draft compatibility determinations use: hiking, jogging, … · 2018-07-31 · draft compatibility...

DRAFT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

Use: Hiking, Jogging, and Walking

Refuge Name: Red River National Wildlife Refuge

County: Bossier, Natchitoches, Caddo, DeSoto, Red River Parishes, Louisiana

Date Established: 2002

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: The Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act (Public

Law 106-300).

Refuge Purpose(s): "The purposes of the Refuge are the following: (1) To provide for the

restoration and conservation of native plants and animal communities on suitable sites in the Red

River basin, including restoration of extirpated species. (2) To provide habitat for migratory birds.

(3) To provide technical assistance to private land owners in the restoration of their lands for the

benefit of fish and wildlife."

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended) [16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee].

Description of Use:

(a). What is the use? Hiking, jogging and walking on Red River National Wildlife Refuge

(Refuge) facilitates travel and access for the priority public uses. Priority public uses as defined

in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 include hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The use

mainly occurs in small groups (less than 8 people) or by individuals. Hiking, jogging, or walking

is a primary means to connect people with nature on the Refuge and can facilitate non-

consumptive priority public uses such as wildlife observation by viewing natural landscapes and

associated wildlife. The use is also necessary to facilitate consumptive uses by anglers and

hunters who access Refuge lands.

(b). Where is the use conducted? The primary areas of these uses occur along refuge roads and

trails that are maintained for refuge administrative and other management activities and as

designated trails. Individuals can walk, hike or jog along rights-of-way or across country

throughout the refuge. Most often users scout for hunting areas.

(c). When would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted year round with some

possible exceptions that are identified on an annual basis in the Refuge Public Use Regulations

brochure. Access for walking, hiking, or jogging may not be allowed at times if deemed by the

Refuge Manager that there are safety issues or wildlife disturbance issues.

(d). How would the use be conducted? The Refuge will maintain the trails for daily public use

as identified in the Refuge regulations. Hikers, joggers, and walkers will adhere to the rules and

regulations while on Refuge property. Individuals accessing the Refuge for hunting will need to

possess a valid hunting permit and follow all the Refuge regulations. Entry on all or portions of

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ300/html/PLAW-106publ300.htm

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ300/html/PLAW-106publ300.htm

individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical

conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

(e). Why is the use being proposed? Access to the Refuge is necessary to facilitate public use

and is desirable via foot traffic such as hiking, walking, and jogging to increase opportunities to

connect people with nature on the Refuge. Additionally, hiking, jogging, and walking, as

proposed, contributes to wildlife dependent recreation and other uses identified in Public Use and

Visitor Services: Objectives E1 – E7 of the completed 2008 Comprehensive Conservation plan

(CCP) for Red River National Wildlife Refuge.

Availability of Resources:

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use:

Personnel time associated with administration and law enforcement co-occur with priority public

uses such as hunting and fishing.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use:

No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the uses.

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are expected to be small from these uses on the Refuge.

There are no expected increased costs to maintaining Refuge infrastructure outside normal use of

trails and other public use areas.

Monitoring costs: Minimal costs are associated with these uses to monitor consequences of

public having access to the refuge, such as degree of littering and vandalism. Refuge staff

regularly inspects trails, boardwalks, and other public use areas to ensure public safety related to

the proposed use. This time co-occurs with monitoring of priority public uses such as hunting

and fishing.

Offsetting revenues: None

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term Impacts:

Hiking, jogging, and walking access is typically by single individuals or small groups on

improved refuge roads or trails. Damage to habitat is negligible. Foot traffic off of designated

roads and trails is dispersed and minimal. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and

trails, are not expected.

Some temporary disturbance does occur to wildlife due to human activity on the land, as expected

with similar public uses (Bennett and Zuelke 1999, Pease et al. 2005). Pedestrian travel has the

potential of impacting shorebird, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations feeding and

resting during certain times of the year. Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are

present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Response of wildlife to human activities

includes departure from site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Korschgen et al.

1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993), use of sub-optimal habitat (Erwin 1980,

Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Korschgen et al. 1985, Morton et al.

1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increased energy expenditure

(Morton et al. 1989, Bélanger and Bédard 1990).

Disturbance to migratory birds and other resident wildlife should be minimal because of the

locations of designated gravel roads and trails and because waterfowl sanctuaries (areas closed to

the public) are enforced on the refuge. Any unreasonable wildlife harassment would be grounds

for the manager to close the area to these uses or restrict the uses to minimize harm.

Long-term Impacts and Cumulative Impacts:

Long-term or cumulative impacts that could occur would be soil compaction, erosion and

vegetation loss in areas where use is on trails (Marion 2006). Hiking, jogging and walking on

trails is repetitive impact to the same area, the trail itself. However, these trails are designed for

this purpose for the long term. The Refuge trails are on flat ground making the likelihood of soil

erosion to be minimal. Vegetation on the trails consists of common grass such as Bermuda, rye,

crabgrass and Bahia. Trails are mowed and with exposure to adequate sunlight combined with a

long growing season, grass should continue to exist over the long-term.

In areas where users leave trails to traverse across the refuge, the use is well dispersed and

infrequent. Users are reluctant to leave marked trails in fear of getting lost, encountering snakes,

and/or being encumbered by briars; therefore, the use is minor, especially during the spring and

summer months. In the fall and winter, hunters will often walk across the refuge to scout for

game and to reach desired hunting locations. Because this use is dispersed, wear and tear on the

same vegetation or soil does not occur. Most herbaceous plants are dormant during the winter

months and have already died back.

No long-term impacts are expected to wildlife. Most of the use is on trails which constitute less

than 5% of the refuge acreage and are permanently located. This allows wildlife to adjust to

hiking, jogging and walking by placing dens and nests in areas away from trails. Hunters may

disturb individual animals while traversing across the refuge off trails; however, it would be

minor for the following reasons. Minor disturbance to wildlife is mitigated by management of

high quality habitat for wildlife on the refuge, which has been shown to be more important to

wildlife conservation (Carter et al. 2012). Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during

winter when hunting season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of these qualities

make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood

reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures are

low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season.

Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with

hunters during the hunting season. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by

hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of

any wildlife other than the game species legal for the season is not permitted. Disturbance to the

daily wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds might occur, but would be

transitory as hunters traverse habitat. Designated habitat for wintering waterfowl on the Refuge

is closed to all public entry to reduce disturbance to ducks and geese. These sanctuary areas are

intensively managed to provide high quality nutrition and cover for waterfowl during the winter

months (USFWS 2013).

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is being made available for public comment for 14 days from

August 1 to August 15, 2018 which was announced on the refuge’s website. Comments received

will be addressed in this section.

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description:

__x__ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

These compatibility determinations can be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis

under 40 CFR 1508.4, 516 DM 2.3A(2), 516 DM 8.5 A(1), 516 DM 8.5 B(7), 516 DM 8.5 B(9);

further the actions do not trigger an extraordinary circumstance as outlined under 43CFR§46.215.

The hiking, jogging, and walking use is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and associated Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a) and Finding of No Significant

Impact (USFWS 2008b) for Red River NWR. This compatibility determination updates and

replaces the 2008 compatibility determination for hiking, jogging and walking.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

• Harassment of wildlife is prohibited as well as the taking of any plant, animal or

artifact from the Refuge.

• No leaving flagging or other trail markers

• No littering

• If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of the public access, then further

restrictions may be imposed to protect the plant and animal resources of the Refuge.

• Individuals walking or hiking to support hunting opportunities will follow all Refuge

regulations and possess a valid hunting permit.

• Group runs or organized events must obtain permission from the Refuge Manager.

Approval will be made on a case by case basis.

Justification:

Hiking, walking and jogging, as identified in this determination, are not expected to materially

interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or from the

purposes for which the refuge was established. Additionally, these uses help meet the Public Use

and Visitor Services Goal identified in the 2008 CCP to “…promote environmental education

and interpretation opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.” Associated disturbance

from walking to wildlife and habitat is temporary and minor. Monitoring would be conducted to

ensure that these uses remain compatible. If uses increase and impacts are suspected, a re-

evaluation will be conducted and corrective actions taken to protect refuge resources. These uses

provide opportunities to participate in wildlife observation and photography. Outdoor

recreational activities provide individuals with wildlife-oriented experiences, educational

opportunities, and allow them to utilize a natural environment.

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 2028

References and literature cited:

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41.

Bennett, K.A. and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: a literature review.

Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna, DE 19977.

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A

review. Widlife Society bulletin 13:110-116

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:

231-241.

Carter, N.H., B.K. shrestha, J.B. karki, N. Pradhan, and J. Liu. 2012. Coexistence between

wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. PNAS 109(38): 15360-15365.

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in two mid-Atlantic U.S.

regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 18: 39-

51

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 290-298.

Henson, P.T. and A. grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 248-257.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron

behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management 18: 561-567.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin.

Wildlife Society Bulltein 19: 242-248.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral response to human disturbance. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 21: 31-39

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters

on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 290-296.

Marion, J.L. 2006. Assessing and understanding trail degradation: results from Big south Fork

National River and Recreational Area. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 80 pp.

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kilpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 401-410.

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior

of wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 103-112.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment: Red River National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana

Wetland Management District. March 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast

Region. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Red River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive

Conservation Plan. June 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region.

Atlanta, GA. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/red-river-national-wildlife-refuge-

comprehensive-conservation-plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Red River National Wildlife Refuge Habitat

Management Plan. Farmerville, LA, 83 pp.

Ward, D.H. and R.A. Stehn. 9189. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife

Research Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska.

193 pp.

Williams, G.J. and e. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant

geese and wigeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31: 151-157.

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

Use: Motorized & Non-motorized Recreational boating





Law 106-300).











Description of the Use:

(a). What is the Use? Both motorized and non-motorized recreational boating (collectively

referred to as “boating”) occurs on Red River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) as they were

determined compatible during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan analysis of 2008 (USFWS

2008a). Although boating is not one of the priority public uses defined by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, some boating activities can support wildlife dependent

recreational uses, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental

education, and interpretation.

(b). Where will the use be conducted? Several lakes and small tributaries to the Red River exist

on the Refuge. Motorized and non-motorized boating use is allowed on any portion of the

Refuge that are open as delineated in the annual Refuge Public Use Regulations brochure. Most

boating occurs on Lake Caroline at the Headquarters Unit where there is a designated boat ramp;

however, boating can occur on any of the refuges waters, if not restricted during times of the year

by management. Most of this use facilitates fishing and hunting. refuge.

