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

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TENSAS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
FRANKLIN, MADISON, AND TENSAS PARISHES, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
January 2009
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
........................................................................................................................................... 5
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 10
Oil and Gas Activities ................................................................................................................. 10
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 16
Loss of Bottomland Hardwoods and Fragmentation ......................................................... 16
Encroachment of Invasives ............................................................................................... 17
Altered Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 20
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 22
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 22
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 22
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 22
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 23
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23
Water Quality and QuanTity .............................................................................................. 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 26
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 26
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 34
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 49
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 49
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 50
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 50
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 61
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 63
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 63
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 63
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 64
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 65
ii Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 66
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 66
Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 66
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 67
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 67
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 68
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 68
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 74
Resource Protection and Management ............................................................................ 93
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 101
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 108
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 111
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 111
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 111
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 111
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 113
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 114
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 114
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 114
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 115
Partnership and Volunteers Opportunities ............................................................................... 115
Volunteers ....................................................................................................................... 115
Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................... 116
Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 116
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 117
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 117
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 119
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 119
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 119
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 120
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 120
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 120
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 120
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 121
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 123
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 125
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 125
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 125
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action Alternative) ......................................... 125
Alternative B – Custodial Management........................................................................... 126
Alternative C – Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) ................................... 126
Table of Contents iii
Features Common to All Alternatives ....................................................................................... 127
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................ 140
Visitor Services Focus ..................................................................................................... 140
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 141
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 141
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 141
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 141
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 141
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 142
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 142
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 142
Refuge Revenue-sharing ................................................................................................ 143
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 143
Summary of Effects .................................................................................................................. 143
Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 143
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 144
Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 144
Species of Concern ......................................................................................................... 145
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 146
Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 147
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 154
Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 154
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 154
Human Resources .......................................................................................................... 155
Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ........................................ 155
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 156
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 156
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 156
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 157
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 157
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 157
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .......................................... 157
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 158
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 158
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 159
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 159
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 159
Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ............................................................................... 160
Biological Review Team .................................................................................................. 160
Visitor Services Review Team ........................................................................................ 160
Other Contributors .................................................................................................................... 161
iv Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 163
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 170
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 173
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 179
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 193
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 199
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 211
Use: Wildlife Observation And Photography ........................................................................... 213
Use: Environmental Education And Interpretation .................................................................. 214
Use: Field Trials ...................................................................................................................... 218
Use: Boating ............................................................................................................................ 221
Use: Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management ................................................................... 224
Use: Trapping .......................................................................................................................... 226
Use: All-Terrain Vehicle Use ................................................................................................... 228
Use: Cooperative Farming Program ........................................................................................ 231
Use: Research Studies............................................................................................................ 233
Use: Horse/Mule Special Use ................................................................................................. 234
Use: Fire Management ............................................................................................................ 237
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 241
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 245
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 247
Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 247
Mammals That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ................................................................ 255
Reptiles That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR .................................................................. 257
Fish That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ......................................................................... 259
Amphibians That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ............................................................. 262
Plants That Could Occur on Tensas River NWR ..................................................................... 263
Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species & Natural Communities ........................................ 290
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 293
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, Tallulah, Louisiana. ................................................. 2
Figure 2. Mineral Extraction and Activities on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................... 12
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Tensas River Watershed. .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 5. Reforestation on Tensas River National Wildilfe Refuge ..................................................... 27
Figure 6. Moist-soil and wildlife cropland units on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. ................ 29
Figure 7. Current Public Use on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 54
Figure 8. Proposed Visitor Services on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ............................... 102
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Tensas River NWR Habitat Types ........................................................................................ 26
Table 2. Water Management Units at Tensas River NWR ................................................................. 30
Table 3. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Area Economy, 2005 ....................................................... 50
Table 4. Tensas River NWR: 2006 Recreation Visits ......................................................................... 55
Table 5. Tensas River NWR: Visitor Recreation Expenditures ........................................................... 56
Table 6. Tensas River NWR: Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits .................. 57
Table 7. Tensas River NWR: Summary of Local Economic Effects of Recreation Visits .................... 59
Table 8. Duck-energy Days per acre of Selected Foraging Habitats .................................................. 73
Table 9. Browse Survey Results Tensas River NWR ......................................................................... 79
Table 10. Summary of Projects .......................................................................................................... 115
Table 11. Tensas River NWR Step-down Management Plans .......................................................... 116
Table 12. Comparison of Management Alternatives for Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge ....... 129
Table 13. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative, Tensas River NWR ............................ 148
vi Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Tallulah, Louisiana, (Figure 1) was prepared to guide
management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first
priority in refuge management. Wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long
as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which
it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ (Service) proposed plan, other alternatives considered,
and their effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to federal and state
agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from
each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
This Draft CCP/EA will also address the purposes for which the refuge was established; and these are:
􀁹􇤠 Preservation and development of the environmental resource;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve the diversity of fish and wildlife and their habitat;
􀁹􇤠 Conservation and development of wildlife and natural resources;
􀁹􇤠 Development of outdoor recreation opportunities;
􀁹􇤠 Interpretive education; and
􀁹􇤠 Conserve fish and wildlife that are listed as endangered species or threatened species.
2 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Tensas River NWR, Tallulah, Louisiana
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and to the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and to the establishment of a Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds
and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was
changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
On June 30, 1940, the Bureau of Fisheries and Bureau of Biological Survey combined to create the
Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior. The name was changed to the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds, endangered species,
certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife research activities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of
lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska.
The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In
addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery
resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws;
administers the Endangered Species Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally
significant fisheries; conserves and restores wildlife habitat; and helps foreign governments with their
conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of
dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation
for the Refuge System. Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new
legislation including an effort to complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed
with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural
resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs
will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act
states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
4 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of CCPs that are prepared for each unit of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 Allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
NWR, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting birds in Florida
such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for American
bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting,
competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas, i.e., protection of
prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also
includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By
1973, the Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
In Fiscal Year 2006, 34.8 million people visited refuges, most to observe wildlife in their natural
habitats (Caudell and Carver 2007). Their spending generated almost $1.7 billion in sales in regional
economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 27,000 people were employed,
and $542.8 million in employment income was generated. About 82 percent of total expenditures are
generated by non-consumptive activities on refuges. Fishing accounted for 12 percent and hunting 6
percent. Local residents accounted for 13 percent of expenditures while visitors coming from outside
the local area accounted for 87 percent (Caudell and Carver 2007). The above results include refuge
visitation in the contiguous United States. Spending and employment by the refuges themselves,
payments in lieu of taxes, commercial activities on refuges, and many other economic effects of
refuges on local economies were not considered in this analysis.
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers
contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state,
and private landowners and that Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity
for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving the refuge unit purposes. The CCP will
be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates including
Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge
System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies
for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Tensas River NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Tensas River NWR and other partners. Examples of partners include the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Tensas
River NWR Friends Association, and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened.
No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a
use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the
refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are “…maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.…” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
6 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP.
This Draft CCP supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Partners in Flight Plan, the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan, and the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan, and the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. NAWMP’s
goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the NAWMP in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994 making it a truly continental effort. The NAWMP is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state, and municipal governments; non-governmental organizations; private
companies; and many individuals all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of
migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. NAWMP’s projects are international in
scope but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) is a critical
ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America. Tensas River NWR provides
important foraging and resting (sanctuary) habitats within the MAV for these waterfowl and serves an
integral role in a large, cooperative planning and habitat management effort of the NAWMP.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight (PIF) Plan,
the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based landbird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds,
primarily non-game landbirds. Non-game landbirds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This PIF Plan is voluntary and non-regulatory
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The PIF Plan formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation Regions that set
conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Habitats found on Tensas River
NWR and associated bird species that are considered a priority in the MAV (BCR 05) include
(Twedt et al., 1999):
1. Bottomland hardwood forest: ivory-billed woodpecker, swallow-tailed kite, Swainson’s
warbler, cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and northern parula,
2. Secondary growth: painted bunting and Bell’s vireo, and
3. Moist cleared land: shorebirds and waterfowl.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Tensas River NWR is included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region.
This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall shorebird habitat as possible to meet the goal
of 520 hectare of fall habitat in Louisiana (Helmers 1992). The following species are considered high priority
for the region: piping plover, American golden-plover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling,
buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope (Wilson 2000).
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the conservation
and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands; introduced predators and invasive species; pollutants; mortality
from fisheries and industries; disturbance; and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly
important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier
and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed including breeding populations
of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and gulf coast populations
of brown pelicans (Hunter and Golder, In prep). A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data
collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state-partnering agency with the
Service. The LDWF is charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and
endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources and approximately 1.4 million
acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates the state wildlife
conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management
areas. The state’s participation and contribution throughout this Draft CCP/EA planning process
provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of
fish and wildlife in the State of Louisiana. A vital part of the CCP’s process is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
8 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
In 2005, LDWF published a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Lester 2005).
