Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach
to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Project Manager: Mikell Smith
December 2009
™
Acknowledgements
Funds for this project were provided to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) by the Doris
Duke Foundation by way of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. The Gulf of Mexico Foundation was
commissioned by SARP to collaborate and conduct the study. Many people took the time to participate
in various ways, providing information and local coordination, attending stakeholder meetings, and
bringing others into the project. We would like to thank them all for their contributions.
A companion project for the Red and Sabine River systems, led by the National Wetlands Research
Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, in Lafayette, Louisiana, occurred simultaneously and delivered data
and assistance that was critical to the success of this project. We would like to thank Jill Jenkins and
Steve Hartley for their contributions in that regard, along with Emily Watson and the long list of others
who helped them compile and refine the list of imperiled aquatic species occurring in the basin. Jill
generously shared her biological data, expertise, and ideas, Steve created maps that were key visual
aids, and Emily offered geographic guidance and information.
Additionally, the technical review and feedback provided by Mary M. Davis, Ph.D, The Nature
Conservancy, lent key advice toward developing descriptors and refinement needed for creating the
survey instruments and analysis. Jill Jenkins, USGS, also offered prompt and thoughtful feedback on
survey instruments as did Ryan Fikes, Bobbi Reed, and Richard Gonzales of Gulf of Mexico Foundation.
The Nature Conservancy developed the 5-S strategy, which provided a framework for analysis and
recommendations. Scott Robinson, Coordinator for SARP, offered valuable guidance during the project
regarding stakeholder inquiries and project methods as did Dr. Quenton Dokken, Executive Director of
Gulf of Mexico Foundation.
We also would like to acknowledge the important work the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
and Texas put into creating the wildlife action plans, which provide a comprehensive analysis of the
status of wildlife, including aquatic resources, as well as what information gaps remain. Agencies and
organizations who conducted the extensive groundwork and collaboration to create the plans are too
numerous to list in this report. The efforts were led by Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, and Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department in concert with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, who reviewed and approved the plans.
Stakeholders who work in their communities also contributed invaluable assistance, generously offering
their time, connections, and facilities toward facilitating stakeholder events. For their help in site
selection, local arrangements, and/or hosting stakeholder events we thank Rich Brontoli, Red River
Valley Association; Curtis Campbell, Red River Authority of Texas; Gary Hanson and Amanda Walker, Red
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page i
River Watershed Management Institute; Eric Mendelman, River Systems Institute, Texas State
University; William Focht, Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute; Dan Cotton, VFW Post 7287,
Coushatta, LA; Benny Dobson, Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area; Tad Gose, Texas
Parks & Wildlife Department; Charles D. Griffin, Jr., Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service; Freddie
Allison, DeSoto Soil & Water Conservation District; Ken Guidry, Red River Waterway Commission (LA);
J.R. Huffman Library of Hemphill, Texas; Kiamichi Tech Centers in Durant, Hugo, and Idabel, OK; the City
of Orange and the Orange Public Library in Orange, Texas; Paul Kisel, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department;
Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas; Miller County Courthouse, AR; Penny Miller, League
of Women Voters - Wichita Falls; Ed Phillips, Lake Texoma Association; Jim Pratt, Red River Authority of
Louisiana; Jeff Rupert, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Sam Scroggins, Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association;
John Sweeten, Texas Agrilife Research; Jack Tatum, Sabine River Authority of Texas; Toledo Bend Bistate Alliance; Bob Tullos and Cathy Mueller, Arkansas Red River Commission.
Please cite this report as follows: Gulf of Mexico Foundation. (2009). Sabine and Red River basins: A regional
watershed approach to identifying habitat conservation needs. (Report under SARP contract GMF1001). Corpus
Christi, Texas: Gulf of Mexico Foundation Headquarters.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Project Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Stakeholder input.................................................................................................................................. 4
Management plans ............................................................................................................................... 6
Glean Systems, Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes .............................................................. 6
Set targets and outline conservation steps .......................................................................................... 7
River Systems, Subsystems, and Findings ..................................................................................................... 7
The Sabine River Basin .............................................................................................................................. 7
Upper Sabine....................................................................................................................................... 11
Middle Sabine ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Lake Fork ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Toledo Bend Reservoir ........................................................................................................................ 19
Lower Sabine ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Sabine Lake ......................................................................................................................................... 25
The Neches River basin ....................................................................................................................... 26
The Red River Basin................................................................................................................................. 26
The Red River Chloride Control Project (RRCCP) ................................................................................ 29
The Upper Red River and its Tributaries ............................................................................................. 30
Lake Texoma ....................................................................................................................................... 43
The Red and Its Tributaries Below Lake Texoma ................................................................................ 49
Little River Basin and the Red River in Southwest Arkansas............................................................... 54
PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................ 57
Lower Red River .................................................................................................................................. 58
The Sulphur River ................................................................................................................................ 62
Cypress River (E Texas, NW Louisiana) ............................................................................................... 65
Concluding Remarks.................................................................................................................................... 71
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page iii
Recommendations – Targets & Strategies.................................................................................................. 72
The Sabine River...................................................................................................................................... 72
Sabine Lake ............................................................................................................................................. 72
Upper Red (above Lake Texoma) ............................................................................................................ 73
Red below Lake Texoma ......................................................................................................................... 75
Cypress Creek basin ................................................................................................................................ 75
The Lower Red ........................................................................................................................................ 75
River system-wide ................................................................................................................................... 76
Wildlife Action Plans ............................................................................................................................... 78
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan ............................................................................................................. 78
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan ............................................................................................................. 78
Oklahoma Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................................... 80
Texas Wildlife Action Plan ................................................................................................................... 80
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix A – Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................. 92
Project Brochure ................................................................................................................................. 92
Sample of Stakeholder Meeting Invitation ......................................................................................... 94
Opening Page of Project Website ....................................................................................................... 96
Organizations Contacted to Participate in the Project ....................................................................... 96
Appendix B – Stakeholder Meetings ....................................................................................................... 98
Meeting Schedule and Distribution .................................................................................................... 98
Summaries of the Stakeholder Meetings ........................................................................................... 98
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................... 162
Appendix C – Survey Instrument and Results ....................................................................................... 166
Survey Recap ..................................................................................................................................... 166
Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 166
Objectives and Constraints ............................................................................................................... 166
Opening page as it appeared online: ................................................................................................ 167
Survey Response Detail ..................................................................................................................... 168
Digital Library Database (CD attached) ................................................................................................. 185
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Sabine River Basin Conservation Strategies ................................................................................... 8
Table 2. Priorities for the Sabine River Basin ............................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Threats and Sources for the Sabine River Basin ........................................................................... 10
Table 4. Monitoring Needs for the Red River Basin ................................................................................... 27
Table 5. Red River Basin Conservation Strategies...................................................................................... 28