(c). When will the use be conducted? The use would be conducted year around with some

possible exceptions that are identified on an annual basis in the Refuge Public Use Regulations

brochure. There will be seasons when areas are temporarily closed to access by the public for the

purposes of sanctuary to migratory birds. Entry on all or portions of the individual areas may be

temporarily suspended by posting during occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting

land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations or for public safety. Boating is only allowed during

hours the refuge is open to the public.

(d). How will the use be conducted? All Refuge and State regulations must be abided by while

boating. Individuals boating to access the Refuge for hunting/fishing will need to possess a valid

hunting/fishing permit and follow all Refuge regulations including accessing the refuge only

during permissible times as delineated in the Annual Public Use Regulations brochure. The

Refuge Manager may restrict boating at any time for safety, biological or administrative reasons.

(e). Why is the use being proposed? Motorized and non-motorized boating provides access to

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife photography, which are all priority public uses.

Since these activities are an integral part of the boating experience, it is considered a wildlife-

oriented activity. Additionally, the use as proposed, contributes to wildlife dependent recreation

as identified in the Public Use and Visitor Services: Objectives E1-E6 of the completed 2008

Comprehensive Conservation plan (CCP) of Red River National Wildlife Refuge.


Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated

with administration and law enforcement. Existing staffing and funding are adequate to support

these activities.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: No special

equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the uses. Established boat ramps

are made of concrete and are essentially maintenance free.

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are expected to be negligible from these uses on the

Refuge. There are no expected increased costs to maintaining Refuge infrastructure outside

normal use of trails, boardwalks, boat ramps or parking lots.


public having access to the Refuge, such as degree of littering and vandalism. Plants and wildlife

will be monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public use.

Offsetting revenues: None.


Short-term Impacts:

Disturbance to wildlife because of noise and/or movement is the greatest impact of boating on the

refuge. Wetland-associated wildlife have varying degrees of tolerance to boat traffic. Wading

bird rookeries usually form over very shallow water which are in general not accessible by boat;

thus minimizing impacts to critical nesting areas. Wintering waterfowl can be negatively affected

by any human disturbance, including boating by disrupting feeding activity. Disturbance can

result in increased energy expenditures from avoidance flights and decreased energy intake due to

interference with feeding activity, which can reduce wintering waterfowl fitness (Henry 1980,

Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988, Kahl 1991, Pease et al. 2005). For this reason, critical habitat

areas on the Refuge are closed to boating during critical periods to waterfowl (Strickland and

Tullos 2009, USFWS 2013).

Boats also interact with the aquatic environment through a variety of mechanisms, including

emissions, turbulence from propulsion, wakes, and noise. Each of these mechanisms may cause

impacts to the aquatic environment (Asplund 2000). Use of any motorized boats on Red River

NWR may result in an increase in pollutants including emissions and exhaust, negatively

impacting the Refuge’s air quality.

Long-term and Cumulative Impacts:

Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from recreation activities

always have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or

localized area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers and

Smith 1997; Burger and Gochfeld 1998). The findings that were reported in these studies are

summarized as follows in terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance.

Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor activity was

high (Burger 1981; Klein et al. 1995; Burger and Gochfeld 1998).

Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors and birds

(Burger 1986), though exact measurements were not reported.

Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance (Burger 1986;

Klein 1993; Burger and Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor

group size (Burger and Gochfeld 1998).

As detailed above, the proposed use has the potential of intermittently interrupting the feeding

habits of a variety of birds and other wildlife, but encounters between pedestrians and wildlife

will be temporary. Refuge staff manages access via seasonal closures to minimize disturbance to

nesting wood ducks and wintering waterfowl in critical areas on the refuge. Strickland and Tullos

(2009) recommend that 20-25% of habitat is placed in sanctuary to reduce disturbance to

waterfowl. Thus, the refuge retains 25% of its acreage in sanctuary. Monitoring for significant

disturbance to wildlife, in particular birds, will allow the refuge to determine if additional

regulations are needed if boat use increases. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds for

the Refuge Manager to close the area to boating or restrict the use to minimize harm. With

monitoring in place and regulations enforced, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.



August 1 through August 15, 2018 which was announced on the refuge’s website. Comments

received will be addressed in this section.



__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations








Boating is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Conservation Plan and associated

Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a) and Finding of No Significant Impact (USFWS

2008b) for Red River NWR. This compatibility determination updates and replaces the 2008

compatibility determination for boating.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

• Motorized land vehicles are required to remain on designated roads only.

• Boats and other personal belongings are not allowed to be left on the Refuge overnight.

• Harassment of wildlife is prohibited.

• Boating is restricted from certain areas of the Refuge during specific periods of the year

as specified in the annual Public Use Regulations brochure.

• Personal watercraft (jet skis) are not permitted.

Boating races or other organized group events are not allowed.

• Commercial events cannot be held on the Refuge (e.g. fishing tournament weigh-ins).

• If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of boating, then further restrictions may be

imposed to protect the plant and animal resources of the Refuge.

Justification:

Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with quality wildlife-oriented experiences,

educational opportunities, and allow them to utilize a natural environment. Motorized and non-

motorized boating in support of fishing and wildlife observation is a low impact and low cost

activity on Red River NWR. Boating provides access to fishing and hunting, priority public uses.

Since fish and wildlife observation is an integral part of the boating experience, boating in pursuit

of it is considered a wildlife-oriented activity and therefore does not materially detract or interfere

with the purposes of the refuge or mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Additionally,

this activity supports the 2008 CCP Public Use and Visitor Services Goal “…promote

environmental education and interpretation opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent public

uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.”

The associated disturbance to wildlife and habitat is temporary and minor. Monitoring would be

conducted to ensure that these uses remain compatible. If uses increase and impacts are

suspected, a re-evaluation will be conducted and corrective actions taken to protect Refuge

resources.



Asplund, T.R. 2000. The effects of motorized watercraft on aquatic ecosystems. Madison, WI.

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds as a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:

231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human acitivty on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern

United States. Biological Conservation 13: 123-130.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L.J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey:

contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:

56-65.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee

National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25: 13-21.

Heitmeyer, M.E., and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling

ducks in California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final

Report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba,

Canada, 200 pp.

Henry, W.G. 1980. Populations and behavior of black brant as Humbolt Bay, California. M.S.

Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, 111 pp.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan,

Wisconsin. Wild. Soc. Bull. 19:242-248

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of

waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9: 1454-1465.



Rodgers, J.A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 139-145.

Strickland, B.K and A. Tullos. 2009. Waterfowl Habitat Management Handbook for the Lower

Mississippi River Valley. Mississippi State University, Mississippi, 31 pp.










Use: Collection of plants, seeds, and edible wild plant foods for personal use





Law 106-300).











Description of the Use:

(a). What is the Use? The collection of plants, seeds, and edible wild plant foods for personal

use has historically occurred on the land before the Red River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge)

was established. The collection of plants, seeds, and edible wild plant foods is not a priority

wildlife-dependent public uses defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997. This activity can support wildlife dependent recreational uses that promote an

appreciation of fish and wildlife resources in the Red River Ecosystem.

(b). Where would the use be conducted? The collection of plants, seeds, and edible plant food

would be allowed in designated areas within the Refuge identified in the annual Refuge Public

use Regulations brochure. Locations may typically occur in bottomland and upland forests and in

thickets in the understory along trails. Entry on all or portions of the individual areas may be

temporarily suspended by posting, during occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting

land, water, vegetation, and/or wildlife populations.

(c). When will the use be conducted? Harvest of edible plants usually occurs during daylight

hours, in late spring through fall. Very few individuals make an effort to gather edible plants

resulting in very little quantity of fruit actually removed. Plums, blackberries, dewberries,

pecans, and muscadines are examples of plants that are collected and consumed.

(d). How would the use be conducted? The collection of plants, seeds, and edible plant food is

for personal (non-commercial) use only and commercial operations or commercial equipment is

not permitted. No restriction is made on the number of individuals allowed for this use as very

few individuals access the refuge for the collection of edible plants; however, there is a limit of

five gallons/day/person.

Acorn collection requests are intermittent and all requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis. All acorn requests, if approved, will be issued a Special Use Permit with stipulations

identifying approved areas and methods of collection. Commercial acorn collection operations

will not be allowed.

(e). Why is this being proposed? This was an existing use prior to Refuge establishment, and

the general public still requests access for the activity as a traditional use. The demand for this

use is very light, but the Refuge wants the public to feel free to pick a handful of blackberries or

plums to eat while walking the Refuge. Additionally, the collection of plants, seeds and edible

plant food, as proposed, contributes to wildlife dependent recreation as identified in the

completed 2008 CCP Public Use and Visitor Services Objectives E1-E6.

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Staff will not be involved

in the collection of plants, seeds and edible plant food. Acorn collection proposals will be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the existing staff resources.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None.

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are expected to be negligible from this use on the Refuge.

Monitoring costs: Monitoring and compliance would be handled within existing resources,

programs and staff time.



Short-term Impacts:

Collection of plants, seeds and edible plant food for personal use will have a negligible impact on

forest and wildlife resources. Some habitat trampling or disturbance may occur with foot-traffic,

as expected with similar uses, such as wildlife observation while hiking. Short-term impacts are

minimal and not significant due to the current, small number of users.

No significant increase in the magnitude of this use is expected over the next 10 years. If for

some unanticipated reason this level of use increases a significant degree, a new compatibility

determination would be required and regulating measures (e.g. SUP and quantity restrictions)

could be evaluated with subsequent public comment.


Direct impact is a small amount of plant resources taken from individual trees or shrubs, but is

extremely insignificant on the scale of habitat acres available over the long-term for plum and

blackberry, dewberry, and muscadine seeding. Little concern exists for removing too many

plums since the amount is insignificant and it has been noted by Martin et al. (1961) that “the

small apple-like fruits are not used by wildlife to nearly so great an extent as might be

anticipated”. Blackberries, dewberries, and muscadines are so ubiquitous in range and numerous

in quantities, that wildlife would not be impacted by the small amount removed for human

consumption.

