Salix nigra), water
locust (Gladitsia aquatica), overcup oak, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and persimmon
(Diospyros virginia). Among the shrub species are swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and planartree (Planera aquatica). Woody vines include redvine
(Brunnichia ovata). A variety of herbaceous plants will be commonly seen and take the form of
flotants, emergents, and submergents. Frequently a variety of mosses and lichens adorn the
exposed tree trunks, and the crowns may be draped with Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides).
Overcup Oak – Water Hickory
This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight clay or silty clay soils. These
sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring inundations. Overcup oak and
water hickory together constitute the majority. Associates include willow oak, Nuttall oak (Quercus
nutallii), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), green ash, and water locust. Minor associates include black
willow, persimmon and sweetgum. Common shrub species often associated include redvine, peppervine
(Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), trumpet-creeper (Campsis radicans), dewberry (Rubus caesius), and
26 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Vegetation map of Red River National Wildlife Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 6. Reforestation on Red River National Wildlife Refuge.
28 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
possibly greenbier (Smilax spp.). Panicums, asters, annual grasses, and cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium) may occur in openings within the stand.
Sweetgum – Willow Oak
The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically occupied by this forest
type. Willow oak and sweetgum comprise the largest proportion of the stocking in stands of this type.
A major associate on higher clay ridges and flats is Nuttall oak. Other trees associated with this
forest type are sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash, overcup oak, water oak (Quercus nigra),
water hickory, cedar elm, persimmon and sometimes baldcypress. Common shrubs include swamp
privet, American snowbell (Styrax americana), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), hawthorn (Crataegus
douglasii), and dull-leaf indigo (Amorpha fruticosa). Woody vines occasionally present include
greenbrier, peppervine, and redvine.
Swamp Chestnut Oak – Cherrybark Oak
This forest type occurs on the best, most mature, fine sandy loam soils on the highest of the first
bottom ridges and hammocks, and on the second bottoms or terraces down from the ridges. These
well-drained sites are seldom covered with standing water and only rarely overflow. Species
composition of this habitat type varies widely, though cherrybark oak will most likely be much more
common than swamp chestnut oak. Many other species contribute to a well stocked stand: white oak
(Quercus alba); post oak (Quercus stellata); sweetgum; blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica); hickory (Carya
spp.); willow oak; water oak; southern red oak (Quercus falcate); winged elm (Ulmus alata); sassafras
(Sassafras albidum); slippery elm (Ulmus rubra); Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii); black oak
(Quercus velutina); black cherry (Prunus serotina); white ash (Fraxinus americana); green ash; red
maple (Acer rubrum); and loblolly (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pines (Pinus echinata). Common
midstory plants include eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis); flowering dogwood (Cornus florida);
American holly (Ilex opaca); red mulberry (Morus rubra); American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana);
eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana); and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Shrub species
usually include red buckeye (Aesculus pavia), devil’s walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), sweetleaf
(Symplocus tinctoria), and Viburnum spp. Often included in this habitat type are grape vines (Vitus
rotundifolia), Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), trumpet creeper, and greenbrier.
The four bottomland hardwood types described above are found only in remnants over most of the
units of the refuge. It is the desire of refuge management to replicate these types where appropriate
on the refuge. The cleared bottomlands have been reforested with species that originally inhabited
the area, including willow oak, water oak, overcup oak, Nuttall oak, shumard oak, cherrybark oak,
sweet pecan (Carya illinoensis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, green ash and
baldcypress. The outcome will be structurally diverse bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems that
support a variety of forest-dependent wildlife species.
Moist-soil plant species vary depending on the timing of drawdowns and soil disturbance, but usually
consist of panic grass (Panicum spp.), sprangletop (Leptochloa spp.), millet (Pennisetum
americanum), toothcup (Rotala ramosior), coffeeweed (Senna obtusifolia), Paspalum, Polygonum,
and a variety of sedges (Andropogon spp.). Due to the lack of refuge staff, equipment and funding,
active moist-soil management has not been possible to date on Red River NWR. Proper moist-soil
management is very labor-intensive, requiring soil disturbance through discing and leaving fallow, or
planting a food crop using cooperative farming or forced-account work to help set back succession
every 2 to 4 years. Often, much of this habitat type can be obtained in conjunction with rice farming,
which is currently being done on the Lower Cane River Unit, but other sites will need to be identified
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
as primary moist-soil areas. The keys to success of such areas are moisture and water control
(levees, pumps, water control structures, ditches and monitoring). Without excellent water control,
moist-soil management in the Southeast is a hit or miss activity. Timing of inundation, adequate
disturbance, and sustained record-keeping are needed to assure good production on a yearly basis.