Table 6. Threats and Sources for the Red River Basin ............................................................................... 28
Table 7. Aquatic Habitat Scores For Arkansas Ecobasins ........................................................................... 55
Table 8. Threats and Sources to Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) – Red River Basin, AR . 56
Table 9. Species of Conservation Concern for the Red River Basin ........................................................... 79
Table 10. Species of Conservation Concern for the Sabine River Basin..................................................... 79
Table 11. Problems Threatening Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas.............. 81
Table 12. Conservation Actions For Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas ......... 85
Table 13. Monitoring Needs For Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas .............. 90
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page v
Executive Summary
The Red River and Sabine River basins, as with all river systems, function as discrete ecological systems
faced with significant demands and expectations from the various human communities encountered
along their paths. Both systems form portions of state boundaries, which complicates management of
aquatic resources as do the human demands and impacts. The Red River flows through five states,
encountering dramatic variations in its natural and demographic setting before joining the Atchafalaya
River in Louisiana. The Sabine makes its way from water-rich East Texas to form most of the boundary
between Texas and Louisiana, terminating into an estuary on the Gulf of Mexico coast. Both systems
have undergone substantial hydrological modifications and habitat fragmentation to accommodate the
human need for water supply, flood control, hydropower and, particularly on the Red, navigation.
Formulating effective conservation plans across these diverse physical, political, and cultural landscapes
requires consolidation of information and stakeholder participation.
This report summarizes the state of aquatic resources in these two basins based on information gained
directly from stakeholders as well as from existing management plans. Much work has been done and is
ongoing within the project area with regard to aquatic resources. Competing uses of land, water, and
other natural resources are simultaneously under development with significant impacts to aquatic
habitat. Opportunity exists for focusing SARP resources through collaborative conservation. Progress
was made in the course of this project in identifying key issues and potential strategies.
The existing plans for management of aquatic resources provide an opportunity for harvesting local
knowledge, strategies, and preferences toward watershed-scale efforts within the project area. The
state wildlife action plans reflect the comprehensive processes employed by the states to capture the
interests and expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. Performance reports include fishery
management plans with the focus on recreational fishing and are available for some reservoirs but not
all. Both sources result from federal programs that incentivize conservation while allowing for state and
local preference. Both provide useful information for conservation planning and informed this report.
Stakeholder meetings conducted during the project yielded a snapshot of the prime issues on the minds
of informed persons engaged with the study, use, and management of aquatic species, habitat, and
water. Participant interests varied in theme as well as in geographic scope but there was a general
understanding that progress requires cooperation. Each one recognized the importance of local
participation. Some insisted on it, but few expressed reservations about a holistic approach to planning
for the rivers as complete systems. Good planning requires comprehensive information and data gaps
need filling. Galvanizing support depends on communicating the benefits and costs associated with
conservation action or the lack of it.
One resource manager advised that people may be willing to give up resources if they understand the
benefits, underlining the importance of conveying the tangible effects of resource management on
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 1
quality of life. Managing the rivers as whole ecological systems clearly depends on evaluating how
conservation actions such as those outlined in this report will generate results that people value. People
living in the Red and Sabine River basins clearly value the resources the rivers provide and care about
maximizing the benefits. The information gathered in the course of this project illuminates attitudes
and issues in addition to the state of species and habitat.
Introduction
Knowledge of the Sabine and Red Rivers is abundant and management plans for species, water, and
habitat have been crafted by collaborative efforts and qualified personnel. This project sought to utilize
that work along with current stakeholder viewpoints to formulate appropriate action plans for
conservation of aquatic resources at the watershed scale for these two transboundary systems. The
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) is engaged in adaptive management under the
Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan (SAHP), an officially recognized conservation effort under the National
Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP). The rivers and their tributaries course through five states and
disparate human and natural landscapes. The differences portend difficulties and opportunities for
crafting successful conservation plans.
Project objectives were as follows:
1. Assess the state of conservation efforts in the Sabine and Red River basins
2. Identify stakeholders and create a comprehensive database
3. Engage those stakeholders through meetings, a survey instrument and ongoing
collaboration
4. Compile existing plans and information resources that relate to management of wildlife,
water quantity, water quality and other pertinent materials
5. Set priorities, focus resources, and improve coordination among all stakeholders
6. Recommend targets, strategies, and conservation steps
Variation in mission, interests, and the spatial bounds among the contributory stakeholders presents
challenges in folding existing information into system-wide, holistic management plans. While the states
created the Wildlife Action Plans based on one set of mandates, their reports took many forms, as did
the approaches to organizing the information. Variation in classification styles, approach, and the
statewide scale of those reports pose challenges in consolidating and coordinating this work toward
regional, watershed-based planning. Those challenges notwithstanding, there clearly exists opportunity
for harvesting the effort toward common objectives. Consulting stakeholders who are engaged and
informed infused the report with current perspectives. Their recommendations should offer some
direction in setting a course toward specific conservation actions in the basins of interest. Bringing a
diversity of stakeholders into that process, as was accomplished in this project, should aid in actualizing
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 2
plans on the ground. The data collected and organized by the team at the National Wetlands Research
Laboratory should serve as a useful tool for testing and finalizing decisions.
The sheer volume of species, threats, and strategies outlined in management plans along with the
variations in their approach created questions about how to synthesize the gleanings into one matrix
while preserving their original intent. Information relevant to the basins of interest was extracted but
synthesis was not achieved in charts or matrices. Synthesis manifests in this report through the
juxtaposition of information—a geographical arrangement that roughly follows the flow of the waters
within each river system. A discussion of each sub-basin for which plans or input were found
incorporates pertinent details gleaned from the several modes of information gathering.
Recommendations for action items are based on suggestions and information from stakeholders and
warrant further review before implementation. Action items from planning documents were selected
for their apparent relevance to the overall project and should be evaluated for site-specific relevance
when planning conservation activities.
Stakeholder participation was achieved through meetings held throughout the basins which, while not
comprehensive, allowed critical issues to rise organically in an open forum. An online survey aimed
more specifically for stakeholder priorities for aquatic resources within the basins. Key considerations
for success revealed through the stakeholder interactions may sound familiar:
Watershed planning must occur locally. Stakeholders tend to resist compliance with planning and
regulatory regimes imposed by external authorities. Any consideration of challenges and benefits that
accrue to downstream or otherwise external interests must be generated, or at least ratified, locally.
Galvanizing multi-scale interests requires information and collaboration. Before agreeing to
accommodate downstream needs, stakeholders need a clear understanding of benefits and the
potential for success.
Tangible costs and benefits drive stakeholder support. Benefits directly and quantifiably attributable to
social or economic values are influential. Recreational fishing and property rights, for example,
command broad acceptance. Preservation of ecosystem integrity, resilience, and balance, even when
familiar to participants, failed to gain any traction in discussions.
A recurring theme in discussions of both river systems was concern about river authorities selling water
across state lines and even within states to serve population centers. This resonated within all interest
groups. Even in the water-rich Sabine, stakeholders cited their concern about the potential for losing
access to water long-term as well as the impacts of changing the natural stream flow patterns.
Recreational fishing was also acknowledged as important, but clearly was of greater economic
importance on major reservoirs and on the unanticipated but productive fisheries that sprung up on
completion of the navigation projects in the lower Red.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 3
The concepts of ecological integrity, balance, and resilience generated little response in stakeholder
meetings. Participants agreed that a lake with one or two species would not function well, but had little
to say when asked about the importance of conserving imperiled non-sports species, especially if
conservation might stand in the way of projects or activities that offered tangible benefits. Comments
generally reflected acceptance that we will continue to lose species as resource development proceeds.
Responses to the survey administered online and to many of the same stakeholders revealed significant
knowledge of imperiled, non-sports species. The design of the survey framed the questions in terms of
imperiled species and conservation, which must be considered when evaluating the response, but it is
notable that a large percentage of the targeted population responded. Survey questions geared to
respondent qualifications revealed advanced education levels coupled with a concentration of fishing
and resource management expertise in those who responded. Some who opted out explained that they
simply did so because they did not feel qualified to complete the survey, which asked them to assign
priorities to aquatic species and watersheds. While expected and reasonable, this result highlights a
familiarity gap that warrants attention. Stakeholders may be more inclined to support conservation
activities if they understand the need.
Project Methods
Stakeholder input
Participation from a broad range of interest groups was solicited, with a focus on stakeholders engaged
in work that impacts upon aquatic resources and who were knowledgeable of the relevant issues
occurring within the project area. Each group was targeted through direct communications as well as in
marketing materials. A complete list of the interest groups can be reviewed in the project brochure
(Appendix A).
Input was solicited through three modes of interaction:
• Stakeholder meetings
• Personal and telephone interviews
• Survey instruments
A brochure was developed and distributed primarily by email, attached to an electronic invitation to
stakeholder meeting events, which were scheduled in all four states during June and July 2009. Printed