No negative cumulative impacts are expected. As stated earlier, it is expected the use will decline

in the future as demographics change. No conflict of users occurs since the collection of plants,

seeds and edible plant food for personal use mostly occurs outside of the hunting season.

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for

public comment for 14 days from August 1 through August 15, 2018 which was announced on

the refuge’s website. Comments received will be addressed in this section.


____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations








This use is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Conservation Plan and associated



compatibility determination for collection of plants, seeds, and edible wild plant foods for

personal use.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

• Individuals who collect plants, seeds and edible plant food may not sell products or

otherwise engage in commercial activities.

• Limit of five gallons/day/person.

• No personal belongings may be left on the Refuge overnight.

• All Refuge regulations are applicable, including vehicle use.

Justification:

Collection of plants, seeds and edible plant food for personal consumption is not an economic use

and does not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife

Refuge System mission or the purpose of the Refuge. No significant wildlife or habitat

disturbance occurs from the use, and accessibility is limited. No Refuge support is needed for

implementation of this use. Picking wild berries fosters wildlife observation on the Refuge and

illustrates the advantage of certain plants and a healthy environment to the public. Additionally,

as identified in the completed 2008 CCP Public Use and Visitor Services Goal “…promote

environmental education and interpretation opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent public

uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.”

The associated disturbance to wildlife and habitat is temporary and minor. Monitoring would be

conducted to ensure that these uses remain compatible. If uses increase and impacts are

suspected, a re-evaluation will be conducted and corrective actions taken to protect refuge

resources.



Martin, Zim and Nelson. 1961. “American Wildlife & Plants—A Guide to Wildlife Food

Habits”










Use: Bicycling





Law 106-300).











Description of Use:

(a). What is the use? Bicycling occurs throughout Red River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

Although bicycling is not one of the priority public uses defined by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997, some bicycling activities can support wildlife dependent

recreational uses, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental

education, and interpretation. The use mainly occurs in small groups (less than 5 people on

bicycles) or by individuals. This analysis is not intended to apply to organized bicycling events

intended as competition or club enthusiasts’ activities.

(b). Where would the use be conducted? Bicycles are considered legal modes of transportation

on most Louisiana State and Parish roads; therefore, Refuge roads that are open to vehicles are

open to bicycles. Additionally secondary roads that are closed to vehicles are open to bicycles

(unless otherwise marked) since they support the wildlife dependent recreational activities.

(c). When would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted year around with some

possible exceptions that are identified on an annual basis in the annual Refuge Public Use

Regulations brochure. There will be times when areas are temporarily closed to access by the

public for the purposes of sanctuary to migratory birds or other biological and administrative

reasons. Entry on all or portions of the individual areas may be temporarily suspended by posting

(to protect public safety) during occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water,

vegetation, or wildlife populations.

Cyclists accessing the Refuge for hunting will need to possess a valid hunting permit and follow

all Refuge regulations.

(d). How will the use be conducted? Access to the Refuge will be from all publicly available

entry points onto the Refuge as identified in the Refuge regulations. Bicycle races or other

organized group events are not allowed.

(e). Why Is the use being proposed? Bicycle travel on the Refuge provides increased access

and opportunities to participate in priority public uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography. It is an alternative means of travel to view the Refuge’s diverse

biological assets. Additionally, bicycling, as proposed, contributes to wildlife dependent

recreation and other uses such identified in Public Use and Visitor Services Objectives E1-E6 of

the completed 2008 Comprehensive Conservation plan (CCP) of Red River National Wildlife

Refuge.



with administration and law enforcement. Existing staffing and funding are adequate to support

these activities.


Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are expected to be negligible from this use on the Refuge.

However, there are no expected increased costs to maintaining Refuge infrastructure outside

normal use of roads and other.


public having access to the Refuge, such as degree of littering and vandalism. Refuge staff

regularly travels refuge roads, and other public use areas to ensure public safety related to the

proposed use. Plants and wildlife will be monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public

use.



Short-term Impacts:

Bicycle access is typically by a small group (5 or less bicycles in a group) or by individuals on

improved Refuge roads and damage to habitat is negligible. Access by bicycle on roads or trails

during the hunting season is often used to retrieve game or to access remote areas of the Refuge

to hunt. Use is infrequent and dispersed for minimal disturbance.

Some temporary disturbance does occur to wildlife due to human activity on the land, as expected

with similar public uses (Bennett and Zuelke 1999, Pease et al. 2005). Bicycling has the

potential of impacting shorebird, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations feeding and

resting during certain times of the year. Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are

present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Response of wildlife to human activities

includes departure from site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Korschgen et al.

1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993), use of sub-optimal habitat (Erwin 1980,

Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Korschgen et al. 1985, Morton et al.

1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increased energy expenditure

(Morton et al. 1989, Bélanger and Bédard 1990).

Some disturbance can occur to migratory birds (Pease et al. 2005) and resident wildlife due to

cyclists; however, sensitive areas to migratory birds are seasonally closed to public access. Any

unreasonable harassment would be grounds for the manager to close the area to bicycling or

restrict the use to minimize harm.


No long-term impacts are expected to wildlife. Most of the use is on trails which constitute less

than 5% of the refuge acreage and are permanently located. This allows wildlife to adjust to

bicycling by placing dens and nests in areas away from trails. Hunters may disturb individual

animals while traversing across the refuge off trails; however, it would be minor for the following

reasons. Minor disturbance to wildlife is mitigated by management of high quality habitat for

wildlife on the refuge, which has been shown to be more important to wildlife conservation

(Carter et al. 2012). Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting

season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions

with small mammals very rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also

limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters would rarely

encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season. Invertebrates are also not

active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting

season. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted

wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than

the game species legal for the season is not permitted. Disturbance to the daily wintering

activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds might occur, but would be transitory as hunters

traverse habitat. Designated habitat for wintering waterfowl on the Refuge is closed to all public

entry to reduce disturbance to ducks and geese. These sanctuary areas are intensively managed to

provide high quality nutrition and cover for waterfowl during the winter months (USFWS 2013).

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for

public comment for 14 days from August 1 through August 15, 2018 which was announced on

the refuge’s website. Comments received will be addressed in this section.



__X_ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations











compatibility determination for collection of bicycling.


• Bicycle equipment will be removed daily and not be left on the Refuge overnight.

• Harassment of wildlife is prohibited. If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of

this use, then further restrictions may be imposed to protect the plant and animal

resources on the Refuge.

• Individuals using bicycles to support hunting will follow all Refuge regulations and will

possess a valid hunting permit.

• Bicycle races or other organized group events are not allowed.

Justification:

Bicycle use, as identified in this determination, is not expected to materially interfere with or

detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or from the purposes for which

the refuge was established. Additionally, this compatibility determination aids in furthering the

Public Use and Visitor Services Goal “…promote environmental education and interpretation

opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.” The associated disturbance to wildlife and

habitat is temporary and minor. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that this use remains

compatible. If use increases and impacts are observed, a re-evaluation will be conducted and

corrective actions taken to protect refuge resources. Bicycles are used to facilitate priority public

uses as a reasonable mode of access. Outdoor recreational activities provide individuals with

quality wildlife-oriented experiences, educational opportunities, and allows them to utilize a

natural environment.



Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41.

Bennett, K.A. and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: a literature review.

Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna, DE 19977.

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A

review. Widlife Society bulletin 13:110-116

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:

231-241.

Carter, N.H., B.K. shrestha, J.B. karki, N. Pradhan, and J. Liu. 2012. Coexistence between

wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. PNAS 109(38): 15360-15365.

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in two mid-Atlantic U.S.

regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 18: 39-

51

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 290-298.

Henson, P.T. and A. grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 248-257.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron

behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management 18: 561-567.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin.

Wildlife Society Bulltein 19: 242-248.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral response to human disturbance. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 21: 31-39

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters

on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 290-296.



Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kilpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 401-410.











U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Red River National Wildlife Refuge Habitat

Management Plan. Farmerville, LA, 83 pp.

Ward, D.H. and R.A. Stehn. 9189. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife

Research Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska.

193 pp.

Williams, G.J. and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant

geese and wigeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31: 151-157.


Use: Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys by Third Parties

• Research: Planned, organized and systematic investigation of a scientific nature.

• Scientific collecting: Gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific

purposes.

• Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring





Law 106-300).











Description of Use:

(a). What is the use? Red River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) receives periodic requests

from non-Service entities (e.g. universities, state agencies, other federal agencies,

nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys on the

refuge. Research proposals are typically developed by the non-Service entities in support of

refuge special needs or with refuge staff input into larger scale proposals that may utilize refuge

lands and waters as a base of study. Other than staff review time, these research proposals and

resultant studies are the responsibility and expense of the sponsoring school or group. Research

and monitoring is not a priority public use of the Refuge System under the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 668dd (d) and 50 C.F.R. Part 25, Subpart D, the refuge manager is

responsible for reviewing applications for special use permits (SUPs) and determining whether to

authorize a proposed use. Uses must be “appropriate,” and if so, also found to be “compatible”

with the refuge purposes, and those of the Refuge System, prior to be approved and undertaken.

These decisions are based on the Service’s best professional judgment, consistent with Service

regulations and policy, including the Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity,

and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System (66 Fed. Reg. 3810 (2001);

601 FW 3).

(b). Where would the use be conducted? Sites for this use would depend on the particular

action (research, collecting or survey) being conducted and could occur in a variety of habitat

types on the Refuge. Access would be restricted by Special Use Permit (SUP) to the minimum

sample size or study sites needed to meet stated objectives of the research, scientific collection or

survey project.

(c). When would the use be conducted? The timing of research, collecting and survey activities

would depend on the individual project. Studies vary from a few weeks to several months in

duration (limited ones may develop over two or three years but these are exceptions). Currently

most research occurs during day-light hours in the growing season (April – August). The timing,

duration, number of staff and visits by permittees may be restricted by SUP at the discretion of

the Refuge Manager. Time-of-year restrictions could be imposed to protect wildlife or to prevent

conflicts with other Refuge uses or management activities.

(d). How would the use be conducted? Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible

protocols for data collection, where available and applicable. Detailed proposals are required

prior to the proposed timeframe and will be reviewed by the Refuge. If a proposal is approved, a

SUP would be issued and administered by the Refuge Manager or Refuge Biologist. Projects that

contribute to Refuge-specific needs for resource goals and objectives, where applicable, would be

given a higher priority over other requests.