At Red River NWR, grain production is used to address the shortages to effectively manage moist-soil
habitat. Under current funding and staffing limitations, cooperative farming is the only option
available to the refuge to produce crops. Rice, milo, and corn are the top choices as grain crops for
ducks. Rice is particularly resistant to decomposition even under flooded conditions. Milo and corn
also provide high energy resources for waterfowl and can generally be kept above the water surface,
but problems arise from depredation prior to flooding as well as seed degradation after flooding. It is
important to manage the farm program to provide the best mix of waterfowl foods.
WILDLIFE
Waterfowl
The West Gulf Coastal Plain and the Red River Valley are important ecoregions for migrating and
wintering ducks and geese in North America. Red River NWR provides important foraging and
resting (refuge) habitats within the Red River Valley for these waterfowl and serves an integral role in
a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort known as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP).
The refuge provides habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl and year-round habitat for nesting
wood ducks (Aix sponsa). The Red River is a historic migration corridor for migratory birds that use
the Central and Mississippi Flyways on their journey to the Gulf Coast. At least 14 species of
migratory waterfowl use the refuge during some part of the year: mallard (Anas platyrhynchos);
gadwall (Anas strepera); American widgeon (Anas americana); green-winged teal (Anas crecca
carolinensis); blue-winged teal (Anus discors); northern shoveler (Anas clypeata); northern pintail
(Anas acuta); hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus); ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris);
canvasback (Aythya valisineria); and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis). Other species that use the refuge
less frequently include bufflehead (Aythya marila); redhead (Aythya americana); common merganser
(Mergus merganser); red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator); greater scaup (Aythya marila);
ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis); common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula); and American black
duck (Anas rubripes). Wood ducks are year-round residents in Louisiana. Preferred habitats include
forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, streams, sloughs and beaver ponds.
Wood ducks seek food in the form of acorns, other soft and hard mast, weed seeds, and
invertebrates found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps and along stream banks. They loaf and
roost in more secluded areas and dense shrub swamps.
American Woodcock (Scolopax minor)
Long-term declines in American woodcock populations are apparent, and trend data from individual
monitoring efforts correlate well. Hunting success indices for American woodcock also show that the
annual harvest has been declining. The most serious threat is habitat loss and alteration through
urbanization, reforestation, drainage of wetlands, and agricultural development (Keppie and Whiting
1994). Throughout the woodcock’s southern breeding range, primary threats include water
development, including land drainage and impoundments; and conversion of bottomland forests to
cropland or forest monocultures (USFWS 1990). In addition, loss of marginal brush and increasing
farm size increase vulnerability to hunting (Brauning 1992).
30 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Shorebirds
An appropriate disturbance rotation at the old rice fields and old fish ponds on the Bayou Pierre Unit will
allow the refuge to hold water on a portion of the impoundments through the summer. High quality
habitat can be provided following a late summer drawdown, thus providing foraging habitat for wading
birds in the summer and shorebird habitat during the peak of fall migration. This is all in addition to the
benefits shorebird species will receive following the normal spring drawdown on the other units. An
inclusive list of shorebird species is yet to be developed for this new refuge.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
More than 200 species of neotropical migratory birds use the Red River at various times of the year.
Refuge habitats utilized include forested wetlands, scrub/shrub, open fields, sandbars, shallow
flooded fields, and mudflats.
Water and Marsh Birds
The great blue heron (Ardea herodias); great egret (Ardea alba); snowy egret (Egretta thula); cattle
egret (Bubulcus ibis); little blue heron (Egretta caerulea); white ibis (Eudocimus albus); green heron
(Butorides virescens); yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violaceus); black-crowned night-heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax); American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus); white-faced ibis (Plegadis
chihi); pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps); common moorhen (Gallinula hloropus); purple
gallinule (Porphyrula martinica); and sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) use the refuge’s sloughs,
bayous, flooded timber, scrub/shrub and open fields at different times of the year, depending upon
the water levels. Roseate spoonbills (Ajaia ajaja), wood storks (Mycteria americana), and tricolored
herons (Egretta tricolor) are seen irregularly, usually during post-breeding dispersal in late summer.