copies were mailed to some stakeholders where email addresses were not available. Others were
distributed at the meeting events where participants were encouraged to pass them along to others
they believed to be qualified. See Appendix A for the brochure, the invitation, and the list of
organizations who directly received brochures and invitations.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 4
Stakeholders who were identified through research or referrals were interviewed personally over the
phone or via email. Notes on those conversations provided another resource for acquiring stakeholder
knowledge about aquatic resources in the project area.
Stakeholder meetings
Soliciting advice from key stakeholders, the Project Manager selected meeting locations that were
distributed throughout the basins and made target participants aware of all of them. This method
offered stakeholders the opportunity to select meetings that fit their schedules.
To properly frame the discussion, the Project Manager made a brief presentation that explained the
nature of SARP and SAHP, the role of Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and the rationale, scope, and
objectives of the project. Then participants were asked to comment on issues relevant to aquatic
resources within the project area according to their scope of knowledge.
The Project Manager captured the discussion manually, compiled the notes, and extracted issues along
with systems, stresses, sources, strategies, and successes. These were outlined in meeting summaries
(Appendix B) and distributed to participants via electronic mail for their review and feedback. Soliciting
a qualitative review improved and developed the captured information. These “takeaways” served as
important source material for assessing aquatic resources in the project area. Takeaways were
evaluated for their geographic relevance and incorporated where relevant throughout this report.
Survey instruments
Two surveys were designed and distributed. The first attempted to accomplish too much and produced
too few responses to be useful. Marketing efforts generated 121 visits to the survey but only 14
submitted completed surveys. Another survey was created and designed to be simple and quick. First it
assessed the respondent’s interests and relevant expertise, then asked them to assign priority ratings to
imperiled species and sub-basins. The respondent’s selections limited subsequent screens and choices
appropriately, creating an efficient and intuitive experience. This survey yielded 98 completions out of
150 visits. Each set of selections encouraged respondents to limit selections to those they felt qualified
for. A list of imperiled aquatic species known to occur in the project area (created by the USGS team;
see Acknowledgments) was used regardless of which river basins were selected. Several blank choices
were provided to allow for entry of other species. Selection screens for sub-basins listed them by name
and HUC code to facilitate quick and accurate selections. Several blank choices were made available for
lake names in case the descriptors provided were not familiar.
Survey questions designed to elicit priority levels used a Likert scale rather than a ranking exercise
because participants specialize and none would know about all species or all sub-basins. A ranking
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 5
exercise was presumed not to be meaningful in this case. Asking respondents to rank either a partial list
of items or a complete list that contained unfamiliar items would presumably lead to erroneous
conclusions. Furthermore, more than one sub-basin within a river system may share the same priority
level for conservation in the respondent’s view. Prioritization exercises for each selected item presented
a Likert scale with these choices: High Priority, Medium Priority, Low Priority.
Invitations to this survey were distributed by personalized emails that contained individualized links that
took participants directly to the survey form and allowed responses to be tracked and managed by the
invitation list. This, coupled with the simpler design, proved an effective deployment technique.
Management plans
Existing plans were reviewed, compiled, and incorporated into a database, including the wildlife action
plans (WAPs) for the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas along with various project and
issue-related reports. Fishery management and species management plans were also collected and
reviewed where they were available. The primary management plans this report draws from are the
state WAPs due to their comprehensive nature and focus on wildlife conservation. The fishery
management plans, which are contained within the Performance Reports, focus primarily on
recreational fishing as do the species management plans. The Performance Reports are created and
updated in fulfillment of grant requirements under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.
Threats, issues, strategies, and actions were extracted for their relevance to aquatic resources and the
project area. Care was taken to preserve the original character and intent of the plans, resulting in some
synonymous but different terminology within the report, e.g. “problem” or “threat” vs. “stress”.
Given that plans are updated periodically and wildlife action plans purport to be updated dynamically,
they are expected to change after publication of this report. The versions used were stored in a
database included with this report for reference.
Glean Systems, Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes
Applying The Nature Conservancy’s 5-S strategy to plans, reports, and stakeholder input framed the
state of aquatic resources in these terms:
Systems –watersheds and water bodies
Stresses – the damage or degradation observed
Sources – the cause of the stress
Strategies – methods employed or proposed for conservation, preservation, or restoration
Successes – examples and ideas that have worked
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 6
Set targets and outline conservation steps
Recommendations were based on the lessons learned from interacting with stakeholders and modeled
after the Southeast Fish Habitat Action Plan. No attempt was made to create a democratic process for
setting priorities through the meetings or surveys. The Project Manager functioned as a facilitator and
reporter, drawing on informed stakeholders to formulate targets and strategies.
River Systems, Subsystems, and Findings
The following segments report on the two river basins of interest individually, incorporating the
information gathered from stakeholders and documents into discussions of each subsystem within the
basins. Stresses, sources, strategies, and successes are attributed to the appropriate systems where
possible and grouped accordingly. Full text of the state fishery management plans along with other
plans and reports can be found in the database attached and summaries of stakeholder meetings
appear in Appendix B.
Starting at the headwaters of each river, the report follows sub-basins and systems with the flow of the
water.
The Sabine River Basin
The Sabine River begins northeast of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex near Greenville, Texas, and
courses through water-rich piney woods of East Texas to form the border with Louisiana as it travels
south to the Gulf of Mexico. The basin sits between the Neches River watershed to the West, the
Cypress Creek and Sulphur River basins (major tributaries of the Red) to the North, and the Red River to
the East. On the Louisiana side, mixed forests are found in the upper part of the basin, near Shreveport
where the river emerges from East Texas to become the state boundary line. The landscape changes to
hardwoods midway to the coast, where it changes to brackish and saline marshes (LWAP, p. 29). At the
end of its 360 mile length, it empties into Sabine Lake, an estuary that spans the state line and connects
Port Arthur, Texas to the Gulf. The Sabine delivers more water to the Gulf of Mexico than any other
river in Texas (TXWAP, p. 373).
Water resources are shared equally between Texas and Louisiana under the Sabine River Compact,
enacted by Congress in 1953. The states also co-manage Toledo Bend Reservoir, the largest reservoir on
the river and in the South which is described in more detail in that section below (LWAP, p. 23).
The rich water resources in the basin support a system of reservoirs with productive recreational
fisheries of significant economic importance to the region. The water also attracts water development
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 7
projects to supply population centers such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston through interbasin
transfers, a controversial topic wherever it occurs or is under consideration. In spite of the abundance
of water, extensive water development, along with hydropower operations, have significantly altered
stream flows in the basin (TXWAP, p. 380).
The Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan (LWAP) lists the impacts of dam operations on fish as the priority
monitoring need, beginning with taxonomic surveys to identify populations (LWAP, p. 319-321). The
Texas Wildlife Action Plan (TXWAP) also prioritizes evaluation of impoundments along with other water
projects to ensure that instream flows and water quality meet ecosystem needs. The Texas Instream
Flow Program placed the lower portion of the Sabine in its first tier of priorities and that study is in
process now. The balance of the river falls within the second tier.
Saltwater intrusion has occurred along the coastal zone, turning freshwater marshland to brackish. This
issue came up in some stakeholder meetings although there was no consensus on the cause or the
solutions. Engineered systems have substantially modified rivers and flows, leading to changes in
hydrology and the loss of coastal wetlands as have major storm events in recent years. Historical
channelization of coastal marshes may also have contributed. Suggestions included restoring more
natural flow regimes and, alternatively, installation of saltwater barriers.
Other priorities and concerns that apply to the Sabine River basin are identified in the wildlife action
plans and reproduced in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3.
Table 1. Sabine River Basin Conservation Strategies
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan, p. 273
Support initiatives and programs that help reduce siltation and sedimentation throughout the basin.
Work with Louisiana Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to identify and address threats related to invasive
species.
Develop partnerships with regulatory and other agencies to share data on habitat threats.
Develop an internal procedure to distribute information on proposed reservoirs to LDWF district biologists and
incorporate their input into official LDWF comments.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 8
Table 2. Priorities for the Sabine River Basin
Texas Wildlife Action Plan, p. 380
Research & Monitoring Needs
Monitor species of concern.
Monitor taxonomic groups suspected to be in decline or for which little is known.
Ensure adequate instream flows and water quality.
Facilitate the availability of information relevant to documenting faunal changes over time.
Facilitate the scientific basis for ensuring adequate water flows and quality.
Conservation Actions
Participate in development of the State Water Plan.
Interact with other agencies to assure their actions meet needs of fish & wildlife.
Review water rights and water quality permits to provide recommendation to the TCEQ.
Investigate fish kills and other pollution events; make use of civil restitution.
Continue to develop public support of conservation through information.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for the Sabine River:
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
The Sabine River is unprotected from saltwater intrusion. [SRA-TX Staff]
In-stream flow standards may not be the best approach. [SRA-TX Staff]
SUCCESSES:
• Some beneficial changes in forestry practices have occurred. [SRA-TX Staff]
• Mitigation banks have preserved riparian areas. [SRA-TX Staff]
• Conservation is accomplished through conservation easements and land acquisition. [SRA-TX Staff]
• Barriers on the Neches and Calcasieu Rivers protect them from saltwater intrusion. [SRA-TX Staff]
Note: Additional stakeholder input is listed under Lake Fork and Toledo Bend below.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 9
Table 3. Threats and Sources for the Sabine River Basin
Commercial/industrial development