Evaluation criteria for approving studies will include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Contribution to specific Refuge management issues

• The level and type of disturbance to wildlife and habitats

• Impact or conflict with Refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent public

uses, other high-priority research or Refuge habitat and wildlife management program.

• Length of project.

(e). Why is this use being proposed? The Service’s policies on research and management

studies (4 RM 6) and appropriate refuge uses (603 FW1.10D(4)) indicate priority for scientific

investigatory studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and

management of native wildlife populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity.

Additionally, this use would further the goals identified under the of Fish and Wildlife

Management, Habitat management, Resource protection, Visitor Services sections of the

completed 2008 Red River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).


Resources involved in the administration and management of the use:

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will be primarily limited to the

following: review of proposals, preparation of SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g.,

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act), and monitoring of project implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts

remain within acceptable levels (compatible) over time. Additional administrative support,

logistical and operational support may also be provided depending on each specific request.

Facilities and staff are currently available to provide access, maintain roads, parking lots,

secondary access roads for other public uses. Staff resources are deemed adequate to manage this

use at anticipated levels.


Maintenance costs: None.

Monitoring costs: Refuge staff monitors the project to ensure compatibility.



Short-term Impacts:

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon the nature and

scope of the fieldwork. Some effects would occur through disturbance that is expected with some

research activities, especially where researchers are entering sanctuaries or sensitive areas.

Researcher disturbance could include altering wildlife behavior, trampling vegetation, or

inflicting injury or stress due to trapping and handling wildlife. Death of animals from lethal

collection methods or from accidental death and injury from handling may occur. Experimental

manipulations of habitats may result in the alteration or destruction of wildlife habitat. Impacts

may also occur from infrastructure necessary to support projects (e.g. permanent transects or plot

markers, monitoring equipment, etc.)

Disturbance to breeding, resting, and feeding wildlife and their habitats may occur through

frequent contact with researchers performing data collection and monitoring activities. Results of

disturbance could include the abandonment of nest and young resulting from frequent visitation

to nest or breeding sites.

These effects would be expected to be localized and temporary (short-lived), therefore minor,

given the stipulations guiding project approval and implementation that are outlined below.

Disturbance to wildlife, vegetation, water, soils, or cultural resources could occur while

researchers are accessing study sites on vehicles or by foot, or while they are engaged in their

project. The presence of researchers could also indirectly disturb wildlife. Potential impacts

include:

Trampling, damage, and killing of vegetation from walking off trail (Kuss 1986, Roovers

et al. 2004, Hammitt and Cole 1998).

Soil compaction, soil erosion, and changes in hydrology from hiking on and off trail

(Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004).

Disturbance to wildlife that causes shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat,

increased energy demands on affected wildlife, changes in nesting and reproductive

success, and singing behavior (Knight and Cole 1991, Miller et al. 1998, Shulz and Stock

1993, Gill et al. 1996, Arrese 1987, Gill et al. 2001).

Overall, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research is likely to have little impact on

Refuge wildlife populations. The Refuge does not anticipate adverse impacts on non-target

species or other resources from research activities as these activities are typically geared towards

benefiting Refuge management of trust resources. The proposed use would cause only minor and

short-term disturbances to some wildlife and little or no disturbance to Refuge visitors. Long-

term effects would be eliminated/ reduced because Refuge evaluation of research proposals

would insure only proposals with adequate safeguards to avoid/minimize impacts would be

accepted. Potential impacts associated with research activities would be minimized because

sufficient restrictions would be included as part of the study design and researcher activities

would be monitored by Refuge staff. The continuance of research projects is an important

management tool that can have significant beneficial effects on Refuge lands and

waters. Research findings would assist Refuge Management in providing quality wildlife and

habitat management in furthering the primary purposes for which this Refuge was acquired.

Furthermore, research can allow us to meet management goals at a modest cost to the Refuge.

This use should not result in short- or long-term impacts that adversely affect the purpose for this

Refuge or the mission of the NWRS.

There may be short-term disturbance to plants and wildlife during field investigations that may be

unavoidable in some cases. We would conduct Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluations for

any proposal that could be anticipated to have an impact on any federally threatened or

endangered species.

Long-term Impacts:

Research projects with long-term impacts to wildlife and/or habitat would not be approved on the

Refuge.

Cumulative Impacts:

Long-term research projects will be monitored for cumulative impacts to wildlife and their

habitats. It is rare for on-going, long-term research to occur on the Refuge as the average

research project is two years, but if cumulative impacts were detected, the research would be

discontinued. No cumulative effects are anticipated from short-term research projects that would

not allow long-term impacts.





Refuge Determination:


_X___ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations










2008b) for Red River NWR.


All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research proposal for review and approval by

Refuge Biologist/Manager.

• Prior to conducting investigations, researchers will obtain Special Use Permit(s) from the

Refuge that make specific stipulations related to when, where, and how the research will

be conducted. Managers retain the option to prohibit research on the Refuge which does

not contribute to the its purposes or the mission of the Refuge System, or causes undo

resource disturbance or harm.

• Research applicants must submit a study plan to the Refuge Manager that includes:

a. a justification and objectives of the study;

b. relevance to resource management, methods, schedule and personnel;

c. potential impacts on Refuge wildlife and/or habitat;

d. provisions to minimize disturbance, injury, or mortality and prevent the introduction

of invasive or pest species;

e. compliance with established standards for proper animal care and use;

f. data standards and data management plan;

g. costs to Refuge, if any; and

h. anticipated end products (i.e. reports, publications, recommendations).

• Research plans will be reviewed by Refuge staff. Evaluation criteria will include, but not

be limited to, the following:

a. Research that has direct relevance to management will have higher priority than

other requests.

b. Research that conflicts with higher priority research, monitoring or management

programs may not be granted.

c. Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive, will likely not be granted.

d. If staffing or logistics make it difficult for Refuge staff to monitor researcher activity

in a sensitive area, this may be reason to deny the request.

e. The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval.

Projects will not be open-ended and at a minimum, will be reviewed annually.

• Researchers must possess all applicable state and federal permits for the capture and

possession of protected species, for conducting regulated activities in wetlands, and for

other regulated activities. Researchers must demonstrate they have approval from the

Animal Care and Use Committee, if such approval is required by their research

institution.

• Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats)

will be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed on

Refuge lands, to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests and invasive species.

• Researchers, scientific collectors and surveyors will submit an electronic copy of all raw

data collected on Refuge lands to the Project Leader with the understanding that the

researcher will have the opportunity to produce publications based on the data.

• If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the

Refuge staff, the Refuge Manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an

ongoing project already permitted by SUP(s).

• The failure of the United States to enforce strict performance of the terms, conditions,

covenants, agreements, or stipulations of SUPs, for access to conduct research and

monitoring activities on national wildlife Refuge lands, shall not constitute a waiver or

relinquishment of the right of the United States to strictly enforce thereafter such terms,

conditions, covenants, agreements, or stipulations which shall, at all times, continue in

full force and effect.

The Permittee shall save, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the United States of

America, its agents and employees for loss, damages, or judgments and expenses on

account of bodily injury, death or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death,

or property damage of any nature whatsoever, and by whomever made, arising out of

the Permittees, his employees, subcontractors or agents with respect to conducting

monitoring within the lands administered by Red River National Wildlife Refuge

Complex.

Permittee shall provide at least one written update annually that summarizes the

permitted research and its current findings. Written reports should be of peer-review

quality. A final report, of peer-review quality, will be provided to the Refuge within

12 months of the completion of fieldwork. Copies of all publications related to this

permit will be provided to the Refuge free of cost.

Publications and presentations should provide appropriate credit to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Red River NWR.

Justification:

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on Refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service

because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions.

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys can directly benefit and support Refuge goals,

objectives and management plans and activities and can contribute to recovery of endangered or

threatened species. Scientific findings gained through these projects provide important

information regarding life-history needs of species and species groups as well as identify or refine

management actions to achieve resource management objectives in refuge management plans

(especially Comprehensive Conservation Plans). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife and

habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522

DM 1. Management of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat should improve through the

application of knowledge gained from research, scientific collecting, and surveys. The

combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in the SUP will ensure that

proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation and management of

native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help

fulfill Refuge purposes, contribute to the mission of the NWRS, and maintain biological integrity,

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge.



Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song

Sparrows. Animal Behavior 35:773-784.

Gill, J. A.,W.J. Sutherland, and A.R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of

human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:786-792.

Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the

population consequences of human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 97: 265–268.

Hammitt, W.E., and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd

edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands.

Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference

pp.238-247.

Kuss, F.R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts.

Environmental Management, 10:638-650.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird

communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and

vegetation recovery in some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation

Science 7:111-118.

Schultz, R.D., and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourists: competitors on sandy coasts?

In Disturbance to waterfowl on Estuaries. Davison, N. and P. rothwell (eds). Wader

Study Group Bulletin 68:83-91.

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and




U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Red River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive





Use: All-terrain Vehicles (ATV)





Law 106-300).











Description of Use:

(a). What is the use? All-terrain vehicles (ATV) use is a use that has occurred in the Red River

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) prior to refuge establishment. This use is not a priority public

wildlife-dependent use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. However, this use can facilitate public involvement in priority public uses such as hunting

and fishing due to the Refuges’ very limited road system. ATVs are generally defined as three,

four, or six-wheeled vehicles that are equipped with low pressure tires designed primarily for off-

road use.

(b). Where would the use be conducted? The Refuge currently has 17 miles of designated roads

and marked trails for this use as identified in the Refuge regulations.

(c). When would the use be conducted? ATV trail access is by the general public for access

during hunting and fishing seasons. The hunting season on the Refuge is September through

February. ATV use will be allowed during legally operable hours and is expected to occur

throughout the hunting season. ATV use is prohibited on the Refuge from one hour after legal

shooting hours end to 4:00 am. Raccoon nighttime hunters may use ATVs on existing trails.

Anglers may use ATVs on designated trails from September through February.