The components or steps of the CWCS are:
1. Assess the distribution and abundance of wildlife species including rare and declining
species that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife.
2. Describe the location and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential
to conservation of these species.
3. Identify problems that adversely affect these species and habitats as well as research and
survey efforts needed to address these problems.
4. Identify conservation actions needed to conserve these species and habitats and priorities
for implementing these actions.
5. Develop plans for monitoring these species and habitats, monitoring the effectiveness of
conservation actions, and adapting conservation actions to respond to new information or
changing conditions.
6. Develop procedures to review the conservation strategy at intervals not to exceed ten
years.
7. Coordinate plan development and implementation with federal, state, and local
governments and other organizations that manage significant areas of the state or
administer wildlife conservation programs.
8. Encourage public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of the
conservation strategy.
The CCP for Tensas River NWR was developed with the cooperation of LDWF and incorporates
many elements of the Louisiana CWCS.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
National wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals,
birds, fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. They also play a vital role in conserving endangered
and threatened species. Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities,
and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education programs.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
When the first European settlers arrived in the Mississippi Delta, over 25 million acres of seasonally
flooded bottomland hardwood forests carpeted the Mississippi Valley. Now less than 5 million acres
remain in many scattered areas. In an effort to conserve the largest privately owned tract of
bottomland hardwoods remaining in the Mississippi Delta, Congress authorized the Secretary of the
Interior to establish the Tensas River NWR by Public Law 96-285 on June 28, 1980. Tensas River
NWR was established for various purposes:
“For the preservation and development of the environmental resources ... to conserve the diversity of
fish and wildlife and their habitat ... for the conservation and development of wildlife and natural
resources, the development of outdoor recreation opportunities, and interpretative education,” and “to
give special consideration to management of the timber on the refuge to insure continued commercial
production and harvest compatible with the purposes for which the refuge is established and the
needs of fish and wildlife which depend upon the dynamic and diversified hardwood forest” (94 Stat.
595, dated June 28, 1980);
“For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] “for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms
of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956)];
“For conservation purposes” [7 U.S.C. 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)];
“To conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or
(B) plants” [16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)].
Tensas River NWR consists of 74,622 acres in fee title and 195 acres in easement. It is located in
the Tensas Basin in northeast Louisiana approximately 60 miles southeast of Monroe, Louisiana, and
25 miles southwest of Vicksburg, Mississippi. The refuge area encompasses portions of Madison,
Tensas, and Franklin Parishes. The office/visitor center and maintenance facilities on the refuge are
located approximately 12 miles southwest of Tallulah, Louisiana (see Figure 1).
Most of the refuge lands were acquired from Chicago Mill and Lumber Company holdings. The main
purchase area, locally referred to as the Singer Tract, was used as a source for the wood in old
Singer sewing machines and framing for the cars of the 1920s and 1930s.
10 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge was acquired through a joint effort of the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) to mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources associated with six flood control projects
under construction or being planned in this portion of the state. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act that calls for the wildlife resource to be considered along with other values associated with water
resource development projects recommended the mitigation lands.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Designation and management of natural areas is delegated to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of October 15, 1966. Research natural areas
and public use natural areas are administratively designated, modified, or abrogated by the Director. As
discussed below, there are several areas throughout the refuge totaling 9,075 acres that will be proposed
in this Draft CCP/EA as public use natural areas.
Public use natural areas exemplify relatively undisturbed ecosystems that are available for public use
with certain restrictions for protecting the integrity and significance of the areas. Such an area must
possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting an element of the natural heritage of
the nation. Only the Refuge System fosters this designation. There are two objectives for public use
natural areas. These are (1) to assure the preservation of a variety of significant natural areas for
public use, which, when considered together, illustrate the diversity of the Refuge System’s natural
environments; and (2) to preserve for the future valuable environments that are essentially
unmodified by man.
While the refuge promotes, where possible and compatible, public use and enjoyment of the natural
resources available on the refuge, there are areas that are closed to the public. The Greenlea Bend
is such an area. This area consists of agricultural fields interspersed with moist-soil areas. They are
closed to the public in order to provide sanctuary for neotropical migratory birds, migratory waterfowl,
deer, the threatened Louisiana black bear, and other wildlife.
The Greenlea Bend “Closed Area” was initiated by the public when it was determined that the entire
unit would be managed for crops and moist soil in order to provide a sanctuary for waterfowl. At the
time, it supported large flocks of wintering waterfowl. As a waterfowl sanctuary, it performed in that
function spectacularly. Its role as sanctuary for the other species is questionable. Since its heyday, a
variety of factors has led to a drastic decline in waterfowl use of the refuge. One factor was a desire
to fulfill large-scale habitat needs and reduce forest fragmentation for the benefit of forest-dependent
neotropical songbirds. In order to reduce this fragmentation, much of the Greenlea Bend agricultural
area was replanted with bottomland hardwoods. This reforestation program reduced the desirability
of the habitat for many waterfowl species.
When “Wilderness Area” or Stutz Field was an agricultural waterfowl sanctuary, it was closed to the
public. Later, it was reforested but remained closed to public access. In 2005-06, it was opened to
all access except waterfowl hunting and deer hunting with modern firearms. Deer hunting was
allowed as a management tool to reduce the size of the deer herd in this area due to overbrowsing of
the replanted trees and the excessive rubbing damage to young trees by rutting bucks.
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES
Mineral rights were not actively obtained when the refuge was acquired. Since private interests hold
most subsurface mineral rights within the refuge, mineral exploration and production activities can
most likely occur anywhere on the refuge; however, most of the oil and gas exploration on Tensas
River NWR occurred prior to its inception in 1980. Currently, only seven of the original 96 wells
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
drilled are in production (Figure 2). Most (82) of the wells that were drilled have been properly
plugged and abandoned. Twenty-eight of these were productive wells that were properly dismantled
after their oil reserves were exhausted, and 54 were dry holes (determined not productive at time of
drilling). Four of the remaining wells are listed in the "shut-in" status. A shut-in well is not producing
and either has mechanical problems down hole or is not economically feasible to produce
hydrocarbons. Most of the shut-in wells on Tensas River NWR have been shut-in for many years.
Shut-in wells can be a problem because wells that have received no attention after long periods of
time can become potential environmental threats. Pressure can build up down hole, and if not
released, the pressure can cause blowouts. These blowouts can have major negative environmental
implications because hydrocarbons and highly saline water can be released into the surrounding
environment. Two additional wells are actively used for saltwater disposal. Well #183567 formerly
operated by D. G. Hamilton has been abandoned and is listed by the State of Louisiana as orphaned.
An additional five wells were permitted but never drilled.
Tensas River NWR currently has one transmission pipeline owned by Ashland Pipeline Company.
The transmission line crosses approximately two miles of refuge land and moves products off the
refuge. The refuge also has 12 flow lines that transport products from wells to production facilities
across approximately ten miles of refuge land.
As the surface owner, Tensas River NWR has the right to require any old, out-of-use equipment and
wells that are not in production to be removed so that sites can be returned to wildlife habitat and the
threat of environmental contamination minimized.
Tensas River NWR requires all spills of any quantity be reported to the refuge, so proper cleanup can
be accomplished. It is imperative that documentation of any release onto refuge property be
maintained in case it is relevant in the future. In some cases, once a mineral lessee is aware of a
landowner's concerns, problems will be addressed. In other cases, it may take persistence and
perseverance to have the refuge's surface returned to use as habitat. Good communication with the
mineral lessee is the key to working toward site restoration.
There have been some recent requests to perform exploratory drilling on the refuge. Natural gas
exploration and production activities involve a number of operations, including, but not restricted to,
seismic testing; surveying; site clearing; well drilling; road and pipeline construction; maintenance of
wells, pipelines, and other above-ground facilities; periodic meter reading and inspections; and well-plugging
operations. Any drilling activity will require refuge approval as will any extraction processes
that require surface alteration such as pipelines.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the MAV (Figure 3). The MAV consists of
approximately 25 million acres of alluvial floodplain south of the Mississippi River’s confluence with the
Ohio River. Prior to European settlement, this was the greatest bottomland hardwood forest on Earth and
was subject to massive annual flood events from the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These forested
wetlands were the main wintering area for mid-continent mallards, wood ducks, and other waterfowl
species. Flood control and deforestation for agriculture began more than 100 years ago. Today, less
than 25 percent of the region remains forested, and flooding has been reduced by about 90 percent.