Least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis) most likely migrate through the refuge. Concentrations of double-crested
cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) use the refuge during winter. Anhingas (Anhinga
anhinga) are found along the river and associated oxbow lakes and sloughs during the summer.
American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) are sometimes seen in the open flooded fields
in late summer and during migration. No major rookeries are known to occur on the refuge. Virginia
rails (Rallus limicola) and sora rails (Porzana carolina) probably winter in appropriate habitat on the
refuge. King rails (Rallus elegans) may breed irregularly in the open fields if water levels are suitable.
American coots (Fulica americana) are present year-round and are especially abundant in winter.
Mammals
Forty-four species of mammals are known or are likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix I), although an
inventory has not been conducted. White-tailed deer are the only big game on the refuge.
Furbearers found on the refuge include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana); raccoon (Procyon
lotor); striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis); river otter (Lutra canadensis); beaver (Castor canadensis);
mink (Mustela vison); nutria (Myocastor coypus); and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Gray fox
(Urocyon cincreoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcats (Felis rufus)
are also present. Both eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and swamp rabbits (Sylvilagus
aquaticus) inhabit the refuge. Fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) and gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)
are found on the refuge, with fox squirrels in the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the
small amount of dense forest.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Serveral species of bats are known or are likely to occur on the refuge. These include the Rafinesque’s
big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii); southeastern myotis (Myotis aystroriparius); big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus); eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis); Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus); evening bat
(Nycticeius humeralis); and during migration, the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).
No inventories have been conducted on small mammals such as mice, voles, or moles.
Reptiles and Amphibians
More than 70 species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge. These species are
listed in Appendix I.
Fish
Red River National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for many species of freshwater fish (Appendix I).
Important game species found in refuge waters include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus); redear
sunfish (Lepomis microlophus); longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis); white crappie (Pomoxis
annularis); black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus); largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); yellow
bass (Morone mississippiensis); and white bass (Morone chrysops). Other species include blue
catfish (Ictalurus furcatus); flathead catfish (Pylodictus olivaris); channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus);
smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus); bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus); black buffalo (Ictiobus
niger); freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens); longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus); shortnose gar
(Lepisosteus platostomus); alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula); spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus);
bowfin (Amia calva); and carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Species of Concern
Priority bird species for conservation that may occur on or near the refuge include the cerulean
warbler (Dendroica cerulea); Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii); the recently delisted bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); and endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), which nests
on riverine sandbars. Other species of concern identified by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries (Lester et al. 2005) and others for the the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain that may occur on
or near the refuge are the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii), rusty blackbird
(Euphagus carolinus), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, and southeastern myotis.
Cerulean Warbler. This warbler has a large breeding range in eastern North America, but is declining
even with population expansion in some areas. This decline is apparently due to habitat loss and
fragmentation, with the greatest effect perhaps occurring on the South American wintering range.
North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a significant population decline in eastern North
America. The decline has been most pronounced in the core of the breeding range (Robbins et al.
1992). Population size has declined across range in eastern U.S., but the species has experienced
some range expansion particularly in the Northeastern U.S. and Ontario perhaps in response to
forest maturation (Oliarnyk and Robertson 1996).
Swainson’s Warbler. One of the most secretive and least observed of all North American birds, the
Swainson’s warbler is a skulking bird found in canebrakes and wooded wetland edges. The
Swainson’s warbler holds a large territory for such a small bird, defending between 7 to 45 acres. It is
difficult to assess population numbers, but habitat specificity puts the species at risk from habitat loss,
both on the breeding and wintering grounds.
32 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Bald Eagle. Bald eagles breed throughout the United States and winter throughout the southern
portion of its breeding range. Bald eagles have been seen near some of the refuge units. They feed
on fish, waterfowl, coots, muskrats, and nutria. The bald eagle has officially been removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Species as of August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana
from October through mid-May. Eagles typically nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore,
willow, etc.) near fresh to intermediate marshes or open water in the southeastern Parishes. Eagles
also winter and infrequently nest in mature pine trees near large lakes in central and northern
Louisiana. Major threats to this species include habitat alteration, human disturbance, and
environmental contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides and lead). Although the bald eagle has
been removed from the threatened and endangered species list, it continues to be protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Service
developed the National Bald Eagle Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land
managers, and others with information and recommendations regarding how to minimize potential
project impacts to bald eagles, particularly where such impacts may constitute “disturbance,” which is
prohibited by the BGEPA. A copy of the NBEM Guidelines is available on the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf.