(d). How would the use be conducted? ATVs are usually trailered to trail-heads and parking

areas and ridden on designated trails to access remote areas within the Refuge prior to walking to

hunting or fishing areas. ATVs are not permitted off the designated trails. Tires are restricted to

those no larger than 25x12 with a maximum 1” lug height and a maximum allowable tire pressure

of 12 lbs. psi. as indicated on the tire by the manufacturer. ATVs cannot exceed 750 lbs, 85

inches in length and 48 inches in width. Entry on all or portions of the individual areas may be

temporarily suspended by posting, during occasions of unusual or critical conditions affecting

land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations or public safety.

(e). Why is this use being proposed? ATV use is an activity on Red River NWR that facilitates

public access in support of wildlife-dependent activities, such as hunting. ATV use on the

Refuge provides increased access and opportunities to participate in priority public uses such as

hunting and fishing. Additionally, ATV use, as proposed, contributes to wildlife dependent

recreation and other uses as identified in Public Use and Visitor Services Objectives E1-E6 of the

completed 2008 Comprehensive Conservation plan (CCP) of Red River National Wildlife

Refuge.



with administration and law enforcement of trails, parking lots, signs, and other facilities. Law

enforcement is required for regulated use of trails and ATV specifications.


Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs related to trail upkeep are expected from this use on the

Refuge. Every 2-4 years the annual maintenance costs may increase in order to provide gravel

for roads and replace signs.

Monitoring costs: Minimal costs are associated with this use to monitor compliance with the

permit, habitat response and monitoring the consequences of public having access to the Refuge,

such as degree of littering and vandalism. Refuge staff regularly travels refuge trails and other

public use areas to ensure public safety related to the proposed use. Plants and wildlife will be

monitored to determine any impacts as a result of public use.

Offsetting Revenue: None.


In the early history of the Refuge, trails were established for ATV use as a concession to limited

access and were historically used in the area before the Refuge was established. The trails

presently designated for use are primitive in nature and were historically logging roads, old roads,

levees, or right-of-ways. ATVs cause much less damage to roads and trails than do conventional

and four-wheel drive vehicles. Use of ATVs help distribute hunters, thereby facilitating a

balanced harvest and reducing hunter crowding.

The Refuge terrain is relatively flat and drainage is poor. During seasonal flooding the area is

covered by several feet of water. Although the ground pressure exerted by ATVs is low, traffic

eventually eliminates all vegetation within the trails and some rutting occurs when soils are

saturated (Marion 2006). Designated trails have been routed to minimize habitat damage, avoid

sensitive areas such as major stream crossings and allowing trails to only seasonal use minimizes

overall potential impacts (Marion 2006, Ahlstrand and Racine 1993).

The primary compatibility issues of concern are with disturbance to wildlife and migratory

waterfowl (Klein 1993, Pease et al. 2005). ATV use does result in some minimal disturbance to

wildlife due to noise (Rennison and Wallace 1976) but impacts are minimized due to seasonality

of ATV use in that ATV trails are not open during breeding seasons. Migratory waterfowl

should not be significantly impacted by ATV use because ATV trails do not exist within

waterfowl sanctuary areas on the refuge. In other areas of the refuge, trails are usually

inaccessible during the winter months and during high waterfowl use because of seasonal

flooding (usually November through May).





Refuge Determination:


__X___ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations


__x___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement









compatibility determination for all-terrain vehicle use.


ATVs may be used only to reach areas open to wildlife-dependent activities

such as hunting and fishing.

ATV tires are restricted to those no larger than 25x12 with a maximum 1” lug height and

a maximum allowable tire pressure of 12 lbs psi, as indicated on the tire by the

manufacturer. ATVs cannot exceed 750 lbs, 85” in length and 48” in width.

No equipment (vehicles, ATV, blinds, decoys, stands, etc.) may be left over night.

Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited.

If any adverse impacts occur from any aspect of the limited public access, then further

restrictions may be imposed to protect the plant and animal resources of the Refuge.

ATV use is limited to designated trails only. Parking of trailers are restricted to parking

areas and along public access roads.

All ATV users will adhere to special regulations in the Refuge brochure.

Justification:

Use of ATVs is an access concession strictly in support of the priority public uses of hunting and

fishing and does not materially interfere or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was

established or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. ATVs cause much less

damage to roads and trails than do conventional and four-wheel drive vehicles. Use of ATVs

help distribute hunters, thereby facilitating a balanced harvest and reducing hunter crowding.

Additionally, ATV use, contributes to refuge objectives as identified in the completed 2008 CCP

Public Use and Visitor Services Goal “…promote environmental education and interpretation

opportunities and enhance wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, and wildlife photography on the refuge.”



Ahlstrand, G.M. and C.H. Racine. 1993. Response of an Alaska, USA, Shrub Tussock

community to selected all-terrain vehicle use. Arctic Alpine and research 25(2):142-149.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 21(1): 31-39.





Rennison, D.C. and A. Wallace 1976. The extent of acoustic influence of oof-road vehicles in

wilderness areas. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide,

Adelaide, Australia, 19 pp.






Use: Cooperative Farming





Law 106-300).











Act of 1990

Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? Cooperative farming is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

national wildlife refuges in the Southeast Region as a habitat management tool to provide high

energy food sources for millions of wintering ducks, geese, and swans and other migratory bird

species. Within the lower Mississippi Valley, these food resources are critical to each refuge’s

ability to successfully meet the goals and objectives set by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint

Venture (LMVJV 2016) as stepped down from the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(NAWMP 2012) and the respective Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and Habitat

Management Plans (HMPs) developed for each refuge in this landscape. Red River National

Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) has a wintering waterfowl habitat objective to provide over

8.1 million duck energy days (DEDs) each year (CCP Objective C-3, HMP Objectives 4.2.2 and

4.2.3) (USFWS 2008b, USFWS 2013).

The Refuge uses a combination of farming, moist soil, and forested wetlands to provide suitable

wintering waterfowl habitat. Studies have documented that wintering waterfowl in the

Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) prefer regions composed of 50% cropland, 20% moist soil

wetlands, 20% forested wetlands, and 10% open water habitats. (Strickland et. al 2009).

Hundreds of acres of naturally occurring moist soil and forested wetlands, as well as open water,

are present on Red River NWR. These acres of natural food and open water, in conjunction with

farming, will allow the Refuge to mimic the preferred composition of wintering waterfowl

habitats found by Strickland et al. (2009).

Cooperative farming is an economic use whereby a farmer produces crops (primarily corn, rice,

and millet) on a refuge and, in lieu of a rental payment, leaves an unharvested share of the planted

crop for wintering waterfowl and other wildlife species. On Red River NWR, farmers are also

required to flood the unharvested crop for the 25% refuge share, making it more attractive for

wintering waterfowl. The farmer is responsible for all equipment, fuel, seed, fertilizer, approved

herbicides, and labor necessary to farm the Refuge. The Refuge is responsible for identifying the

type and location of crops to be planted, providing the farmer with an approved list of herbicides

for use, and identifying the Refuge’s location of crop share which will contribute to the waterfowl

management goals and objectives.

There are three primary management options to meet step-down habitat objectives under the

NAWMP for wintering waterfowl on the Refuge: 1) moist soil management, 2) force account

farming (i.e., Refuge staff farms the fields), and 3) cooperative farming.

Moist soil management is the manipulation of naturally occurring wetland plants to produce

preferred waterfowl forage (Strader and Stinson 2005). Under moist soil management, staff uses

a combination of 1) disking, mowing, and/or burning wetland plants to set back plant succession,

2) application of herbicides or mechanical disturbance to control undesirable plants, and 3)

prescribed flooding of natural wetlands or wetland impoundments to make forage available to

waterfowl. Several natural-occurring moist soil wetlands are already present on Red River

NWR.

Force account farming is farming conducted by the Refuge staff which allows 100% of the crop

to be retained for waterfowl use. Extensive staff time and farming equipment (e.g., farm tractors,

seed drill(s), boom sprayers, and other farming implements) are used by the Service to force

account farm. Knowledgeable staff are also needed to ensure desired crop productivity is

obtained, which will meet habitat objectives and energetic requirements of wintering waterfowl.

Of the three management options available to meet wintering waterfowl objectives, force account

farming and moist soil management require high initial investments by the Service for equipment

and high annual expenses such as equipment repair and replacement, large requirements of staff

time, seed, fertilizer, lime, diesel fuel, and herbicide costs. Refuge Managers also must decide if

staff time dedicated to these management options

can be conducted in a way that does not limit other

management needs such as threatened and

endangered species management, forest

management, and management of priority public

uses. Cooperative farming is therefore considered to

be the most effective option for the Refuge to meet

wintering waterfowl habitat objectives (HMP

Objective 4.2.3; USFWS 2013).

(a) Where would the use be conducted?

Cooperative farming on the Refuge would occur

primarily on the 1,068 acres of agriculture fields

located in the Lower Cane River Unit. The Refuge

Manager may decide to farm less than 1,068 acres in

any given year due to weather conditions, economic

considerations, or refuge management needs.

(b) When would this use be conducted?

Cooperative farming activities (field-prep, planting, harvesting, etc.) generally occur between

March 15 and November 15. The farmer is also responsible for keeping the Refuge’s share of

crops flooded at an optimum waterfowl foraging depth throughout the winter months, generally

between November 1 – March 15.

(c) How would this use be conducted?

The cropping is done under the terms and conditions of a cooperative farming agreement and

special use permit issued by the Refuge Manager. The terms of the permit ensure that all current

Service and Refuge guidelines and restrictions are followed. Permittee selection and associated

determination of cost or shares will follow relevant Refuge Manual guidance (5 RM 17 and 620

FW 2) and Region 4 specific guidance for farming.

The cooperative farming program is a component of the refuge’s annual habitat management

program and activities conducted by the cooperator support the accomplishment of refuge habitat

management objectives. We follow best management practices in the implementation of the

cooperative farming program. Forested or grass buffers are established between all farm fields

and any adjacent wetlands and streams. We prepare pesticide use proposals (7 RM 14) for

application of all pesticides, and only those that are shown to not impact fish and wildlife

resources are approved.