Conversion to agriculture or other forest types

Crop production practices











Excessive groundwater withdrawal

Incompatible forestry practices

Industrial discharge

Invasive/alien species

Operation of dams or reservoirs





Operation of drainage or diversion systems
Residential development
Toxins/Contaminants
Sedimentation
Salinity Alteration

Construction of ditches, drainage or diversion systems
Dam construction
Development/maintenance of pipelines, roads or
utilities
Modification ofWater Levels;
Changes in Natural Flow Patterns

Loss of Genetic Diversity
Altered Water Quality

Habitat Destruction or Conversion
Altered Composition/Structure
Channelization of rivers or streams
Change in Land-Use Practices
Source of Threat
Habitat Disturbance
Threat
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan, p. 273








Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 10
HUC 12010001
Upper Sabine
Lake Tawakoni
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2006)
This lake experienced an historic low in its water level in 2005, which helped control waterhyacinth,
which was first found there in 2004. Lake Tawakoni has a productive fishery and a state park that attract
visitors, but TPWD staff have increased efforts to promote the angling opportunities.
Lake Tawakoni
Owner
Sabine River Authority of Texas
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
TX
1960
36700
*
SDI
Stream
7.45
Sabine River
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Striped bass, palmetto bass, white bass, blue catfish, channel catfish,
and largemouth bass
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Waterhyacinth
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2006)
Good
Present, confined
Low, but rising
Limited
Good
Lake Holbrook
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Storey, 2004)
Lake Holbrook has shown the potential to produce trophy bass and Wood County, Texas, its owner, has
taken steps to improve angler access.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 11
Lake Holbrook
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1962
1050
4.96
Lankford Creek
Wood County
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, crappie (including black stripe)
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance plants
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Adequate
Surveyed, none noted
Not available
Adequate
Good
HUC 12010002
Middle Sabine
Brandy Branch Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Bister & Brice, 2007)
If needed, additional water can be pumped into this reservoir from the Big Cypress River. Anglers
primarily visit Brandy Branch targeting largemouth bass, and other game species are low in abundance
to nonexistent. Giant salvinia was introduced from a boat trailer and Eurasian water milfoil was recently
found. Hydrilla comprises about half of the submerged aquatic vegetation, covering 18% of the surface
area. The potential threats could compromise boater access, fish, and power plant operations. A
successful public program has placed Christmas trees in the reservoir as fish attractors.
Brandy Branch Reservoir
Owner
American Electric Power Company
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1983
1257
4.1
Brandy Branch
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling);Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 12
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass
$159,770 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Eurasian water milfoil
Giant salvinia
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Adequate
Present, significant, not problematic
Present
Present
Stable
Limited
Adequate
Lake Hawkins
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Storey & Jubar, 2007)
Constructed in 1962 on Little Sandy Creek on the Sabine River, Lake Hawkins is located just north of
Tyler, Texas. It belongs to and is operated by Wood County for flood control and recreation, offering
four public boat ramps and excellent access to shoreline for fishing. Triploid grass carp had been
introduced in 2006 to control hydrilla, and hydrilla coverage has declined substantially.
Lake Hawkins
Owner
Wood County
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1962
634
5.8
Little Sandy Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Eurasian watermilfoil
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Largemouth bass is the most important one
Not available
STATUS (2007)
Low in abundance
Reduced but problematic
Confined
Not noted
Excellent
Good
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 13
Martin Creek Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Ashe & Driscoll, 2005)
Martin Lake was constructed by a power company to serve as a cooling pond for a coal-fired power
plant in East Texas. A TMDL project conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in
2004 lifted a consumption ban that had been in force since 1992 due to selenium concentrations.
Anglers on this reservoir tend to consume their catch and stocking activities have been adjusted to
provide for that demand. After stocking with triploid grass carp several times in the late 1990s, hydrilla
coverage was reduced. The lake currently has very little aquatic vegetation. The persistence of this
condition has negatively impacted reproduction of largemouth bass.
Martin Creek Reservoir
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1974
4981
4.7
Martin Creek
TXU Energy
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling)
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, crappie
$95,500.00 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Littoral habitat
STATUS (2005)
Adequate
Controlled with grass carp
Low
Not noted
Fair
Declining
Lake Murvaul
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice, 2004)
Surges in hydrilla coverage have coincided with increases in bass abundance. Anglers historically and
currently succeed in catching large bass in the lake.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 14
Lake Murvaul
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Panola County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1
TX
1957
Lake
Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
3820
6.7
Murvaul Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Catfish, largemouth bass, and crappie
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Good
Confined
Stable
Adequate
Adequate
Lake Winnsboro
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2006):
The close proximity of this small impoundment to large and popular angling destinations, particularly
Lake Fork, has prompted TPWD staff to focus on outreach and awareness as much as on developing this
fishery to its potential.
Lake Winnsboro
Owner
Wood County
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1962
1100
NA
Big Sandy Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Largemouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, and channel catfish
Not available
STATUS (2006)
Good
None noted
Extremely low
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 15
Bank angling access
Boat access
Fair
Good
HUC 12010003
Lake Fork
Lake Fork Reservoir
This large reservoir boasts a productive and popular sports fishery, along with its own chamber of
commerce. The high-profile status of Lake Fork, which hosts tournaments of national interest, has
prompted managers of smaller lakes in the area to step up outreach efforts to attract the attention of
anglers.
The stakeholder meeting near the lake was dominated by sports fishing interests. Participants felt the
lake was in good condition overall and not in need of prioritization for conservation. Resource managers
from Texas Parks & Wildlife gave it a medium to high priority for conservation. The fishery management
plan indicates the main concern is managing water hyacinth and that, otherwise, the sports fishing looks
very good.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for Lake Fork:
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Water Sales
• Anticipated water withdrawals from Lake Fork to serve demand from the City of Dallas, which owns