Despite these changes, the region still winters large numbers of waterfowl, estimated at about nine
percent of the continental duck population.
12 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Mineral extraction and activities on Tensas River NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
The Tensas River NWR is a part of a larger system of national wildlife refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper
Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, and Handy Brake) and state wildlife management areas in north
Louisiana that are focused on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwoods.
Together with a number of properties under easement/contract through the Wetland Reserve
Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other reforestation activities, the refuge is part of a
125,000-acre block of bottomland hardwood forest. There are only five or six other forest blocks
exceeding 100,000 acres in the MAV, which makes this an important and unique area, particularly for
forest breeding birds and other species requiring large forest blocks to meet their habitat needs.
Along with the national conservation plans noted in Chapter I above, Tensas River NWR has the
opportunity to contribute to several regional plans. Some regional plans include the Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan, the
Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan, the American Woodcock Management Plan, the Northern
Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, and the Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
These ecosystem-wide efforts guide Service and state efforts in such areas as wetland forest
management, endangered species management, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation in
order to enhance, restore, and conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types
associated with bottomland hardwoods.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) Plan. The LMRE includes the alluvial plain in the
Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River and the delta plain and associated
marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The
drainage basin and tributaries of the Tensas River, which include Tensas River NWR, are a part of
the West Gulf Coastal Plain upland section of the LMRE. The LMRE serves as a primary wintering
habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations as well as breeding and migration habitat for
migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain forests of the past are now fragmented bottomland
hardwood patches due to flood control projects and to conversion to agriculture.
Each unit, including the LMRE, is represented by an ecosystem team, which has developed its own
biologically based strategy. The ecosystem team for this unit consists of representatives from all of
the Service's field units (national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, law enforcement,
Ecological Services offices, and Fishery Resources offices). The team developed eight goals that
this Draft CCP/EA will consider and promote when establishing refuge goals and objectives to ensure
that the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem conservation and integrity. These goals are:
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE;
􀁹�� Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered,
and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries;
􀁹􇤠 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management;
􀁹􇤠 Enforce natural resource laws; and
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
14 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird
Conservation Plan is a subset of the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Because this
physiographic area was historically a nearly contiguous bottomland hardwood forest and because the
majority of the bird species of highest concern are dependent on forested wetlands, bottomland
hardwood forest is the habitat of greatest concern in the MAV. One of the goals of this plan is to
increase the size of contiguous blocks of bottomland hardwood forest in order to improve the
breeding success of many wetland forest dependent species of concern.
Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The Louisiana black bear is a “listed” species considered
“Threatened” in its range. Recovery plans are prepared by the Service to delineate reasonable
actions that are believed to aid in efforts to recover and/or protect listed species. The objective of the
Service’s recovery plan is the delisting of the Louisiana black bear. The criteria for achieving delisting
are: (1) at least two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins; (2)
establishment of immigration and emigration corridors between the two subpopulations; and, (3)
protection of the habitat and interconnecting cooridors that support each of the two viable
subpopulations used as justification for delisting. The Tensas River NWR bear population is vital to
this species recovery.
Black Bear Conservation Committee Restoration Plan. This plan is used in conjunction with the
Service’s Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. The goal of this plan is to restore the Louisiana black
bear to suitable habitat within its historical range. The priorities of this plan are to put the resource
first, to find common ground for building coalitions while avoiding confrontations, to replace emotion
with credible science, and to have a strong commitment to black bear restoration and management.
American Woodcock Management Plan. Woodcock trends in the United States have been
declining annually for the last 15 years in spite of actions that have been taken to ensure that hunting
does not substantially promote declines, such as reduced bag limits and limited season lengths. An
American Woodcock Management Plan initiated in the 1990s points out the need for improved
breeding, migration, and wintering habitat to enhance population growth and survival (USFWS 1990).
Much of the decline is thought to be a result of land use changes and the maturing of forest habitats
resulting in fewer early successional scrub/shrub habitats preferred by woodcock.
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. The initiative’s goal is to restore northern bobwhite
populations, range-wide, to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres
in 1980. The population objective for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region is to add
131,033 new coveys, 21,833 of these in Louisiana. Habitat management is the primary vehicle for
accomplishing this goal with two special objectives, which the refuge will consider during the
development of this Draft CCP/EA:
􀁹􇤠 Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood rearing,
and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season
grasses and other conservation plantings, such as shrubs and forbs; and
􀁹􇤠 Conserve and enhance the quality of rangelands by utilizing vegetation management
practices and grazing regimes that favor the retention and improvement of native plant
communities beneficial to bobwhites and other wildlife.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
16 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. This program will direct the overall
effort by the LDWF over the next ten years in assessing the status of and managing, where
appropriate, the varied habitats and wildlife species in Louisiana. Conservation actions have been
developed for each ecoregion in the state in order to address threats to the habitats of these areas.
The state will work with a variety of partners in carrying out these recommended conservation
actions. The state considers the Service an important partner in this process and the Tensas River
NWR an important part of actions to be taken in Tensas River Watershed ecoregion.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
In order to prepare a CCP that will establish goals and objectives on how to manage this refuge over
the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were followed. One of those steps was an internal
review of known ecological threats and problems that may hinder the ability of refuge personnel to
fulfill the objectives of the refuge. That review developed the following list of concerns:
􀁹􇤠 Loss of bottomland hardwoods and fragmentation;
􀁹􇤠 Encroachment of invasives; and
􀁹􇤠 Altered hydrology.
LOSS OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS AND FRAGMENTATION
The entire 25-million-acre MAV was once a floodplain forest of primarily oak-gum-cypress cover
types. It has been estimated that 20 million acres of these bottomland hardwood forests have now
been lost, and the remaining forests are in thousands of fragments throughout a changed landscape.
The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land clearing for agricultural and
flood control purposes.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity and integrity and the environmental health of the MAV. Vast
areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments ranging in size from
very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained many of the
original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest
fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches. Species endemic to
the MAV that have become extinct, threatened, or endangered include the red wolf, Florida panther,
ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, and Louisiana black bear.
This unique, though highly fragmented, ecosystem is important to hundreds of wildlife species and
native plant communities. Bottomland hardwoods and associated wetlands support substantial
wintering populations of a number of waterfowl species and are a primary migration corridor for
significant numbers of dabbling ducks. Bottomland hardwoods are also a high priority for nesting
habitat for neotropical migratory birds, breeding habitat for area-sensitive birds (dependent on large
contiguous blocks of hardwood forest), and necessary habitat for spring migratory birds upon
completion of their Gulf of Mexico crossing.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive; those
that depend on forest interiors; those that have special habitat requirements, such as mature forests
or a particular food source; and those that require good water quality.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Due to fragmentation, the forest edge and the brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird common in
agricultural areas) are now closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds.
The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds rather than
building a nest of its own. Because the cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive, nestling
cowbirds often out-compete host species nestlings. This results in poor reproductive success and
declining populations of forest interior nesting species. Increasing the size of contiguous forest core
areas is an important goal in supporting the breeding success of forest interior nesting species.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forest tracts
surrounded by agricultural lands – such is the case with the Tensas River NWR. Intensive agriculture
has removed most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches.
The loss of connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife
between tracts and reduces the functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. These lost
connections also result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and
reestablishing travel corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as the
threatened Louisiana black bear.
ENCROACHMENT OF INVASIVES
Non-native or invasive plants can alter the function of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat,
displacing native species, and changing carrying capacity by reducing native forage production,
lowering plant diversity, and increasing soil erosion and soil sedimentation.
Two specific invasive and nuisance plant species are of concern in varying degrees throughout the
refuge because of their potential negative impacts to resource management:
􀂃􈌠 Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) and
􀂃􈌠 Trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliate).
Chinese tallow: Chinese tallow grows in abandoned fields, pastures, waste areas, and forests. It
grows in a wide range of environmental conditions from wet to dry and shade to full sun. It
reproduces by seeds only, but one plant can produce hundreds of seeds, which have a tremendous
ability to germinate under adverse conditions. It is a fast-growing tree, hence its popularity as a
shade tree ornamental. To horticulturalists, this sounds like a dream tree, but to ecologists and land
managers, it can be a nightmare, especially when it invades an area and displaces native vegetation.
Over the last 30 years, Chinese tallow has become a common tree in old fields and bottomland
forests in Louisiana. Several studies at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research
Center in Lafayette are aimed at understanding the factors that contribute to Chinese tallow growth,
spread, and management. When tallow invades, it eventually monopolizes an area, creating a forest
without native animal or plant species. This tree exhibits the classic traits of most non-native
invaders: it is attractive so people want to distribute it; it grows quickly and in a variety of soils; it has
incredible resiliency; and it resists pests. Chinese tallow reproduces and grows quickly and can
cause large-scale ecosystem modification. For example, where it completely replaces native
vegetation, it has a negative effect on birds by degrading the habitat. It can also be potentially
harmful to animals and humans, because its berries and plant sap contain toxins.