Annual cooperative farming agreements (agreement) are established with farmers prior to the

planting season. An agreement outlines the crop(s), location, and amount of acreage to be planted

during the coming year and is signed by the cooperative farmer (cooperator) and the Refuge

Manager or designee. The cooperator is responsible for all equipment, fuel, seed, fertilizer,

chemicals, and labor necessary to produce the crop and flood the Refuge’s share during the

wintering waterfowl period. Pumping of water is always in the fields in which the crop shares are

derived. Cooperative farmers are required to perform soil tests to determine nutrient needs

(fertilizer and lime applications) according to the local Agriculture Extention Service. Attached

to the agreement will be a list of pesticides approved for use through the PUPS process. The

cooperator assumes responsibility for all associated costs for the crops grown and for flooding of

the Refuge’s share. Modifications to the original farming agreement may occur throughout the

farming season, by writing addendums to the original agreement that have been agreed upon and

signed by both the cooperator and Refuge Manager or designee. The Refuge Manager or

designee will administer the cooperative farming program and be required to prepare farming

contracts, meet with farmers, verify crop plantings, verify pest problems, and negotiate any

needed addendums during the year.

The Service only considers the use of pesticides registered by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to control crop pests, in conjunction with other control measures as needed, to

protect crops and enhance production to meet economic thresholds for cooperative farmers. In

2008, the Service prepared the Draft Red River NWR CCP and associated Environmental

Assessment (EA) to analyze the effects of the farming program, including the use of pesticides

(USFWS 2008a). The Service also conducts annual analysis of pesticide usage through the

Service’s pesticide use proposals (PUPs) process (7 RM 14) for application of all pesticides and

approves only those that are shown to not impact fish and wildlife resources. Intra-Service

Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation is also completed on the application of all

pesticides in coordination with preparing and submitting the PUPs. Application of pesticides

must follow the Department of Interior’s Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Services

Integrated Pest Management policy (569 FW 1) and must be approved by both the EPA and

through the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s PUP process. Best Management Practices are also

utilized in addition to restrictions imposed by the EPA. Attached to each agreement will be a list

of pesticides and associated BMPs approved for use through the PUP process. In almost all

cases, Service pesticide use restrictions are more restrictive than the EPA-registered pesticide

label restrictions.

(d) Why is this use being proposed?

The Refuge is located just outside of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, which is a continentally

important region for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America (Reinecke et al. 1989).

The total wintering waterfowl population objective in the MAV is 4.5 million ducks and geese

(Reinecke and Loesch 1996; Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) 2016), which

includes mallard, northern pintail, American black duck, gadwall, American wigeon, green-

winged teal, northern shoveler, wood duck, and geese. The initial population goals were adjusted

for 15% winter mortality (Reinecke and Loesch 1996) and to account for early migrating ducks

that winter in Mexico (LMVJV 2007). Waterfowl habitats are ranked with a value that describes

the amount of energy they provide in food resources, known as “duck-energy-days” or DED’s.

DEDs are defined as the number of ducks that can be energetically sustained in one acre of

foraging habitat for one day (LMVJV 2016). Waterfowl energy needs are modeled for an

overwintering period of 110 days, representing early November to late February (Reinecke and

Loesch 1996). Additionally, DED objectives were adjusted to account for goose competition

(LMVJV 2016) and Wood Ducks were assumed to feed 75% in forested wetlands and 25% in

moist-soil wetlands (LMVJV 2016).

As a result, across the 110-day period the overall NAWMP goal for the MAV is 469,336,891

DEDs (Table 1). Currently the state of Louisiana is deficient in wintering waterfowl habitat by

53.4 million duck energy days (LMVJV 2016). Thus, the cooperative farming program adds

essential capacity in the ability of National Wildlife Refuges to significantly contribute to

NAWMP DED goals and objectives. In fact, refuges are expected to produce 23 million more

DEDs in Louisiana to make up for the deficit, which is roughly double what they are already

contributing (LMVJV 2016). Red River’s step down allocation is 8.1 million DEDs (USFWS

2013).

At the present time, the Refuge does not have staff or equipment necessary to manage and

maintain the acreage needed to meet its waterfowl DED objectives without the assistance of the

cooperative farming program. Refuge cooperative farming operations will continue under

carefully regulated conditions.

The primary purpose for farming on national wildlife refuges is to ensure that waterfowl can meet

their foraging needs, which enhances their body condition and supports reproductive output.

Female ducks that are in good physical condition when leaving the wintering grounds, nest

earlier, and have larger clutch sizes than those in poor condition (Ringelman 1990, Dzus and

Clark 1998). Early nests and larger clutch sizes produce a greater number of fledgling ducks than

late nests and smaller clutches (Krapu 1981, Heitmeyer 1988, Strickland et al. 2009). Thus,

availability of high-quality foraging habitat on the wintering grounds, especially in disturbance-

free areas (sanctuary), is positively related to the reproductive output of waterfowl during

breeding season. Waterfowl habitat in the Southeastern United States is of paramount importance

since 50% of the continental waterfowl population winter in this region annually (unpubl. data,

M. Koenff, USFWS).

TABLE 1. DUCK ENERGY DAY (DED) OBJECTIVES BASED ON ENERGY DEMAND OF

STEPPED-DOWN NAWMP OBJECTIVES FOR THE MAV PORTION OF THE LMVJV

(LMVJV 2016).

State DED Objective

Arkansas 219,427,337

Kentucky 4,708,843

Louisiana 120,913,290

Mississippi 72,637,077

Missouri 18,025,015

Tennessee 33,625,658

MAV TOTAL 469,336,891

The cooperative farming use on the Refuge was previously analyzed in the Environmental

Assessment (USFWS 2008) for the Refuge’s CCP; the Finding of No Significant Impact for the

CCP’s Environmental Assessment was signed in June 2008 (USFWS 2008). The cooperative

farming use was found to be appropriate and compatible on Red River NWR. The cooperative

farming use was also analyzed in the Refuge’s HMP and associated Environmental Action

Statement (USFWS 2013). Environmental conditions and farming operations have not changed

substantially since those analyses. Compatibility policy (603 FW 2) requires that the Service

reevaluate these types of uses at least every 10 years; the previous compatibility determination for

cooperative farming was signed in 2008 with the final CCP and Finding of No Significant Impact

(USFWS 2008b). This compatibility determination updates and replaces the 2008 compatibility

determination for cooperative farming.

Availability of Resources: The need for staff time for the development and administration of cooperative farming program is

already committed and available. Most of the needed work to prepare for this use would be done

as part of routine habitat management duties. The decision to use a cooperative farmer would

occur as part of strategies developed under habitat management planning and discussions

(USFWS 2013).

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use – Refuge staff is responsible

for drafting the Cooperative Farming Agreement and necessary Pesticide Use Proposals.

Administration of the cooperative farming program consists of approximately 20 staff days or

less than five percent of refuge staff time devoted to administering this activity.

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use – None

Maintenance costs – Maintenance costs include personnel and equipment for maintaining roads

for farm field access.

Monitoring costs – Existing Refuge staff monitors the farming program to ensure compatibility

and compliance with the Farming Agreement.

Offsetting revenues – None

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The 2008 Environmental Assessment for the CCP (USFWS 2008a) analyzed the impacts of the

Proposed Action, including cooperative farming; a summary of that analysis is included. The

2008 Finding of No Significant Impact for the CCP’s Environmental Assessment found that no

significant impacts were expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action, which

included cooperative farming activities. Further, the 2013 HMP and companion Environmental

Action Statement, the Intra-Service Section 7s for the CCP, and the Section 7s for the annual

Pesticide Use Proposals all support the CCP’s Finding of No Significant Impact, including from

cooperative farming activities.

In terms of the impacts related specifically to habitat objectives of the Refuge, we expect no

impact to the diversity of fish, wildlife or plants occurring on the Refuge. The relatively small

impact area (7% of the Refuge) suggests that no plant or species of fish and wildlife will be

negatively impacted or extirpated from the refuge.

Short-term impacts – Soil disturbance is likely to occur when the areas are disked during the

spring planting season, but these impacts can be lessened by the implementation of no-till and

conservation tillage farming methods. It is Service policy that the long-term productivity of the

soil will not be jeopardized to meet wildlife objectives (620 FW 2). Buffer strips adjacent to

waterways and sensitive areas help trap sediments and hold agricultural run-off.

Pesticides will be used and approved through the PUPS process prior to application. The

minimum effective volume will be applied and Best Management Practices will be followed.

Long-term impacts – Both current and proposed management recognize the benefits for providing

supplemental forage for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds within the Mississippi Flyway.

Refuge farming practices (both current and proposed) are designed for the predominate benefit of

waterfowl (ducks and geese). However, many other species would benefit directly or indirectly

from Refuge crops. Croplands on the Refuge provide an accessible, high-energy food source

during the wintering period of migratory waterfowl. Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders,

and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, mallard, northern pintails, and teal have

learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by agriculture (Bellrose 1976). During the

last century, migration routes and wintering areas have changed in response to availability of

these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979). Some species have developed such strong

migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on agricultural foods for their

migration or winter survival (Ringelman 1990). However, during breeding and molting periods,

waterfowl require a balanced diet with high protein content. Agricultural foods, most of which are

neither nutritionally balanced nor high in protein, are seldom used during these periods. During

fall, winter, and early spring, when vegetative foods make up a large part of their diet, agricultural

foods are preferred forage except in arctic and subarctic environments (Sugden 1971).

Cooperative farmers are allowed to use EPA registered pesticides by way of a closely monitored

Service-wide Pesticide Use Proposal System. These pesticides are reviewed and registered by the

EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC §136) (FIFRA). EPA

conducts risks assessments to ensure that approved pesticides will not generally cause

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. In addition to EPA’s review of each pesticide,

pesticides proposed for use on refuge lands go through an extensive Service review process in

order to conduct a toxicity profile prior to their use. This review process provides the refuge with

BMP’s that assist the refuge with the use of each pesticide and reduces potential impacts to non-

target pest species. As part of the PUPS process, Intra-Service Section 7 consultation is

conducted, for each pesticide, which evaluates any possible impacts to threatened and/or

endangered species that are near and/or adjacent to the spray area. The Service is typically more

restrictive than what is called for on the label particularly when it comes to buffers. Each

chemical is carefully evaluated and ultimately approved by the Regional IPM Coordinator

through the PUPS process. These safeguards are designed to minimize both short and long term

impacts to habitat and wildlife.