rights to the water, are a concern. [Yantis, TX]
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Invasive species are present, particularly hydrilla; some hydrilla can be a good thing. [Yantis, TX]
Sports Fishing
• Sports fishing is a major economic and recreational factor. [Yantis, TX]
• The Lake Fork fishery is productive, but locals would like fishing to be restored to what it was 6 or 7
years ago. [Yantis, TX]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 16
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESS:
Less abundant fish
SOURCES:
None identified in meeting
STRATEGIES:
• Balance removal of hydrilla with need for aquatic vegetation.
STRESS:
Pathogen—bass virus (currently undetectable)
SOURCES:
Unknown
STRATEGIES:
• Resolved on its own.
SUCCESSES:
• Changes in land use and practices yielded a reduction in water quality impacts from dairy farming.
Market changes caused small dairy farms to close down. [Yantis, TX]
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Storey & Jubar, 2006)
TPWD staff conduct a survey that provides valuable information on the effectiveness of harvest
regulations. Sports fishing and tournaments have been very successful on the lake with largemouth bass
as the most sought-after fish in the lake. Angler awareness and education about the fishery have been
ongoing. Waterhyacinth spread during a moratorium on application of herbicide imposed by TPWD in
1998 and has been monitored and managed since.
Lake Fork Reservoir
Owner
Sabine River Authority of Texas
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
TX
1980
27264
*
SDI
Stream
13.5
Lake Fork Creek
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Largemouth bass, crappie (white and black), and channel catfish
$7,858,137 (Total directed expenditures)
STATUS (2006)
Good
Considered beneficial
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 17
Eurasian watermilfoil
Waterhyacinth
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Present
Problematic, treated annually
Historic low 2006
Limited
Good
Lake Quitman
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2005)
Waterhyacinth is under management by TPWD staff, who have used herbicide as well as physical
removal. Largemouth bass show good potential to produce trophy specimens. The close proximity to
large and popular angling sites (including Lake Fork) limits awareness of fishing opportunities at Lake
Quitman.
Lake Quitman
Owner
Wood County
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1962
814
3.39
Unnamed tributary stream
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Waterhyacinth
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Largemouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, and channel catfish
Not available
STATUS (2005)
Good
Confined
Low
Good
Limited to 3-day use areas
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 18
HUC 12010004
Toledo Bend Reservoir
Toledo Bend Reservoir
Toledo Bend Reservoir, the largest impoundment on the Sabine River, covers a total of 162,476 acres
and was constructed in 1966. It stretches 65 miles along the Texas/Louisiana border, bounded by three
counties and three parishes. Water resources, hydropower and the water supply, are shared evenly
between the states of Louisiana and Texas under the federally-authorized Sabine River Compact. The
dam is managed jointly by the Sabine River Authority of Texas and the Sabine River Authority of
Louisiana through Toledo Bend Project Joint Operations.
It is a popular destination for anglers with good access to fishing on both sides of the lake. Stakeholders
consulted comprised a range of interests and generally agreed that the fishery is productive and water
quality is good. Areas of disagreement include management of lake levels, interbasin sale/transfers of
water, and methods/resources for control of the non-native plant species, giant salvinia. A grassroots
effort succeeded in influencing lake level management, gaining a measure of protection for the interests
of riparian property owners as well as business interests tied to use of the lake. Those interests are
closed to the idea of using lake level fluctuations as a control for aquatic weeds and insist that resources
allocated to other methods be increased. Water supply managers tout measured water sales as an
opportunity to capitalize on a plentiful and underutilized resource. Detractors worry about the longterm effects of reducing stream flows and the potential for permanent loss of water rights.
Based on the feedback received from stakeholders, controlling giant salvinia is the greatest conservation
need at Toledo Bend. While there was general consensus that the fishery is productive and in good
condition, giant salvinia was clearly considered a serious threat that was not adequately controlled.
Current methods of control include application of an approved herbicide and a weevil that slowly eats
the plant. The state wildlife agencies conduct the weed control program. Giant salvinia was first found
in the lake in 1998 (TPWD website).
Prevention of interbasin transfers of water was a goal of many, but mostly driven by concerns about
losing rights that may be needed later. Water managers believe the Sabine system provides enough
water to support ecosystem needs even while selling water for transport out of the system.
After the lake level reached an historic low in 2006 and a compromise was reached with regard to
management, that issue appears to be resolved for now. The implications of the new management
practices for aquatic resources are unclear, although a diversity of stakeholders consulted expressed a
belief that varying levels may be good for the fishery within the lake. The management revisions
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 19
provide for more consistent lake levels, although legal obligations to serve hydropower agreements are
still in place.
Fishery regulations at Toledo Bend vary substantially across the state line. Stakeholders suggested
enacting more consistent rules as a means to alleviate some of the concerns listed below. Perhaps the
successful program at Lake Texoma, on the Texas/Oklahoma border, could provide a model for progress
on Toledo Bend.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for Toledo Bend (TB):
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Sports Fishing
• Crappie fishing is still good enough to attract anglers, but has declined over the past 5 to 8 years.
[Hemphill, TX]
• Some out-of-state anglers take a disproportionate share of crappie and black bass out of the lake.
[Hemphill, TX]
• Rules for recreational fishing that vary from one part of the lake to another create confusion as well
as difficulty in enforcement. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Black bass limits on the lake should be the same as elsewhere. [Hemphill, TX]
• Recreational uses of TB provide substantial economic benefits in a region that is economically
challenged (LA side).
• Recreational fishing has been successful and is of a high economic importance on TB. [SRA-LA Staff]
• The fishery on TB is performing well; comments to the contrary should be evaluated based on the
commenter’s frame of reference. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Access to recreational opportunities on the lake has been limited to some degree by the lack of
repairs at state-owned camping facilities. [Hemphill, TX]
• Additional development of recreational fishing would be welcome. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
• Studying the potential for a commercial fishery for catfish, gar, and carp on TB may be helpful in
maintaining ecological balance as well as lead to economic benefits. [SRA-TX Staff]
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Giant salvinia is a serious threat to fish and waterfowl on the lake, it is out of control, and not
enough is being done to combat it. [Hemphill, TX]
• Giant salvinia is not adequately controlled on TB. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Giant salvinia is a big challenge on North Toledo Bend. [Coushatta, LA]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 20