Trifoliate orange: This hardy invasive shrub also comes from China. It is a popular ornamental
because of the colorful flowers and small bitter fruit. It is becoming a problem in many parts of the
refuge were it out-competes with native species that are more beneficial to wildlife. It spreads easily
and develops into thick masses of plants. Like Chinese tallow, this tree exhibits the classic traits of
18 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
most non-native invaders: it is attractive so people want to distribute it; it grows quickly and in a
variety of soils; it has incredible resiliency; and it resists pests.
Along with the two specific invasive species noted above, there is another refuge concern regarding a
number of invasive aquatic species. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and
reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for
the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of invasive (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening
the viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic
vegetation important to aquatic systems and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents
recreational use.
There are two invasive and nuisance wildlife species that are of concern in varying degrees
throughout the refuge because of their potential negative impacts to resource management:
􀁹􇤠 Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) and
􀁹􇤠 Beaver (Castor canadensis).
Feral Hogs: Many believe the first introduction of feral hogs was by Spaniards in the southeast
United States in the early 16th century (Nowak 1991). Others suggest Christopher Columbus
released eight animals in the West Indies. Hernando de Soto later released progeny of these into
Florida in 1539 (Towne and Wentworth 1950). Regardless of when and who introduced feral hogs
into the United States, their distribution has expanded to include 23 states. Mackey (1992)
suggested a minimum population estimate of 2 million animals in 1992. In addition to range
expansion by feral hogs from early introductions, Louisiana was one of many states that allowed
livestock free-range practices. We can safely assume that many of Louisiana’s feral hogs are
descendants of free-range animals.
Feral hogs have been implicated in damaging a wide variety of natural resources and private
property. Feral hogs’ damage to sensitive plant communities, wildlife, water quality, livestock
predation, forestry, spread of disease, agricultural crops, Louisiana black bear, and competition for
available food with other native wildlife species is well documented (Miller 1993).
Although Tensas River NWR currently does not have a damage problem due to feral hogs, it would
benefit the refuge to have a management plan available to eliminate or reduce damage as it occurs.
Feral hogs have expanded their range to include several other refuges, management areas, forests,
and private lands in Louisiana. It is a reasonable assumption that the refuge will experience
problems in the near future, and if not properly managed, this invasive species has the potential of
causing extensive damage to native wildlife, habitat, and agricultural resources.
There are both positive and negative aspects to this feral hog population. The hog's Russian boar
phenotype is considered by some to be a trophy game animal with an edible carcass. Many landowners
manage their feral hog populations as they do their white-tailed deer herds. The presence of feral hogs
on a hunting lease is considered more of an added selling feature than a problem.
However, it may be shortsighted to consider only the positive aspects of this multi-faceted animal.
There are numerous reports of severe problems with feral hog activities occurring in parks,
recreational areas, national seashores, refuges, wildlife management areas, and forest districts
across the United States. Land and wildlife management agencies are finding that the feral hog is an
aggressive and difficult invader species that threatens their natural resources and habitat. Hogs can
cause resource management problems in a number of areas
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
􀁹􇤠 Feral hog populations cause damage to field crops. The varieties of field crop resources
damaged by hogs include corn, milo, rice, watermelon, peanuts, hay, turf, wheat, and other
grains. Hog-caused damage to field crops results both from feeding and from feeding related
activities (i.e., trampling and rooting). Feral hogs prey on fawns and ground-nesting birds.
Feral hogs have an acute sense of smell, are omnivorous and opportunistic, and can be
efficient predators.
􀁹􇤠 Feral hog populations compete with resident deer, Louisiana black bear, and turkey
populations for limited resources. Feral hogs are omnivorous and feed on a wide variety of
items, many of which are staples for native fauna. One of the more important seasonal food
item types for feral hogs is a fruit/nut crop, especially oak mast. Oak mast is also an important
food source for deer and turkey. When feral hogs actively compete for mast food, resident
deer and turkey may enter the winter with deficient fat reserves.
􀁹􇤠 A feral hog population is a potential reservoir for numerous diseases and parasites that
threaten livestock and deer. Because feral hogs tend to occupy the same areas as deer and
livestock, disease and parasite spread is possible. One of the most probable points of contact
is communal watering holes. Due to its inability to thermoregulate (control its own body
temperature when it is hot), the hog is attracted to watering areas to wallow. In areas where
water is plentiful, other animals may avoid a wallowed-out watering hole. However, during
times of drought and in areas where water is limited, all animals are often obliged to use the
water from wallowed-out watering holes. Infected pigs can spread parasites and diseases
through both direct contact and by contaminating drinking water.
􀁹􇤠 The feral hog's rooting and wallowing activities damage pastures, spoil watering holes, and
generally deteriorate riparian habitat. Feral hogs are persistent in their rooting behavior. They
methodically work an area until they have depleted the food item of interest. Given optimum
conditions (i.e., pliable soils), hogs can do considerable damage.
Hogs are too large, prolific, destructive, and widely spread throughout the area to be ignored. This
introduced animal must be recognized as an invasive species that requires proper management to
ensure the well-being of native plants and wildlife species on the refuge.
Beavers: As long as beavers occur where there is no negative impact on a significant cultural, natural
resource, or refuge development, typically few problems occur. Refuge management will act to protect
beavers just as it would any other natural resource, according to Refuge System policies and regulations.
However, beaver numbers need to be kept in check through active refuge management.
Beavers typically become a problem when their tree cutting or pond construction activities adversely
affect significant resources or developments inside or outside of the refuge. Some examples of the
kinds of adverse impacts, which either have occurred or could occur, are (Novak 1987):
􀁹􇤠 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 damages economically valuable habitat or protected (threatened or endangered)
plants;
􀁹􇤠 Damming of drainage structures such as culverts, bridges, spillways, and ditches that 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 damage or threaten property, or
creates a safety hazard.
20 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
The presence of private lands and public roads within and contiguous to refuge boundaries
aggravates many of these problems. The location and geography of the refuge provide an
environment with a large potential for beaver-related problems. A concentrated and complex
network, including roads, trails, and highways, is imposed on the natural drainage system of the
Tensas Basin with its numerous tributaries. Hundreds of drainage structures must be maintained to
preserve cultural features, to protect facilities, and to provide safe transportation for the public. At the
same time, natural features and processes and the benefits accruing to the refuge from increased
beaver activity must be conserved and protected. Balancing these complicated and sometimes
competing concerns will be a difficult but necessary task for refuge management.
ALTERED HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast amounts of bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, there have been
significant alterations in the regions hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification,
flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation as well as degradation to aquatic systems from
excessive sedimentation and contaminants (Figure 4).
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Manga and Kirchner 2000).
Tensas River NWR was subject to the annual overflow of the Mississippi River and its tributaries prior
to the construction of levees after the flood of 1927. That portion of the Tensas River that passes
through the refuge was cleared and snagged as part of a Corps project in the mid-1900s. While it is
heavily contaminated by agricultural wastes in the form of silt and pesticides, this portion of the
Tensas River has never been straightened or channelized. These large scale, man-made
hydrological alterations have changed the natural spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout
the entire MAV. In addition, these alterations have reduced both the extent and the duration of
annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on
the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is difficult to fully emulate and reconstruct the structure and
functions of a natural forested wetland in the MAV. Restoration of wetland functions is especially
difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water,
vegetation, and animal complexes and processes (Gregory et al., 2003).
Another outcome of the above-cited hydrologic alteration is the siltation of aquatic ecosystems.
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. The clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies
are now filled with sediments, which greatly reduce their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the
non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining
aquatic resources.
Hydrologic alterations have also basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created
oxbow lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and
restoration of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations
associated with flood control and waterborne navigation.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 4. Tensas River watershed
22 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Northeast Louisiana is in a subtropical, transitional climatic region that is affected alternately by cold,
dry air flowing southward and by warm, moist air flowing northward. Changes in direction of flow
frequently bring significant, and sometimes abrupt, weather changes. Temperatures recorded at
Tallulah, Louisiana, show extremes of -12°F to 113 °F. The average annual temperature is around
65 °F. Annual mean humidity is about 72 percent.
Wind speed is usually less than 10 miles per hour, but gusts may exceed 40 miles per hour during
thunderstorms.