All pesticides are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC §136) (FIFRA). EPA

conducts risks assessments to ensure that approved pesticides will not generally cause

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. In addition to EPA’s review of each pesticide,

pesticides proposed for use on refuge lands go through an extensive Service review process in

order to conduct a toxicity profile prior to their use.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible



Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

X Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

This compatibility determination can be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis

under 40 CFR §1508.4, 516 DM 8.5(A)(1), 516 DM 8.5(B)(7), 516 DM 8.5(B)(9), and 516 DM

8.5(C)(5). Further, the actions do not trigger an extraordinary circumstance as outlined under 43

CFR §46.215. The cooperative farming use is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and associated Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a) and Finding of No

Significant Impact (USFWS 2008b) for Red River NWR. Environmental conditions and farming

operations have not changed substantially since that analysis. This compatibility determination

updates and replaces the 2008 compatibility determination for cooperative farming.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The cooperative farming program is implemented through annual cooperative farming

agreements that specify the fields, crops to be grown, acceptable farming practices, and approved

pesticides and use procedures. Special conditions contained in each cooperative farming

agreement include the listed items.

The program will adhere to general conditions for cooperative farming programs as listed

in the Refuge Manual (620 FW 2).

All operations on the refuge cropland are to be carried out in accordance with the best

management practices (BMPs) and soil conservation practices

o Fifty foot (50’) vegetative buffer strips are maintained around all fields and water

bodies

Cooperating farmers will be subject to Service policy and regulations regarding use of

chemicals. Herbicide and pesticide use is restricted by type and to the minimum

necessary amount needed.

The use of genetically modified crops and neonicotinoid treated seeds are prohibited on

Service lands.

Special conditions of special use permits will address unique local conditions as

applicable.

o No fall disking allowed

o Crops must be harvested by October 15

o Refuge share crops will be flooded at least 4 inches starting November 1

o No drainage of seasonally flooded habitat is allowed until after March 1

Justification: Cooperative farming use was analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a) for the

Refuge’s CCP; the Finding of No Significant Impact for the CCP’s Environmental Assessment

was signed in June 2008 (USFWS 2008b). Cooperative farming use was found to be appropriate

and compatible on Red River NWR. Cooperative farming use was also analyzed in the Refuge’s

HMP and associated Environmental Action Statement (USFWS 2013). Environmental conditions

and farming operations have not changed substantially since those analyses.

Conditions/stipulations imposed in cooperative farming agreements ensure that farming activities

minimize impacts to Refuge resources.

Cooperative farming at Red River NWR complies with all applicable laws, regulations,

and policies. Pesticide-specific analysis is conducted by the EPA through its risk

assessment process that includes ecological, human health, and cumulative risk

assessments; the EPA risk assessment process also includes a Federal Register notice and

public review process. The Service conducts pesticide-specific analysis through PUPS.

These two processes analyze health and environmental concerns related to specific

pesticides. The Service only uses pesticides that have been reviewed and registered

through both the EPA and Service processes in accordance with label restrictions and

proper best management practices. All pesticide use on NWRs must adhere to the

Department of the Interior’s Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Services integrated

Pest Management Policy (569 FW 1) to further minimize potential impacts.

The Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) was approved

in 2001 and updated in 2006 as one of the 14 directives contained within the NWRS

Improvement Act of 1997. This policy provides Refuge Managers with an evaluation process to

https://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html

analyze refuge resources and recommend the best management practices in concert with the

Refuge purpose(s) and the NWRS mission. This policy specifically addresses farming in 601 FW

3.15(B) and 601 FW 3.15(C).

“Our habitat management plans call for the appropriate management strategies

that mimic historic conditions while still accomplishing refuge objectives…

Farming, haying, logging, livestock grazing, and other extractive activities are

permissible habitat management practices only when prescribed in plans to meet

wildlife or habitat management objectives, and only when more natural methods,

such as fire or grazing by native herbivores, cannot meet refuge goals and

objectives.” [601 FW 3.15(B)]

“We do not allow refuge uses or management practices that result in the

maintenance of non-native plant communities unless we determine there is no

feasible alternative for accomplishing refuge purpose(s).” [601 FW 3.15(C)]

In addition, this policy provides guidance on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health in a landscape context (601 FW 3.7(C)).

“In pursuit of refuge purposes, individual refuges may at times compromise elements of

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at the refuge scale in support of

those components at larger landscape scales. When evaluating the appropriate

management direction for refuges, refuge managers will consider their refuges’

contribution to biological integrity, diversity and environmental health at multiple

scales.”

The Refuge acknowledges that the cooperative farming program may influence some aspects of

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health from the cooperating farmer’s share on

the Refuge. We try to minimize these impacts using best management practices. However,

cooperative farming through the refuge’s share on Red River NWR allows the Refuge to meet

HMP (2013) and CCP (2008) objectives and contribute to regional (LMVJV 2016) and national

objectives (NAWMP 2012) for providing vital wintering waterfowl habitat in the most productive

and cost-effective manner.

In the case of Red River NWR, croplands constitute 7% of the Refuge acreage, but allow

the Refuge to potentially provide up to 8.1 million DEDs. The use of cooperative farming is

the only viable method available to meet the 8.1 million allocated DEDs at this time. Measures

are taken to ensure that Integrated Pest Management and best management practices are followed

by the cooperative farmers. Cooperative farming is the most cost effective method to produce the

necessary foods to support wintering waterfowl and associated objectives.

The missions of the Refuge System provided in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 states that

the “….mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of

lands for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and

plant resources, and their habitats with the United States for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans (emphasis added).



Conservation and management means to sustain and, where appropriate, restore and enhance,

healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants utilizing, in accordance with applicable Federal

and Sates laws, methods and procedures associated with modern scientific resource programs.

These definitions denote active management and is in keeping with the House report on the Act

which states that the “Refuge System should stand as a monument to the science and practice of

wildlife management.”

It thus follows, that if an economic use of a natural resource is shown to be conservation and

management as defined in the Act, it does contribute to the mission by the very definition of

terms used. If a use contributes to the mission, it thus meets the standard or threshold established

in 50 CFR 29.1. In accordance with 50 CFR 29.1, cooperative farming, as described in this

compatibility determination, significantly contributes to the mission, purposes, goals, and

objectives of Red River NWR and Refuge System mission.


References Cited:

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole.

Dzus, E.H. and R.G. Clark. 1998. Brood survival and recruitment of mallards in relation to

wetland density and hatching date. Auk 115(2): 311-318.

Fredrickson, L.H. and RD. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by post breeding waterfowl. Pages

119-131 in: T.A Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands-an integrated review. La Crosse,

WI: La Crosse Printing.

Heitmeyer, M.E. 1988. Body composition of female mallards in winter in relation to annual

cycle events. Condor 90:669-680.

Krapu, G.L. 1981. The role of nutrient reserves in mallard reproduction. Auk 98(1): 29-38.

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV). 2007. MAV Waterfowl Stepdown State

Summaries. LMVJV Waterfowl Working Group c/o Lower Mississippi Valley Joint

Venture, Vicksburg, MS.

NAWMP (North American Waterfowl Management Plan) Committee. 2012. North American

Waterfowl Management Plan 2012: People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands. Available

at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/waterfowl/north-american-waterfowl-management-

plan-2012.pdf .

Ringelman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. Pp. 35-38 in Waterfowl

Habitat Management Handbook for the Lower Mississippi River Valley. eds. Strickland,

B.K and A. Tullos. 2009. Mississippi State University, Mississippi, 31 pp.

Reinecke, K. J., and C. R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating Research and Management to Conserve

Wildfowl (Anatidae) and Wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Pages 927-940

in M. Birkan, editor. Anatidae 2000: an international conference on the conservation, habitat

management and wise use of ducks, geese and swans: Strasbourg, France, December 5-9,

1994. Gibier Faune Sauvage, Game and Wildlife 13(3).

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/waterfowl/north-american-waterfowl-management-plan-2012.pdf

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/waterfowl/north-american-waterfowl-management-plan-2012.pdf

Reinecke, K.J., R.M. Kaminski, D.J. Moorhead, J.D. Hodges, and J.R. Nassar. 1989. Mississippi

Alluvial Valley. Pp.203-247 in Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl

in North America, eds. L.M Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski. 1989. Texas Tech

University Press. 560 pp.

Strader, R.W., and P.H. Stinson. 2005. Moist Soil Guidelines for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Southeast Region. Division of Migratory Birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jackson, MS. 17 pp plus appendices.

Strickland, B.K, R.M. Kaminski, and A. Tullos. 2009. Waterfowl Habitat Management

Handbook for the Lower Mississippi River Valley. Mississippi State University, Mississippi,

31 pp.

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife

Management 35:781-785.

Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1981). Refuge manual. Washington, D.C.: Division of Refuge

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Updated 2006, 601.FW3, Biological integrity, Diversity and

Environmental Health Policy. https://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html









U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Habitat Management Plan for Red River NWR.

Farmerville, LA.



Use: Forest Management





Law 106-300).











Description of Use: Forest Management

(a) What is the use?

The use is forest management, to potentially include both commercial and non-commercial

actions such as tree planting, pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, regeneration

harvests, salvage, and other silvicultural practices used to improve forest habitat conditions.

Although forest management on refuges is conducted solely to enhance habitats just like other

resource management actions, it may involve the use of commercial operators, hence constituting

an economic use that requires a compatibility determination.

Forest management is necessary for Red River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) to meet the

habitat and wildlife objectives contained in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

(USFWS 2008) and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (USFWS 2013). Forest management

maintains and enhances necessary habitat for priority wildlife species by promoting plant

communities beneficial to these species. (Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture [LMVJV]

2007). This will include promoting hard mast species and by assuring that adequate den and snag

trees remain in the stands. Potential treatments are discussed in more detail in the 2013 HMP

(https://www.fws.gov/redriver/). Silvicultural decisions will be based upon the resources of

concern and their habitat requirements as it relates to forest management objectives.

The use of commercial loggers in an active forest habitat management program can assist land

managers in maintaining appropriate forest structure, age, and/or size class distribution on the

landscape. These actions will ensure that adequate habitat is always available for forest interior

breeding birds (Twedt and Somershoe 2009, Rosenberg et al. 2016) and other forest-dependent

species (LMVJV 2007).

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

This use could be conducted on approximately 12,300 forested acres of Red River NWR. Areas

that are not currently forested but have the potential to be afforested would also fall under this use

at some point in time. Future ownership of forested areas and potentially forested areas will also

be included in this use.

(c) When would this use be conducted?