Power Generation
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing and related impact studies are underway
for the TB dam. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Power generation should not be given priority over recreational fishing in management decision
making. [Hemphill, TX]
• The river authorities are required by law to provide a certain amount of water for power generation
so long as the lake level is above 162.2 feet MSL. [SRA-LA Staff]
Water Quality
• Adjacent communities depend on TB for their public water supply. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Turbidity increases with fluctuating lake levels and flows adding cost to water treatment for the City
of Hemphill. [Hemphill, TX]
• Many older septic systems are in place around the lake that not up to current standards (LA side).
[SRA-LA Staff]
• Participants do not want regulations implemented to control nonpoint pollution from agriculture.
[DeSoto Parish, LA]
Groundwater
• Oil & Gas exploration is placing a high demand on groundwater in DeSoto Parish (North Toledo
Bend). [SRA-LA Staff]
• Use of groundwater should be curtailed, but probably not through regulation. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESS:
Less abundant fish (crappie)
SOURCES:
Overfishing
STRATEGIES:
• Enforce existing possession limits and netting requirements more stringently.
• Enact a new rule imposing restrictions on crappie fishing until after they have spawned.
• Increase fines for violations.
• Consolidating fishing rules on TB into one uniform scheme would benefit anglers as well as the
fishery. Incorporating a prohibition on hoop nets, already enacted on the Texas side, would be
advisable.
STRESS:
SOURCES:
STRATEGIES:
Loss of habitat
Aquatic nuisance species—giant salvinia
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 21
•
•
•
Raising awareness of the problems invasive species bring among stakeholders in other areas, along
with their potential for migration, either downstream of through interbasin water transfers, could
bring more resources to bear on the problem.
Federal excise taxes on fish and boating supplies should be directed toward resolving the types of
problems experienced on Toledo Bend (see the Sport Fish Restoration Program).
Chemical and biological control methods for giant salvinia are preferable (manipulating lake levels
for that purpose is probably not politically feasible).
SUCCESSES:
• SRA-LA provides access and recreational infrastructure that facilitates recreational uses and attracts
tournaments. [Many, LA]
• Grandfathered septic treatment systems are replaced incrementally due to a law that requires
upgrading to current standards on reconnection of utilities, which occurs on change of ownership.
Toledo Bend Reservoir is not listed for any bacteriological impairments that could be related to
sewage or septic systems. [Many, LA]
• The “leaseback” allows SRA-LA to manage lands immediately adjacent to TB waters without
impinging on property rights. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Offering in-kind participation and facilities has contributed to success in attracting fishing
tournaments. [SRA-LA Staff]
• Providing amenities and access in support of recreational uses of TB has developed those sectors.
[SRA-LA Staff]
• Creation of DeSoto Parish Waterworks made use of surface water more convenient and could
reduce use of groundwater. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Driscoll & Ashe, 2007)
Toledo Bend Reservoir
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
Sabine River Authority of Texas
Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
LA, TX
1966
162476
16.25
Sabine River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Agriculture; Hydropower; Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Catfish, black basses, yellow bass, crappie
$2,445,561 (Total directed expenditures)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 22
ISSUE
Prey species
Giant salvinia
Hydrilla
Waterhyacinth
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Good
Problematic, under treatment
Present, beneficial
Problematic, monitored
Low (2005-2006)
Good
Good
HISTORICAL ISSUES:
• Black bass has been the most popular sport fish.
• 20 – 30% of anglers have targeted crappie (current survey indicates 18.6%).
• Harvest statistics indicate an abundance of crappie.
• Harvest regulations have been standardized between the states except for those pertaining to
catfish and crappie.
• Giant salvinia coverage reduced from 3,000 to less than 300 acres as lake levels reached an historic
low in 2006, but increased to 1,770 acres by 2007. Other than the water level drawdown, weevils
and annual herbicide treatments at access points (to limit transfer to other waters) were the control
methods employed.
• Most water hyacinth and giant salvinia is in shallow backwater areas.
• Hydrilla is present but regarded as beneficial since it has never been problematic.
Current TPWD Management Actions:
ISSUE: Data indicate that largemouth bass drive most angler effort at TB.
STRATEGIES:
• Continue annual stocking of Florida largemouth bass to maintain and improve numbers of large fish.
• Continue monitoring tournament data to increase information on legal-size fish.
• Conduct annual electrofishing and creel surveys to monitor status of largemouth bass population.
• Examine largemouth bass growth every four years.
• Promote fish-handling procedures to minimize mortality and reduce conflicts with non-tournament
anglers.
ISSUE: Giant salvinia increased to the point that impeded access and transport to other waters is likely.
STRATEGIES:
• Monitor coverage annually by overflights to document distribution and effects of control efforts.
• Maintain informational signs and herbicide applications at access points.
• Continue collaboration with SRA-TX about funding to improve results.
• Continue to monitor success of weevil method.
• Continue discussions with LDWF regarding plant distribution and control measures.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 23
ISSUE: TPWD and LDWF harvest regulations differ for crappies and catfishes and confuse anglers.
STRATEGY:
• Standardize a 10-inch minimum length limit, 50-fish bag limit on crappies and adopt LDWF statewide
regulations for catfishes (11-inch, 12-inch, and 14-inch minimum length limit for channel, blue, and
flathead catfish; 125-fish bag limit in aggregate, with 50 allowed under minimum length limits).
ISSUE: The crappie fishery at Toledo Bend Reservoir is significant.
STRATEGY:
• Conduct annual creel surveys to monitor the crappie fishery, as trap netting at TB is not effective.
ISSUE: A considerable catfish fishery exists. Although the rod and reel catfish fishery is minor, the
majority of the actual directed catfish effort is likely due to passive gear anglers (use of nets).
STRATEGY:
• Conduct gillnetting surveys biannually to monitor populations and examine growth every four years.
ISSUE: Area constituents are interested in and need to be informed of TPWD activities at TB.
STRATEGY:
• Continue to publish monthly articles on TPWD activities in the Lakecaster, a newsletter distributed
to approximately 30 counties in Texas and Louisiana.
LDWF is actively involved at Toledo Bend and completed a formal and substantial fishery management
plan subsequent to completion of this project. A copy of that report is found in the digital library that
accompanies this report.
HUC 12010005
Lower Sabine
Anacoco Lake
Summary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (LDWF) fishery management plan
(Reed, 2009)
Populations of sport fishes have declined during 2004-2006 and LDWF staff attribute that to a loss of
submerged vegetation. The primary cause identified in the plan is turbidity, with leaks from potable
waterlines upstream along with drought, silviculture practices, shoreline development, and Hurricane
Rita listed as sources of the suspended solids. Aquatic nuisance plants are controlled primarily through
drawdowns of lake levels, although herbicides are applied to control button bush.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 24