Precipitation occurs on average about two days out of seven on an annual basis. Annual
precipitation averages about 51 inches of rain per year. Snowfall is relatively rare but may
occasionally occur and accumulate several inches.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
As the climate changed on the Earth, marine and deltaic sediments have been deposited in altering
cycles in Louisiana. Geologists have determined from studying these deposits that a major river
system, corresponding to the modern Mississippi River, has persisted here at least since the Gulf of
Mexico began to form (Saucier 1994).
The Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago, began with a warming trend
where the sea covered almost the entire Tensas River basin. In the early Eocene epoch, which
began about 54 million years ago, the land began to build up again as the continental ice sheets
advanced. However, this trend was reversed during the late Eocene when a second advancement of
the sea occurred. With the sea as far inland as Tensas Parish, the last cycle began in the early
Oligocene Epoch (38 to 23 million years ago). In Miocene time (23 to 5 million years ago), the sea
level dropped and sedimentation began to extend the land toward the Gulf of Mexico.
The topography of this refuge generally varies from 75 feet to 55 feet above mean sea level. The
greatest variation in elevation occurs along the Tensas River where the elevation can range from a
high of 75 feet at the top bank to a low of 55 feet in the associated depressional slough. The Tensas
River gradients range from 0.7 foot/mile in the north to 0.2 foot/mile near the mouth. The alluvial
flood plain of the Tensas River Basin forms the backdrop for all the physical and biological processes
that shape the watershed (Figure 4). Topography of the area is typical of the MAV, with channel
meanders and natural levees, lakes, swamps, and bayous providing slight local relief. These
landforms create a diverse physical and ecological region.
SOILS
Most of the soils in the area are clayey in nature and are poorly drained; however, these soils are
high in natural fertility and are well-suited to row crops, pasture, and hardwood forests. The soil,
primarily Sharkey and Tensas-Sharkey associations, shrinks and cracks severely when dry and
swells when rewetted.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
HYDROLOGY
The dynamic and changing character of the Mississippi River dictated much of the hydrologic
character of the Tensas River Basin (Figure 4). The youngest pre-modern course of the Mississippi
River can be traced along the Tensas River southward to Black River. Tensas River and Black River
unite and drain southeastward through a crevasse channel. However, backwater areas adjacent to
the rivers will tend to flow north. The Red River enters this meander belt and continues to the
Atchafalaya River, which is a major distributary of the Mississippi River.
The Tensas River Basin is unique in that natural levees along the riparian zone lie in the highest
ground in the Basin. This causes drainage water to run parallel to streams for many miles or into
backwaters before actually entering the stream and river water channels. Wetlands and back
swamps then become the vegetation filtering areas for pollutants and nutrients. Bayous, channels,
streams, and rivers direct the flow of water across the landscape and are dominant features in the
Tensas River Basin (Townsley 1996).
The refuge contains several lakes, bayous, and intermittent streams and is seasonally flooded over a
considerable acreage by rainfall and overflow. The smallest lake is less than an acre, and the largest
lake is approximately 200 acres. Water levels fluctuate annually with high water generally occurring
in the spring and winter. Low water generally occurs during summer and fall. Much of the refuge is
shallowly inundated during the wet season, particularly after extended heavy rains. A water control
structure formerly used to impound water in the Judd Brake Unit of the refuge is now inoperable and
the dam is cut down to a very low level.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality receives protection under several provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and the Prevention ofOf Significant Deterioration Program. Particulate
matter, including dust, is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that can be breathed into
the lungs. In areas of the refuge, dust associated with dirt from roadways, fields, construction sites,
paper industry, utilities, and other combustion sources as well as soot from open burning may all
contribute to particulate matter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set standards for particulate matter along with
other possible air contaminants such as ozone. Louisiana has built upon these federal air quality
standards and now has ambient air quality standards that are more stringent and comprehensive
than 47 other states. Air quality in Louisiana has improved over the last 20 years. The state
maintains a statewide air-monitoring network to determine if an area’s ambient air quality is within
criteria pollutant standards (i.e., in attainment) or if it exceeds any of the state’s standards (i.e., in
non-attainment). There was only one 5-parish non-attainment area in 2004 as opposed to 20 in
1984. The parishes encompassing the Tensas River NWR (Franklin, Madison, and Tensas) have
always achieved attainment.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
The Tensas River has an approximate drainage area of 309 mi2 at the USGS gauging station near
Tendal, Louisiana. The river can vary substantially in discharge with monthly averages ranging from
10 to over 2000 ft3/s. Average monthly flows tend to be at its lowest in August and September with
higher flows occurring during the winter months.
24 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
The Tensas River Basin is a target watershed of several EPA environmental studies including the
Nonpoint Source Management Program, EPA Region 6, and Gulf of Mexico Program. The Nonpoint
Source Management Program has identified the Tensas River Basin as an impaired watershed due to
nutrient loading from agricultural practices. Due to the unique hydrology of the basin described above, the
wetlands and backswamps have become the vegetation filtering areas for pollutants and nutrients.
The Tensas River is thought to be one of several remnant channels of the Mississippi River (Saucier
1994). This theory is supported by the fact that the meander belt width is much larger than would be
expected for a river with its current discharge. The decreased discharge associated with the changed
course of the Mississippi River suggests that the Tensas River has been slowly aggrading over time.
Whether the stream had reached stable dimensions prior to deforestation in the region is not known and
is beyond the scope of this document, but the fact that smaller meanders have not yet developed suggest
that some natural aggradations may still be occurring. This is further supported by the lack of symptoms
associated with normal channel migration or degradation including mass wasting or hydraulic erosion of
stream banks, exposed fine roots of trees, and development of mid-channel bars.
The aquatic habitats of the Tensas River Basin have been heavily impacted by sediment and
agrochemical runoff due to intense drainage, extensive clearing of bottomland hardwoods, and
agricultural production. Contaminant surveys in the Tensas River Basin have documented elevated
levels of organochlorine pesticides, particularly DDT and toxaphene, in fishes and sediments. Those
pesticides were used in soybean and cotton farming throughout the basin from the 1940s to the
1970s. DDT and toxaphene have been consistently present in fishes collected from main stem and
backwater areas, including the Tensas River NWR.
Despite its ban in 1973, levels of DDT and its derivatives in the Tensas River Basin have not
decreased in the time frame they have been studied. Exposure to contaminated sediment from
continual inputs of contaminated soil and point source discharges are likely a major factor
contributing to elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides in the fishes of the Tensas River. By
contrast, fishes in the lakes on and adjacent to the refuge that are only periodically exposed to
Tensas River overflow exhibit consistently lower levels of organochlorine residues in their tissues
than those found in fishes that inhabit the main stem (Schultz 1991).
Ware and Roan (1970), Parr and Smith (1976), and Gambrell and Patrick (1985) indicated that
anaerobic bacteria could degrade significant amounts of DDT and toxaphene in wet soils and
sediments by means of reductive dechlorination. This is believed to occur in the Tensas River,
as evidenced by equal average amounts of products resulting from the degradation of DDT
(Landry and Killebrew 1983).
Edwards (1966) suggested that the average time for concentrations of DDT to be reduced by 95
percent was 10 years. Beyer and Krynitsky (1989) found that, after treating experimental plots
with DDT, DDE levels increased until the third year and then decreased with a calculated half-life
of 5.7 years. Gambrell and Patrick (1985) suggested that levels of DDT and its derivatives in
agricultural soils of the Lake Providence watershed should decline to about 30 to 40 percent of
then current levels within ten years. If the degradation occurred at the suggested rates and no
further contamination is entered the system, fish tissue levels should have been well below those
found in later studies. However, levels found in fish did not decline significantly during the 19-
year period fish were studied after DDT was banned in1973, which is probably due to further
inputs from contaminated soils.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
DDT possesses known carcinogenic, teratogenic, xenotoxic, and mutagenic properties, and is very
persistent in the environment (McCabe and Sandretto 1985). DDT acts as a synthetic estrogen by
binding to and activating estrogen receptors (McLachlan et al., 1992; Colburn and Clement 1992).
Pesticides that function as endocrine system disrupters, such as DDT and toxaphene, cause thyroid
dysfunction in birds and fishes; reduced fertility in vertebrates; decreased hatching and birth defects
in turtles, birds, and mammals; metabolic abnormalities and male emasculation/feminization in fishes,
birds, and mammals; and defeminization/masculinization in female fishes and birds (Colburn and
Cement 1992).
A potential point source that may be contributing to the elevated levels of toxaphene and DDT in the
Tensas River is the East Carroll Parish Prison Farm, located adjacent to the headwaters of the
Tensas River. Beginning in July 1984, highly contaminated soils (ranging up to 3,930 ppm toxaphene
and 4,560 ppm DDT) were excavated from Byerley Airport and the adjacent recreation area and
hauled to the East Carroll Prison Farm (Gambrell and Patrick, 1985). On the prison farm, the
contaminated soils were disked three times to a depth of 20 cm. Anecdotal information indicates that
the area south of the East Carroll Prison Farm was used as a solid waste landfill for disposal of
empty/used agricultural pesticide containers.