Different aspects of forest management will take place at various times throughout the year

including but not limited to inventory, planning, tree marking, harvesting, harvest monitoring and

various other tasks involved with forest sale administration. The harvesting portion of this

process would be conducted during dry periods of the year. This period is normally between July

and December, but could occur during other times of the year during acceptable conditions.

(d) How would this use be conducted?

Forest management would be conducted to achieve the Desired Forest Conditions described in

the 2013 HMP developed by the LMVJV (LMVJV 2007) for bottomland hardwood (HMP

Objectives 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3. and 4.1.4) and mixed pine-hardwood stands (HMP Objective 4.3.1).

(e) Why is this being proposed?

The objectives of forest management on the Refuge are to provide habitat for species of concern,

priority species and a wide diversity of species as specified in the Habitat Management Plan for

Red River NWR (USFWS 2013). To achieve desired forest conditions, manipulation of the forest

is essential. Commercial and non-commercial forest management activities may be necessary to

meet objectives. Creating gaps in the overstory and midstory canopies provide sunlight

penetration to the forest floor to stimulate the growth of vegetation vital as food, nesting

substrate, and cover for wildlife to meet refuge objectives. Thinning can increase canopy gaps,

thereby increasing understory and midstory growth (Robinson and Robinson 1999). Also,

crowded trees can be thinned to encourage development of habitat characteristics such as large

full crows for perching, nesting, and mast production as well as cavities for den and nesting sites.

Thinnings and canopy gaps are made by removing selected trees that are surplus to the needs of

the habitat. Trees to be removed may be girdled (killed) or cut so that their shade is eliminated.

Girdling of trees has relatively high costs, while selling the trunks of the trees has a lower cost.

Commercial harvests can be used to remove significant amounts of offsite species such as slash

pine plantations. In addition, commercial harvest can be used to regenerate stands if a stand is

senescing due to age or insect die-off. There are commercial buyers (mills) and operators

(loggers) that would pay market value for portions of the trees removed. Habitat objectives are

often times best achieved with forest management including commercial tree harvests.

Long-term and short-term planning is conducted prior to any manipulation of the forest. The

2013 HMP is a 15-year plan; it includes a great deal of information that is not mentioned in this

compatibility determination and should be considered an integral part of this compatibility

determination. Possible forest management actions to be conducted on the refuge are mentioned

in the 2013 HMP. Forest management prescriptions will be prepared at the refuge and undergo a

review and approval process through the Regional Office.

Commercial activities are permitted activities and are directed under the guidance of a Special

Use Permit, which is issued by the refuge.

Availability of Resources

Currently refuge staff plan and implement all forest management activities. The refuge has

sufficient staff to accomplish these activities with the use of commercial loggers. The refuge

forsester(s) spends most of the year tending to the Refuge’s forest. Much of this time is

associated with inventorying, marking and overseeing harvests. Additional expenses for

equipment maintenance, operating expenses and habitat restoration are funded out of the refuge’s

budget which includes expense for sale money received by the refuge. Forest management on the

refuge will be carried out to the extent of available resources.


Commercial harvesting would result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits for forest

habitats. Short-term impacts are anticipated during tree removal and could include disturbance

and displacement of wildlife that is typical of any noisy heavy equipment operation. Operation of

heavy equipment and removal of some vegetation could possibly result in a short-term increase in

soil erosion . This will be minimized by adhering to Louisiana Best Management Practices

(BMPs) guidelines http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Portals/0/FOR/for%20mgmt/BMP.pdf).

Additionally, wildlife species utilizing manipulated forest habitat may be temporarily displaced.

While it is not possible to provide habitat for every species of wildlife in the same forest stand

(Fredericksen et al. 2000), the objectives of forest management on the Refuge are to provide

habitat for species of concern, priority species and a wide diversity of species as specified in the

Habitat Management Plan for Red River NWR (USFWS 2013). Efforts will be made to use the

existing network of roads and trails as much as possible in the harvesting process to limit impacts

to vegetation. These roads and trails should be used and maintained in a way that minimizes

adverse effects to wildlife and the ecology of the area, yet remain efficient for accommodating

refuge management and public use. During the next growing season after tree removal, many

impacts would diminish as the effects of increased sunshine quickly results in enhanced diversity

and productivity of the habitat. Since a wide diversity of wildlife species are dependent upon

habitat found in managed forests, the overall cumulative effects of these disturbances is positive.

Efforts are made to leave standing dead trees and cavity trees to provide dens and nesting habitat

for cavity dwellers. Also, slash is almost always retained to provide cover for small mammals,

reptiles and amphibians (Fredericksen et al 2000, LMVJV 2007). Forest timber harvesting could

negatively impact some species of wildlife at given points in time; however, these impacts are

considered minor and short-term on a landscape level and would not result in cumulative impacts

to the species or adversely affect the purpose of the refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.








http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Portals/0/FOR/for%20mgmt/BMP.pdf


__x___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement




under 40 CFR 1508.4, 516 DM 2.3A(2), 516 DM 8.5 A(1), 516 DM 8.5 B(7), 516 DM 8.5 B(9),

516 8.5 C(5); further the actions do not trigger an extraordinary circumstance as outlined under

43CFR§46.215. The forest management use is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and associated Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a) and Finding of No

Significant Impact (USFWS 2008b) for Red River NWR. Environmental have not changed

substantially since that analysis.


The 2013 HMP and individual forest prescription includes all stipulations to ensure compatibility

of forest management. If commercial tree harvest is prescribed, these stipulations are also

included in the Special Use Permit issued to the operator. They are as follows (USFWS 2010):

1. A pre-entry conference between the Refuge Forester and the designated Permittee

representative will be a requirement before the purchaser starts logging operations. The

purpose of the pre-entry conference is to ensure that the purchaser completely

understands what is expected of him, thus avoiding misunderstanding or serious conflict.

2. If requested, satisfactory scale tickets for timber products shall be submitted to the

Refuge Forester.

3. Bottomland hardwood species will be cut so as to leave a stump not more than 18 inches

high for sawtimber and pulpwood. Upland hardwood stump height shall not exceed 18

inches for sawtimber and 12 inches for pulpwood. Stump height for pine shall not exceed

12 inches for sawtimber and 6 inches for pulpwood-sized trees. All stump heights are

measured at the side adjacent to the highest ground. In the case of swell-butted species

or trees with metal objects in the butt, stumps may be higher.

4. Whole tree skidding in sawtimber sales is prohibited, unless special conditions are

permitted.

5. Ground level paint spots must remain visible after the tree has been cut. All marked trees

are to be cut, unless otherwise approved by the Refuge Forester.

6. Trees and tops shall not be left hanging or supported by any other tree and shall be pulled

down immediately after felling.

7. Tops and logging debris shall be pulled back 20 feet from public roads and lopped within

150 feet.

8. All roads, right-of-ways, fields, openings, streams, and firebreaks must be kept clear of

tops and debris. Permittee shall also repair all damage to same resulting from operations

conducted under this permit.

9. Littering in any manner is a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations. The entire

work area shall be kept free of litter at all times. Repairs and cleanup work will be

accomplished to the satisfaction of the Refuge Manager and/or Refuge Forester.

10. Additional trees removed to prepare loading sites will be paid for at bid prices.

Unmarked trees, which are cut or injured through carelessness, shall be paid for at double

the bid price.

11. The Permittee will remove temporary plugs, dams, and bridges, constructed by the

Permittee, upon completion of the contract. There are areas on the refuge where

temporary plugs or dams in an intermittent stream would not be allowed. These areas

will be indicated on sale maps.

12. Loading sets will be determined cooperatively between the Refuge Forester and

Permittee.

13. Ownership of all products remaining on a sale area will revert to the U.S. Government

upon termination of the permit.

14. The Refuge Manager and/or Forester shall have authority to temporarily close down all

or any part of the harvest operation during a period of high fire danger, wet ground

conditions, or for any other reason deemed necessary. An equal amount of additional

time will be granted to the Permittee.

15. The U. S. Government accepts no responsibility to provide right-of-way over private

lands for materials sold under this contract.

16. The Permittee and his employees will do all within their power to prevent and suppress

wild fires.

17. The decision of the Refuge Manager shall be final in the interpretation of the regulations

and provisions governing the sale, cutting, and removal of the timber covered by this

permit.

18. When a timber sale area is adjacent to private land, all logging debris will be pulled back

onto the refuge to avoid damage to private property.

20. Permittee and his employees shall not build fires on the refuge.

Justification:

The use of commercial forest contractors and appropriate silvicultural techniques of forest

management will contribute to the purpose for which the refuge was established, the mission of

the Refuge System, the enhancement of biological integrity, diversity and environmental health

and to facilitate the ability of the refuge to meet its habitat and wildlife management objectives.

The use will not pose significant adverse effects on the refuge natural resources, interfere with the

public use of the refuge, or cause an undue administrative burden. Commercial forest

management on the refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as

evidenced by the environmental assessment that shows this use will improve and advance our

ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the CCP. This use would be

administered in compliance with 50 CFR 29.1.

References Cited:

Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007.

Restoration, Management and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial

Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat. Edited by R. Wilson, K.

Ribbeck, S. King, and D. Twedt

Robinson , W.D. and S.K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging in forest bird

populations in a fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13: 58-66.

Rosenberg, K.V., J.A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R.P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C.J.

Beardmore, P.J. Blancher, R.E. Bogart, G.S. Butcher, A.F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D.W.

Demarest, W.E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A.E. Mini, A.O. Panjabi, D. N.

Pashley, T.D. Rich, J.M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, and T. Will. 2016. Partners in

Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United

States. Partners in flight Science Committee. 119 pp.

Twedt, D.J. and S.G. Somershoe. 2008. Bird response to prescribed silvicultural treatments in

bottomland hardwood forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1140-1150.









_____ 2013. Habitat Management Plan for Red River National Wildlife Refuge. Farmerville,

LA, 83 pp.

Approval of Compatibility Determinations:

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________

Pat Stinson (Signature/Date)

Regional Compatibility

Coordinator: _________________________________________________

Pamela Wingrove (Signature/Date)

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________

Mindy Gautreaux (Signature/Date)

Regional Chief, National

Wildlife Refuge System,

Southeast Region: _________________________________________________

David Viker (Signature/Date)

draft compatibility determinations use: hiking, jogging, … · 2018-07-31 · draft compatibility...

Documents