The construction of Vernon Lake upstream (1960) coupled with poor fertility of watershed soils result in
a lack of nutrients at Anacoco Lake and a decline in productivity of the fishery.
Anacoco Lake
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
LA
1951
2600
NA
Anacoco Creek, Caney Creek,
Prairie Creek, and Sandy Creek
Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply, Recreation
Sabine River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sport Fish stocked:
Economic report (angling):
Largemouth bass, channel & blue catfish, flathead catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance plants
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS
Current condition not noted
Controlled via drawdowns/chemicals
Low (2004-2006)
Good
Good
Sabine Lake
HUC 12040201
This is the estuary that the Sabine River flows into as it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Neches
River also terminates into the lake, contributing about 42% of its inflows (SRA-TX Staff Stakeholder
Meeting, June 22, 2009). On the Louisiana side of Sabine Lake is the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge,
managed by USFWS, which stretches from Sabine Lake eastward to Calcasieu Lake and is dominated by
coastal marshes.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for Sabine Lake
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
•
•
Sabine Lake is heavily influenced by the Neches River as well as by uncontrolled drains that flow into
the lower Sabine River. [SRA-TX Staff]
Coastal marshes have declined in function and size due to channelization (of the marshes
themselves). [SRA-TX Staff]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 25
•
•
Some bottomland hardwoods are threatened by saltwater intrusion. [SRA-TX Staff]
The Sabine River is unprotected from saltwater intrusion. [SRA-TX Staff]
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESSES:
Loss of wetlands
SOURCES:
Hydrological modifications, channelization (of coastal marshes)
STRATEGIES:
• Restoration of coastal marshes, ongoing in Louisiana, can help control saltwater intrusion.
• Construction of saltwater barriers.
The Neches River basin
The Neches River flows into the same estuary as does the Sabine River and the USGS group included it in
their data collection process. This stakeholder study was commissioned for the Sabine and Red Rivers,
but the Neches was included in the online survey and some input was gathered as it came up in
stakeholder meetings. No stakeholder meetings were held physically within the Neches basin.
The Red River Basin
The Red River originates in northwest New Mexico and flows across the arid Texas panhandle to form
much of the border between Oklahoma and Texas. Once it enters Arkansas, it turns quickly south into
and across Louisiana until it flows into the Atchafalaya River which reaches the Gulf of Mexico in the
middle of the Louisiana coast. Louisiana is known for its plentiful rainfall, which creates quite a different
river than the flow-challenged upper reaches of the Red. Aquatic resources on the Red River may be
seriously impacted by additional demands upon stream flows as stakeholders capitalize on water
development projects that further reduce flows and create rapid changes in water chemistry.
Just past the midway point of the Texas-Oklahoma border formed by the river sits the biggest
mainstream reservoir in the entire river system, Lake Texoma. The nature of the river changes
somewhat below that point as more fresh water inflows join the naturally saline waters that form the
river along its upstream reaches and tributaries. The chloride content of the river waters generates as
much concern among stakeholders as do the challenges to stream flows. Lake Texoma resides at the
nexus of the resulting debate.
Anthropogenic changes to river dynamics take on an added dimension as the Red courses through the
southwest corner of Arkansas and turns sharply south to Shreveport, Louisiana. Widening and
deepening of the river for navigation purposes begins there and extends along most of its remaining
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 26
length. Locks and dams pose challenges to aquatic resources that are widely known, but stakeholders
participating in the discussions spoke more of the increase in opportunities for sports fishing as these
portions of the river changed from a riverine to a lake environment.
As the Red nears the Mississippi River, it is joined by the Black River and then meets another humanengineered modification that changed the course of history as well as its path to the Gulf of Mexico. At
this point, flows are controlled such that none of the Red River flows enter the Mississippi and, instead,
flow entirely into the Atchafalaya River. This excerpt from an email sent by Charles Demas, USGS, offers
an historical account.
The Red River plus the Old River Outflow Channel form the Atchafalaya River. In the early
1800s, the Red flowed into the Mississippi and sometimes backed into the Atchafalaya
during high water. The Atchafalaya had a 40 mile log raft on it so flows down it were
restricted. The bulk of the raft was removed by 1842 resulting in more flows down the
Atchafalaya River from both the Red and Mississippi in the area near the present day Old
River. This resulted in a more efficient route to the Gulf for Mississippi River water and
the Atchafalaya started to capture more and more of the Mississippi's flow. . . . [This]
prompted Congress to pass legislation in the early 1950s to authorize the COE to construct
the Old River Control Structure. The "final" rerouting of the Red into the Atchafalaya River
occurred in 1963 with the opening of the Old River Control Structure which cut the Red
River off from the Mississippi River.
(Personal Communication to Jill Jenkins, USGS, from Charles R. Demas, Director, U.S.
Geological Survey, Louisiana Water Science Center, Baton Rouge, LA, September 11, 2009)
The Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan (LWAP) cites the Red River as one major pathway for transmission of
invasive aquatic species such as Asian carp and Zebra mussel. Priorities include monitoring their
distribution and abundance as well as their effects on native species. The Asiatic clam has also been
documented in the Red. In that state, the Red has been significantly modified to serve flood control and
navigation needs. Partnering with USACE to monitor how the resulting habitat changes affect species of
greatest conservation need (SGCN) is cited as a strategy (LWAP, p. 319). Specific priorities for the Red
are listed in Table 4 and Table 5 below as are threats and sources in Table 6.
Table 4. Monitoring Needs for the Red River Basin
From the Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan
Conduct pre-impoundment taxonomic survey of proposed impoundments
Conduct sampling to identify trends in range and abundance of invasive species.
Monitor trends of invasive species catch in commercial fisheries landings.
Monitor the effectiveness of mitigation features.
Monitor the effects of navigation and flood control projects on species of conservation concern.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 27
Table 5. Red River Basin Conservation Strategies
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan, p. 269
Develop a comprehensive survey methodology for the Red River Basin.
Conduct a detailed inventory of the Red River above Shreveport that focuses on habitats and species of
conservation concern.
Develop partnerships with regulatory agencies to share data on habitat threats and to ensure compliance of
existing regulations.
Work with LANSTF to identify and address threats related to invasive species.
Prepare educational material on potential impacts invasive species to the Red River.
Continue LDWF involvement in the environmental review process for all river basin related projects and identify
appropriate mitigation methods.
Develop education and outreach programs with NRCS to reduce sediments and nutrient loading within the Red
River Basin.
Table 6. Threats and Sources for the Red River Basin