Of pesticides currently permitted, atrazine may be the most widely used herbicide in corn and
sorghum production. Atrazine has recently been recognized as causing deformities in amphibians.
The use of atrazine is widespread within the drainage area of Tensas River NWR. The refuge should
monitor its levels in the watershed and its impacts to the environment.
The pesticide naled is used extensively to control mosquitoes suspected of transmitting the West Nile
virus. Naled is toxic to aquatic life and is suspected to be harmful to birds. Little is known about this
pesticide, and tests for its harmful effects are technically complex and expensive. Since West Nile
virus is not just limited to birds and horses, but now includes humans, naled and possibly other
pesticides may be brought into use in the interest of human health and at the cost of ecological
impacts under the rules of the current public health emergency.
Mercury is a common topic in fish contamination. Long-lived piscivorous fishes are typically the
targets of concern. Fish cannot purge their body burdens of mercury like birds and mammals, so they
bioaccumulate the mercury in their organs and flesh, especially the fillets (muscle tissue) typically
consumed by man. Most mercury contamination is from atmospheric depositions. Some depositions
are naturally occurring, and some are from man-caused sources like coal burning power plants and
incinerators. Mercury is also associated with meters used to monitor gas production prior to the
1970s. Often the mercury was handled carelessly, and significant amounts could be found in the soil
below the meters. Reportedly, wells on Tensas River NWR were primarily oil wells, not gas wells,
and did not use these types of meters. However, contamination from off-refuge sites is possible.
Runoff from upstream landowners not only contains contaminates but also contributes to siltation of
the Tensas River, its tributaries, and other bodies of water. Implementation of agricultural best
management practices and precision farming techniques in the Tensas River Basin could help reduce
siltation as well as nutrient and pesticide loading. Surrounding upstream landowners and farmers
should be encouraged to use filter strips to limit agricultural runoff. The recent reforestation efforts,
both on and off the refuge, will help improve water quality, especially in tributaries like Lick Bayou, but
cooperation from upstream farms and landowners will be essential if the Tensas River is to one day
run clear again.
26 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Tensas River NWR currently provides a mix of various habitat types including bottomland hardwood
forests, hardwood reforestation areas, open field-moist-soil areas, and open field-cropland (Table 1).
Table 1. Tensas River NWR habitat types
Habitat Type Coverage (acres)*
Established Bottomland Hardwood Forest 58,855
Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation areas 11,000
Open Field – Cropland 475
Open Field – Moist-Soil areas 907
Open Water Wetlands 500
Roads 145
* Approximate acreages depicted. Additional surveys needed for exact amounts.
Bottomland Hardwood Forests
There are approximately 11,000 acres of forest less than 30 years old (Figure 5), 6,000 acres of 30-
60-year old timber, and 53,000 acres of 60-plus-year old timber. Eighty percent (56,000 acres) of the
refuge is composed of the sweetgum/willow oak/Nuttall oak forest type, 20 percent
sugarberry/American elm/green ash (12,600 acres), and minor amounts of overcup oak/bitter pecan
and cypress brake timber types. The majority of the refuge is in a closed-canopy condition.
The bottomland hardwood forests here can be classified into three primary habitat types:
1. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) - Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
2. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) - American Elm (Ulmus Americana) - Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica)
3. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) - Water Hickory (Carya aquatica)
Sweetgum - Willow Oak: The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically
occupied by this forest type. Willow oak and sweetgum comprise the largest proportion of the
stocking in stands of this type. A major associate on higher clay ridges and flats is Nuttall oak. Other
trees associated with this forest type are sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash, overcup oak, water
oak (Quercus nigra), water hickory, cedar elm, persimmon, and sometimes bald cypress. Common
shrubs include swamp privet, American snowbell (Styrax americana), possumhaw (Viburnum
nudum), hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), and dull-leaf indigo (Amorpha fruticosa). Woody vines
occasionally present are greenbrier, peppervine, and redvine.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 5. Reforestation on Tensas River NWR
28 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Forest openings within the above forest types provide early successional and forest-edge habitat for
wildlife ranging from the Louisiana black bear to the indigo bunting. Such habitat is utilized for
foraging, nesting, escape, and various other wildlife requirements. Currently about 4 percent of the
refuge’s forested areas can be described as open. Road rights-of-way and administrative areas
presently account for the majority of these openings with the remainder generally being abandoned
oil well sites or logging landings averaging 1.5 acres in size.
Sugarberry – American Elm – Green Ash: The type species sugarberry, American elm, and green
ash together constitute a plurality of the stocking. Hackberry replaces sugarberry in the northern part
of the range. Major associates include water hickory; Nuttall, willlow, water, and overcup oaks;
sweetgum; and boxelder. Other associated species are cedar and winged elm, blackgum,
persimmon, honeylocust, waterlocust, red and silver maple, American sycamore, and eastern
cottonwood. The type is found throughout the southern forests from east Texas to the Atlantic, from
the Gulf Coast to southern Illinois. It is found within the floodplains of the major rivers. The type is
usually located in transitional areas between the sweetgum-willow oak type, which occupies higher
elevations, and the overcup oak--water hickory type, which occurs at the lower elevations. It
occupies low ridges, flats, and sloughs in first bottoms; terrace flats and sloughs; and occasionally
new lands or fronts. Rarely does it occur on maltreated terrace ridges. It may be found on clay or silt
loam soils, and it tends to be long term in the successional scale. The type species are all shade
tolerant when small and reproduce readily. All three, but especially green ash, sprout prolifically.
Overcup Oak – Water Hickory: This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight
clay or silty clay soils. These sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring
inundations. Overcup oak and water hickory together constitute the majority. Associates include willow
oak, Nuttall oak (Quercus nutallii), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), green ash, and water locust. Minor
associates include black willow, persimmon, and sweetgum. Common shrub species often associated
include redvine, peppervine (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), trumpet-creeper (Campsis radicans),
dewberry (Rubus caesius), and possibly greenbier (Smilax spp.). Panicum (Panicum spp.), asters,
annual grasses, and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) may occur in openings within the stand.
Open Fields (Cropland and Moist-Soil Management Areas)
At one time, the refuge was cooperatively farming over 1,000 acres, leaving about 25 percent of the crop
in the field for wildlife, mostly waterfowl, and actively managing about 1,100 acres of moist-soil units
(Figure 6; Table 2). Peak waterfowl populations reportedly reached 250,000 ducks and commonly
exceeded 100,000 ducks (excluding wood ducks) and 10-15,000 geese. In recent years waterfowl
populations have peaked at about 10,000 ducks (excluding wood ducks) and very few geese.
The refuge contains two farming units – Greenlea Bend and McLemore’s. Greenlea Bend is located
in the northern part of Judd Brake Unit of the refuge and McLemore’s is located in the southern part
of Fool River Unit. The original total farmable acreage for both areas was much greater than they are
today. The farmable acres for both units have been drastically reduced by a combination of
reforestation and/or the creation of moist-soil areas.
Both units were farmed intensively prior to purchase of the refuge. Either cotton or corn was
grown on the ridge areas with soybeans being grown in the lower, more marginal areas.
Drainage ditches were dug throughout both units with little or no soil conservation practices in
place. Immediately following fall harvest, the ground was disked and prepared for spring
planting. No winter cover crops were planted.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 6. Moist-soil and wildlife cropland units on Tensas River NWR
30 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Water management units at Tensas River NWR
Common
Name
Water
Containment Habitat Type Cover Type Acres Hectares Year
Created Comments
Chapman #1 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 96.2 38.9 1991 Partly reforested
Chapman #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 22.5 9.1 1992
Projected for
natural
reforestation
Ezell #1 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 19.7 8.0 1988
Ezell #2 & #3 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 39.1 15.8 1988
Ezell #4 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 30.0 12.1 1988
Ezell #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 11.1 4.5 1988
Greenlea #1 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 27.2 11.0 1985
Greenlea #2 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 15.6 6.3 1985
Greenlea #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 92.1 37.3 1986
25% of habitat
mix of willow and
buttonbush
Greenlea #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 17.9 7.2 1988
Greenlea #7 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 16.8 6.8 1986
Greenlea #8 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 25.5 10.3 1984 10% of habitat is
buttonbush
Greenlea #9 Complete Open Aquatic Open Aquatic 70.4 28.5 1987
Lotus choked,
needs permanent
pool boundary
Greenlea #10 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 96.5 39.0 1987 Upper end open
aquatic
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Common
Name
Water
Containment Habitat Type Cover Type Acres Hectares Year
Created Comments
Greenlea #11 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 16.4 6.6 1986
Greenlea #12 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 48.7 19.7 1984
Greenlea #13 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.3 5.0 1984
Greenlea #14 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 8.2 3.3 1986
Greenlea #16 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.0 4.9 1985
Greenlea #18 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 27.4 11.1 1985
Greenlea #19 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 7.9 3.2 1985
McLemore 2 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 12.2 4.9 1999
McLemore 3 Partial Cropland Corn 18.2 7.4 1999
Stutz #1 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 82.1 33.2 1986
Stutz #2 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 48.4 19.6 1986
Stutz # 3 Partial Moist-soil Moist-soil 52.7 21.3 1986 Cropland habitat
Stutz #4 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 39.9 16.2 1986
Stutz #5 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 26.7 10.8 1986 Willow less than
15%
Total 993.6
32 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Forested Units
Chapman #2 Partial Woody
Vegetation Reforested 34.9 14.1 1992 Direct seeded in
1991.