Interior Least Tern. Interior populations of the least tern, formerly well distributed in the Mississippi
Basin, now survive only in scattered remnants. Least tern habitat has been decimated by extensive
water management projects and increased use of beaches and sandbars. The species is listed by
the Service as Endangered with the following caveats: Louisiana, Mississippi River and tributaries
north of Baton Rouge; Mississippi, Mississippi River only; and Texas, everywhere except the Texas
coast and a 50-mile zone inland from the the coast.
Recorded interior least tern nesting locations occur on the Red River from Arkansas south to
Natchitoches. Throughout the reach, the tern nests in shallow, inconspicuous depressions in open
areas on sandbars and sand islands. These nests are subject to detrimental effects from a variety of
predatory and nonpredatory impacts. Nonpredatory impacts include human recreational activity,
most notably all terrain vehicles or other off road vehicles, livestock foraging and naturally occurring
hydrologic conditions.
Alligator Snapping Turtle. Alligator snapping turtles are the largest freshwater turtles in the United
States. They are protected from commercial harvest in every state. Louisiana protected them from
commercial harvest starting in 2004. Commercial harvest of these turtles threatens their population
because alligator snapping turtles do not breed until they are approximately 15 years old, and the
harvest targets adults. Nest depredation by raccoons, skunks, opossums, and fire ants also harm the
population significantly. The refuge has participated in alligator snapping turtle research studies on
the Headquarters Unit; however, the number of turtles on the refuge remains unknown.
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat. The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is the least studied bat in the eastern
United States (Harvey et al. 1999) and is federally designated as a species of special management
concern (USFWS 1999). This bat is associated with bottomland hardwoods, and since this habitat
has decreased, many biologists are concerned about its status. Many states consider the species to
be either threatened or endangered. However, Louisiana has no official designation for the
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Recent studies have shown that this species often roosts in water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica) trees (Gooding and Langford 2004; Trousdale and Beckett 2005)
Southeastern Myotis. Southeastern myotis are associated with riparian areas and/or bottomland
hardwood forests and are listed as federal species of special management concern. They are often
captured in mist nets more frequently than big-eared bats, but their populations are thought to be
declining. Southeastern myotis roost in caves (Harvey 1992) in the northern part of their range, but
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
little is known about their roosting habits in areas where there are no caves, such as Louisiana.
Recent research has revealed that this species also favors water tupelo trees as roosts (unpublished
data, Bayou Cocodrie NWR and Upper Ouachita NWR).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the framework for federal review and
consideration of cultural resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing
regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) and sets forth significance criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural
resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a federal
undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an
undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect
jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those
carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and
those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal
agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the
Interior, and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion.
Like all federal agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must abide by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the
Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be
affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement.
The Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about
procedures, compliance, and implementation of the several cultural resources laws. The refuge
manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO (early in the process) about Service undertakings,
by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service-managed and administered lands,
by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.
Red River National Wildlife Refuge follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in
preserving any cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work
is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment such as tractors,
graders, and bulldozers, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources
expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are
submitted to the RHPO as well as to the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The
SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is,
whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources
are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately.
To date, no properties on the refuge have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The refuge is divided into five separate refuge units spread over 120 miles of the Red River Valley
from the Arkansas/Louisiana state line to near Alexandria, Louisiana. The refuge units are located in
parts of Caddo, Bossier, DeSoto, Red River, and Natchitoches parishes, Louisiana. The Red River
Valley in Louisiana felt the pressure of European colonialization at an early stage. Continued
agricultural development throughout the 1800s and early 1900s caused almost all the historic
bottomland hardwood forest to be cleared. The valley is now one of the most environmentally
degraded floodplains in the state. Four of the refuge units are in a rural setting; the fifth unit is
34 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
located in the major metropolitan area of Shreveport and Bossier City. Table 1 provides an overview
of the demographics of the five parishes that contain portions of the refuge.