Chapman #3 Partial Woody
Vegetation Reforested 23.3 9.4 1992
Planted in 1991
with cypress
seedlings and
direct seeded with
oaks.
Greenlea #15 Partial Woody
Vegetation Reforested 62.3 25.2 1985 Direct seeded in
1987.
Greenlea #17 Complete Woody
Vegetation Hardwoods 17.6 7.1 1985 Cypress/willow
along ditch.
McLemore 1 Partial Woody
Vegetation Reforested 6.0 2.4 1999
Geenlea #20 Partial Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 17.0 6.9 1995
Greenlea #3 Complete Moist-Soil Moist-Soil 11.6 4.7 1985 Spoil bank lined
with hardwoods
Total 172.6
Partial Units
Ezell #6 Partial Woody
Vegetation Reforested 19.1 7.8 1988 Direct seeded in
1992.
Greenlea #6 Complete Woody
Vegetation
Forested
Swamp 71.1 28.8 1986
Total 90.3
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Currently, both fields are actively managed to provide a diversity of habitat, primarily for waterfowl,
through a combination of grain crops and moist-soil management areas. The ridge and swale
topography of the farmed areas lends itself to moist-soil management, and a number of water control
structures are now in place to take advantage of this fact.
Open Water Wetlands
The backwater sloughs, lakes, and bayous of the refuge provide habitat for a great diversity of
aquatic life including fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mollusks. Although water quality is the Tensas
River has been degraded be agricultural drainage, the meandering character of the river has been
preserved. The Tensas River is the only major stream in the Louisiana Delta that has not been
extensively altered by channelization. It meanders snake-like throughout much of its watershed with
river bends almost coming together in places. Some of the tributary streams have been ditched in
sections to provide drainage for agricultural areas.
The ridge and swale topographies of the Greenlea, Wilderness (aka Stuttz), Ezell, and Chapman
areas lend themselves to moist-soil management. Water control structures on these areas of the
flashboard riser type allow independent water control of each of the above-cited units. Water
management on these moist-soil units allows for good production of preferred waterfowl foods. The
units are disked on a rotational basis to control Sesbania and promote beneficial wetland plants.
Flooding of a portion of the moist-soil units in the summer assists shorebird migration. Several moist
areas in each unit are provided water throughout the summer to provide habitat for shorebirds and
marsh and wading birds as well as wood duck broods.
Invasives and Pest Control
Until recently, invasive plants have not been a large problem on the refuge. As a routine part of
general forest management practices, foresters eliminated scattered clumps of such invasives as
Chinese privet, mimosa, and tree-of-heaven. Two species that are beginning to move into the area
are on the radar as potentially becoming a refuge problem: Chinese tallow and trifoliate orange. Both
species are rapidly increasing and unless controlled may pose a threat to wetland and upland
habitats. These species can cause large-scale ecosystem disruption by replacing native vegetation.
This reduces native species diversity, which in turn has a negative impact on wildlife. They can
quickly become the dominant plant in disturbed areas and invade bottomland forests.
Fire Regime
Fire is a natural phenomenon that has played a critical role in the ecosystem dynamics of the natural
communities within North Louisiana. Before wildfire suppression strategies were implemented,
naturally caused and anthropogenic fires likely burned thousands of acres of mostly upland habitat in
northern Louisiana each year. Low intensity fires occurred on average in 3- to 5-year intervals.
With differences in elevation and moisture gradients, these frequent fires maintained a mosaic of
vigorous and diverse plant communities in various stages of post-fire succession and provided a wide
variety of habitat types and conditions for wildlife.
Higher elevations of the bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge have experienced some low-intensity
fire events during extended drought conditions. These occurrences were probably rare and
played little, if any, long-term role in affecting plant species composition. In general, fire is viewed as
detrimental to hardwood forest communities.
34 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Special Designation Areas
The Greenlea Bend and Wilderness Field areas are closed to the public. This area consists of
agricultural fields interspersed with moist-soil areas. It provides a sanctuary for neotropical migratory
birds, migratory waterfowl, deer, the threatened Louisiana black bear, and other wildlife.
WILDLIFE
Species of Special Concern
Extinct or endangered species formerly of the area include the red wolf, Florida panther, and ivory-billed
woodpecker. Prior to recent reported sightings in Arkansas, the last confirmed sightings of the
ivory-billed woodpecker were in forests now included in Tensas River NWR and is the area where the
noted biologist James T. Tanner studied and wrote accounts of the species. Panthers are
occasionally reported, but their existence has not been verified. The Louisiana black bear, which was
listed as a threatened species on January 7, 1992, ranges throughout Tensas River NWR. The
Bachman warbler may be a rare transient or possibly uses the refuge during its breeding season.
Other species of concern that may occur on the refuge are the alligator snapping turtle, the Ouachita
map turtle, and two species of bats (Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern myotis), and, as a
group, freshwater mussels.
Bald eagle: The bald eagle has officially been removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered
Species as of August 8, 2007. Bald eagles nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. Bald
eagles typically nest in mature trees (e.g., bald cypress, sycamore, and willow) near fresh to
intermediate marshes or open water in the southeastern parishes. Bald eagles also winter and
infrequently nest in mature pine trees near large lakes in central and northern Louisiana.
Major threats to this species include habitat alteration, human disturbance, and environmental
contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides and lead). Although the bald eagle has been removed
from the threatened and endangered species list, it continues to be protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Service developed the
National Bald Eagle Management (NBEM) Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and
others with information and recommendations regarding how to minimize potential project impacts to
bald eagles, particularly where such impacts may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited by the
BGEPA. A copy of the NBEM Guidelines is available at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf.
Louisiana black bear:
Life History
The Louisiana black bear is one of 16 subspecies of the American black bear. The black bear is a
large, bulky mammal with long black hair and a short, well-haired tail. The facial profile is blunt, the
eyes are small, and the nose pad is broad with large nostrils. The muzzle is yellowish brown with a
white patch sometimes present on the lower throat and chest. Although weight varies considerably
throughout their range, adult males generally weigh from 300-500 pounds and adult females
generally weigh from 150-300 pounds.
Human encroachment on bear range, dwindling bottomland hardwood habitat, and the lack of
available biological information for bear management were factors that prompted a petition to list the
Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as an endangered subspecies. Bears once
occurred throughout southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and eastern Texas. Habitat modification,
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
particularly clearing for agriculture, has fragmented and reduced suitable habitat by more than 80
percent in the MAV. The Service initiated a research project in late November 1987 to determine the
status of the black bear in the Tensas River Basin. This information contributed to the Louisiana
black bear being listed as threatened in 1992.
The Louisiana black bear was listed as threatened in the Federal Register on January 7, 1992 (57 FR
568), due to the reduction in population size resulting from extensive habitat loss (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1995). Simultaneously, other free-living black bears within the historic range of the
Louisiana black bear were listed as threatened due to their similarity of appearance to the Louisiana
black bear. The Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear on
December 2, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 63560); however, on May 6, 2008, the Service withdrew
its 1993 critical habitat proposal and published a new proposal in the Federal Register, which is
currently in the review process. Proposed critical habitat included forested habitat within the Tensas
River Basin, the Atchafalaya River Basin, and the Lower Iberia-St. Mary Parish area.
Though classified as a carnivore by taxonomists, black bears are not active predators and only prey
on vertebrates when the opportunity arises. Most meat eaten by black bears is consumed as carrion.
Bears are best described as opportunistic feeders, as they eat almost anything that is available; thus,
they are typically omnivorous. Their diet varies seasonally and includes primarily succulent
vegetation during spring, fruits and grains in summer, and hard mast such as acorns and pecans
during fall. Bears utilize all levels of forest for feeding. They can gather foods from tree tops and
vines but also grub in fallen logs for insects. The growth rate, maximum size, breeding age, litter
size, and cub survival of black bears are all correlated with nutrition.