Table 1. Demographics of Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Natchitoches, and Red River parishes,
Louisiana.
Parish Population Households Percent
Caucasian
Popu.
Density
(indiv/sq.mi.)
Median
Income
(per
household)
Bossier 105,541 36,628 75.2 117.1 $40,581
Caddo 251,309 97,974 51.6 285.9 $32,575
DeSoto 26,383 9,691 58.4 29.1 $29,803
Natchitoches 38,541 14,263 57.8 31.1 $27,272
Red River 9622 3414 57.9 24.7 $23,153
(Based on 2000 Census data)
Data provided by the latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation
(USDI et al. 2003) show that for the year 2001, a total of 1.6 million people participated in fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-watching activities in Louisiana. These activities resulted in roughly $1.6 billion
in expenditures, with the majority spent on equipment (58%) and trip-related (36%) expenses. Of
these totals, approximately 970,000 enthusiasts participated in fishing and 12.1 million fishing trips
were made. The total expenditures for fishing were $703 million, with 57% trip-related, 39% for
equipment, and 5% for other expenses. A total of 333,000 enthusiasts participated in hunting and 6.3
million hunting trips were made. Total hunting expenditures were $446 million, with 61% spent on
equipment, 27% trip-related, and 12% for other expenses. A total of 935,000 enthusiasts participated
in wildlife watching and 2.4 million trips were made. Total expenditures for wildlife watching were
$168 million, with 58% spent on equipment, 33% trip-related, and 9% for other expenses.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge now owns fee title to approximately 20% of the 50,000 acres within its legislatively
designated acquisition boundary. The refuge is in an active land acquisition mode and pursuing
partnership efforts such as the carbon sequestration/electric utility partnership to help in this
acquisition effort.
VISITOR SERVICES
Currently, public use is available on only two of the five refuge units (Figure 7). Portions of the
Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit and Bayou Pierre Unit are open to hunting. Species hunted are
ducks, geese, coot, quail, woodcock, squirrel, raccoon, opossum, feral hogs, coyotes, beaver,
and deer. Deer hunting is by archery only. The hunting seasons on the refuge are the same as
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 7. Current public use on Red River National Wildlife Refuge.
36 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
the state seasons. Although the Spanish Lake Lowlands Unit is open to hunting, no parking lots
exist and access into the unit is poor.
Because Red River NWR is a young refuge, its visitor use program is not well-developed. An approved
Visitor Services Plan has not yet been developed for the refuge. Currently little, if any, orientation
information is provided to direct visitors to the refuge or to welcome visitors at the refuge. The refuge has
completed an opening package for hunting and fishing on some portions of the refuge. Compatible public
uses on the refuge (wildlife-dependent recreational uses as designated in the Land Protection Plan
Interim Compatibility Determination, April 2002) currently include wildlife observation and photography;
recreational fishing in accordance with State of Louisiana regulations; recreational hunting of migratory
birds and resident game in accordance with State of Louisiana regulations; and wildlife-oriented
environmental education activities. At present, the primary wildlife-dependent public uses of the refuge
include fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation and photography.
Fishing and boating on the Spanish Lake Lowlands and Bayou Pierre units are permitted year-round
during daylight hours only. Licenses, limits, and boating safety requirements are the same as those
adopted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Access to the Spanish Lake
Lowlands fishing area is poor. There is interest in opening the Headquarters Unit to fishing, but
improved access is currently unavailable.
Wildlife observation and photography are encouraged. However, currently the fee title land base is
minimal, with very little public access. As acquisition continues, management foresees an increase in
this use. Designated hiking trails, observation platforms, and photo blinds are not currently available.
Opportunities for partnering with other agencies or organizations exist. The American Wetland
Birding Trail has expressed an interest in establishing some stops for birders on the refuge, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service has offered to help establish a variety of habitats at the
Headquarters Unit to increase birdwatching and other wildlife observation opportunities.
The refuge does not have an environmental education program at present. Kiosks, interpretive
panels, and interpretive programs are not available at the refuge. As the refuge continues to buy
land, there will be trails and observation areas developed. Funding has been provided to build an
office/visitor center at the Headquarters Unit. Once the building is completed and the associated
trails and kiosk are built, the refuge will then have the facilities for an education program; however,
the refuge does not currently have staff to conduct an environmental education program or to staff the
visitor center once it is opened.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Currently, the refuge has a staff of one—the refuge manager. However, the refuge is a part of the
Service’s North Louisiana Refuges Complex and shares portions of the staff. Since it began
operations, the refuge has relied on help from such groups as The Nature Conservancy and the
Audubon Society, as well as the Red River Refuge Alliance. The Red River Refuge Alliance, in
particular, has been instrumental in providing volunteers to increase public awareness and to
increase support from local, state, and federal agencies regarding pressing refuge issues. In the
years to come, the refuge will continue to rely on the assistance of these organizations to augment its
resource management and public use activities.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
In developing this comprehensive conservation plan, the planning team identified a number of issues,
concerns and opportunities related to wildlife and habitat management, resource protection, public
use and environmental education, and refuge administration. Additionally, the planning team
considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and
plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input through public scoping meetings,
planning team meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. All public and advisory team
comments were considered. However, some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of
the decision to be made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues that were
raised through this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance competing
opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional
judgment, are most significant to the refuge. These issues are summarized below.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Threatened and Endangered Species
The protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species is an important responsibility of
the Service and its national wildlife refuges. One endangered species known to use areas on and/or
near this refuge complex is the interior least tern. Terns travel along the Red River and nest along or
within the refuge boundary. Surveys during the nesting season are needed to determine nest
locations. The least terns primarily utilize the sandbars along the Red River as their primary habitat.
Active management of these sandbars can encourage and promote benefits to these birds. The
refuge will need to coordinate any management activities on these sandbars with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers, the Red River Waterway Commission, and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries because many of the sandbars are not included in the fee-title property of the refuge. A
complete inventory of species occurrence on the refuge is needed to determine if other species of
concern occur on the refuge.
Resident Wildlife
To better understand the biodiversity and environmental health of refuge lands, baseline information on
wildlife and their habitats must be collected. These data will document presence or absence, monitor
trends, and identify the impacts of refuge programs on species. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to
the Red River Valley inhabits the five units of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge
assumes responsibility for managing resident wildlife that is dependent on refuge resources.
White-tailed deer occur on the refuge and have the potential to adversely affect habitats unless their
numbers are kept at or slightly below the carrying capacity of the habitat. Hunting programs also
provide opportunities for raccoon, rabbits, squirrel, and the incidental taking of beaver, coyote, and
feral hogs. Overpopulation of raccoon, beaver, coyote, and feral swine adversely impact other
species. Raccoon predation on the nests of turkey, wood ducks, turtles and songbirds can limit the
reproductive success of those species. Raccoons also spread canine distemper, a common close-contact
disease, to other species such as fox. Beavers have become pests on parts of the refuge by
building dams that flood trees, which can cause die-offs of large tracts of bottomland hardwoods.
Feral hogs are destructive to habitats and compete with native wildlife for food.
38 Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Migratory Birds
Public opinion in the refuge area continues to overwhelmingly support efforts to expand habitat
management programs for migratory and resident waterfowl. Habitat management actions to support
waterfowl populations include providing high-calorie agricultural crops such as rice, corn, milo, and
millet and managing and maintaining moist-soil areas and forested wetlands to meet the feeding,
resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. The refuge intends to support and
be a part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. This will require a management plan
for the refuge that determines a minimum acreage of habitat and objectives to provide sufficient
water, food, sanctuary, and resting/loafing areas to meet the needs of wintering waterfowl.
Particular attention will be given to the amount of refuge croplands and moist-soil areas needed to
meet habitat objectives and to the numbers of waterfowl that these cropland and moist-soil areas can
support. Lands currently in agricultural crops that exceed acreages needed to meet objectives will be
evaluated for conversions to moist-soil, early successional habitats, or reforestation to address the
needs of other species of migratory birds and mammals.
Neotropical migratory birds are of special management concern. The Partners in Flight Conservation
Plan is currently developing habitat objectives in the West Gulf Coastal Plain to support viable
populations of these species. Large contiguous blocks of interior forest are extremely rare along the
entire Red River valley due to land clearing, primarily for agriculture. The reforestation efforts
underway at the Red River NWR will help restore this much-needed habitat.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Bottomland Hardwood Management and Restoration
Historically, the entire Red River valley along the stretch of the river enco