The use of agricultural crops by bears to supplement foods available within forested habitats can
greatly reduce the size of an adult female bear’s home range. For example, the diets of bears within
the Deltic area have been found to consist of 49 percent agricultural crops (Anderson 1997) and
average home range size for adult females (1,764 acres) is half that of adult female home ranges
within the Coastal subpopulation (i.e., the smallest size among the remaining 3 subpopulations).
Black bear population densities of 10 southeastern populations range between 0.26 and 15 bears per
square mile. Bear densities are specifically influenced by age and sex, season of the year, food,
cover, and security quality within the habitat (Pelton 2000).
Black bears do not truly hibernate but go through a dormancy period termed “carnivoran lethargy” a
period of torpor that helps them survive food shortages and severe weather during the winter. In
warmer climates, such as in Louisiana, bears can remain active all winter (Taylor 1971). Bears may
enter dens between October and early January depending on latitude, available food, sex and age,
and local weather conditions (Pelton 1982). Adult females generally enter the den first, followed by
subadults and adult males. Females with cubs generally are the last to leave the den.
Female black bears become sexually mature at three to five years of age. Breeding occurs in
summer and the gestation period for black bears is seven to eight months. Delayed implantation
occurs in the black bear; blastocysts float free in the uterus and do not implant until late November or
early December (Pelton 1982). Cubs are born in winter dens at the end of January or the beginning
of February. Although litter sizes of three to four cubs do occur, the normal litter size is two. Cubs
stay with the sow through summer and fall and den with them the second winter. The young disperse
in spring or summer, prior to the female’s period of estrus (Pelton 1982). Estrus starts when the
female becomes physiologically capable of reproducing again. However, not all females produce
cubs every other winter; reproduction is related to the bears’ physiological condition (i.e., female
bears that do not reach an optimal weight or fat level do not reproduce).
36 Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Average age at first reproduction varies widely across black bear studies; however, most reports
involve bears between 3 years and 5 years of age. Estimates of the average age at first reproduction
are not available for Louisiana bear populations. However, individuals birthing at three years of age
have been recorded in Upper Atchafalaya and Coastal subpopulations, Weaver (1999) reported that
all adult females (greater than or equal to four years old) in the Tensas River Basin subpopulations
(i.e., Tensas and Deltic) had evidence of previous lactation or were with cubs. No litters with more
than three cubs have been recorded for any Louisiana population. Estimates of the interval between
births are not currently available for the Louisiana bear subpopulations and are assumed to be two
years. However, observational data from bears within Deltic tracts suggest the interval between
successive births may be greater than that expected (Anderson 1997).
Louisiana black bears use a variety of den types, including ground nests, hollow trees, and brush
piles. Generally, adult males and subadults use ground dens with greater frequencies than adult
females. Tree dens may be an important component for female reproductive success in areas
subject to flooding (Hellgren and Vaughan 1989). Den trees located in cypress swamps would
appear to increase the security (e.g., decrease the disturbance) of bears utilizing these dens
compared to ground dens. However, the availability of den trees does not appear to be a limiting
factor (Weaver and Pelton 1994). Trees large enough and sufficiently mature to contain usable
cavities are almost always found in places inaccessible to logging (Marchinton 1995) or are left
standing due to their low economic value. Brushpile nests and open nests were located in thick
vegetation, usually in areas logged within the past one to five years. Brushpile dens are created by
felled tops and other logging slash. Open ground nests and nests under brushpiles are scooped out
depressions that are bare or lined with vegetation bitten off around the nest (Weaver et al., 1990).
Corridors providing cover may facilitate the movement of bears through agricultural lands in the
Tensas River Basin, particularly when bears reside in fragmented tracts of forest (Weaver et al.,
1990). According to Marchinton (1995), telemetry locations and visual observations indicated that
wooded drainages were important travel corridors for movement between forested tracts.
Remoteness is an important spatial feature of black bear habitat. In the southeastern United States,
remoteness is relative to forest tract size and the presence of roads. Examples of remoteness
important for suitable black bear habitat include a tract of timberland 0.5 mile from well-maintained
roads and development (Rudis 1986) and a forested tract of more than 2,500 acres (Rudis 1986).
Forest tract size and the number of roads reflect the likelihood of human disturbances, which can limit
habitat suitability and use (Brody and Pelton 1989).
High-quality cover for bedding, denning, and escape is of great importance as forests become
smaller and more fragmented, and as human encroachment and disturbance in bear habitat
increases (Pelton 1986). Black bears are adaptable and opportunistic, and can survive in close
proximity to humans if afforded areas of retreat that ensure little chance of close contact or visual
encounters. The thick understory found in bottomland hardwood forests provides high-quality escape
cover. Escape cover is considered especially critical because fragmented habitats put the bear
populations in closer proximity to humans.
Black bears will forage close to human establishments for garbage; pet and livestock feed; and
human foods, especially during times of low availability of natural food sources (Rogers 1976).
Bears, particularly habituated bears, searching for food may destroy property or even enter houses or
storage areas. Foraging for human food sources is most likely to occur soon after bears emerge from
their dens in the spring because of the stress of the winter dormant period and the lack of natural
foods. Nuisance activity is correlated to the availability of natural food sources. During years of hard
mast failure, nuisance activity may be more pronounced. Once a bear has become habituated to
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
human food, particularly garbage, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to control the nuisance
behavior. The most effective mechanism to reduce nuisance behavior and human/bear conflicts is to
eliminate attractants. In the long-term, this is also the most cost-effective approach.
Bear mortality has been attributed to natural and human causes. Natural causes include disease,
cannibalism, drowning, poor maternal care, and climbing accidents. Human-induced mortality
includes hunting, trapping, poaching, vehicle collisions, electrocution, depredation/nuisance kills,
disturbance (causing den abandonment), and accidents associated with research activity. Road
access can increase the chances of people or dogs disturbing maternal dens in winter (Rogers and
Allen 1987). Cubs are dependent on the sow for warmth and food; human disturbance of denning
females has resulted in cub mortality from abandonment (Elowe and Dodge 1989).
Pace et al., (2000) evaluated known black bear mortality in Louisiana between 1992 and 2000. Vehicular
collisions were the most common cause of mortality, accounting for 45 percent of verified losses.
Poaching was the second most common cause of death, with at least 12 bears illegally shot. Sixty-five
percent of known mortalities occurred in the coastal subpopulation (the majority of which were adult
females), 24 percent from Tensas River Basin subpopulations (the majority of which were males) and 11
percent from the Upper Atchafalaya Basin subpopulation. Pace et al., (2000) concluded that
anthropogenic causes of mortality are taking a relatively large toll on the coastal subpopulation in terms of
absolute numbers and because adult females represent a high proportion of that mortality. Similarly,
female losses in the Upper Atchafalaya Basin are very high, relative to estimated population size.
Bear activity revolves mainly around the search for food, water, cover, and mates during the breeding
season. Home ranges of bears, particularly females, appear to be closely linked to forest cover
(Marchinton 1995). Beausoleil (1999) estimated maximum home range for Deltic bears to be 1,729
and 1,038 acres for males and females, respectively. Maximum home range estimates for Tensas
River NWR bears were 81,396 and 13,072 acres for males and females, respectively (Weaver 1999).
Status and distribution
The Louisiana black bear originally inhabited the forests of Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and eastern
Texas, but extensive land clearing primarily for agricultural purposes has reduced its habitat by more than
80 percent. The species is now restricted to three core populations: (1) the Tensas River Basin
population, consisting of two subpopulations one (Tensas) located on Tensas River NWR and
surrounding lands south of I-20, and another (Deltic) on four small disjunct forested tracts owned by the
Murphy family (formerly known as the Deltic Timber Corporation) north of I-20; (2) the Inland or Upper
Atchafalaya River Basin (Upper Atchafalaya Basin) subpopulation, in the upper Atchafalaya River Basin,
primarily within the Morganza Floodway and the upper reaches of the Atchafalaya Floodway in Pointe
Coupee Parish; and (3) the Coastal subpopulation, located primarily south of U.S. Highway 90 and west
of the lower Atchafalaya River and Delta in St. Mary and Iberia Parishes. In general, this subspecies is
believed to be stable to increasing.
Louisiana black bears were assigned subspecies status by Merriam (1893) based on skull
morphometrics taken from five samples collected in Morehouse Parish in northeastern Louisiana.
Nowak (1986) concurred with Merriam’s designation after examining skulls collected in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and the Big Thicket area of northeastern Texas. The historic range of the Louisiana
black bear is believed to include all of Louisiana, eas