Commercial/industrial development

Construction of ditches, drainage or diversion systems

Construction of navigable waterways

Crop production practices


Dam construction







Incompatible forestry practices

Toxins/ Contaminants
Modification of Water Levels;
Changes in Natural Flow Patterns

Sedimentation
Habitat Disturbance

Habitat Destruction or Conversion
Altered Composition/Structure
Channelization of rivers or streams
Competition for Resources
Source of Threat
Nutrient Loading
Threat
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan








Industrial discharge

Invasive/alien species

Levee or dike construction

Management of/for certain species








Operation of dams or reservoirs


Operation of drainage or diversion systems



Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs


Page 28
The Red River Chloride Control Project (RRCCP)
While aquatic species have adapted to the naturally saline conditions of the river, humans have not. To
facilitate agricultural and human consumptive use of saline waters in the upper Red, the Red River
Chloride Control Project (RRCCP) was conceived and is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). The strategy is to engineer systems that divert saline inflows away from the river,
thereby reducing the concentration of chlorides downstream. Inflatable dams would be constructed to
store the saline waters in evaporation ponds.
One stakeholder speculated that intense reservoir development in the tributary systems had likely
reduced freshwater flows and thereby increased chloride levels downstream. This underlines the
accepted fact that changes in a system give rise to unintended consequences and, in this scenario,
expensive remedies. While the RRCCP would reverse the speculative trend the intent is to reduce
chlorides well below those native species have adapted to. Fisheries biologists express concern over the
unintended and unknown ecosystem impacts of rapid change to water chemistry and removal of
additional stream flows. Farther downstream, at Lake Texoma, stakeholders claim the project will
damage or destroy the productive and unique striped bass fishery there. USACE, along with the Red
River Authority of Texas, have examined the claims and supporting research, made some adjustments in
their plans, and believe the project can proceed without serious negative impacts to aquatic resources.
Even with the adjustments, stakeholders driven primarily by aquatic resource-driven missions are
steadfast in their opposition and believe the project should pause until more work can be done to
understand the potential ecosystem impacts.
Benefits of a successful RRCCP include improving suitability of water from the river for agricultural and
human consumptive uses. While irrigation out of the Red currently occurs, chloride reduction would
allow for increased use and allow farmers who are dependent on it to grow a broader range of crops,
some of them more lucrative. The Red River Authority of Texas asserts that the RRCCP “appears to be
the most economical means to accomplish this task and achieve an equitable balance between the
needs of the public and the environment as efficiently as possible.” Removing chlorides through
diversion and disposal precludes the cost of removal during treatment and would make acquisition of
water from the river more attractive for population centers already advocating for the RRCCP. The cost
of desalinization plants, an alternative explored in RRCCP documents, would largely be borne by local
government while the entire cost of the RRCCP falls on the Federal government. Unlike most USACE
projects, this one requires no local cost-share partner.
As one stakeholder pointed out, the project may be of more concern for its effects on stream flows than
the resultant changes in water chemistry although both have raised concerns. The RRCCP poses a dual
challenge to ecosystem water quantity needs: removal of flows for chloride reduction directly reduces
water quantity in the streams while making the water more attractive for consumptive use and future
interbasin transfers. In addition to potentially compounding the decline in instream flows, chloride
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 29
reduction itself has serious implications for fish assemblages along the river gradient, for striped bass
egg development, and the transport of sediment into Lake Texoma.
The Upper Red River and its Tributaries
Headwaters in Northeast New Mexico to Lake Texoma on the Texas-Oklahoma border
Essentially rural in the segments that flow through Texas and Oklahoma, the river is influenced much
more by agriculture and ranching than by industry. In spite of the sparse population, the demand for
water from the river and the drawdown of aquifers that provide significant stream flows are primary
concerns.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for the Red River above Lake Texoma
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Water Quantity
• The proliferation of reservoirs has taxed stream flows, increased chloride concentrations
downstream, and limited the original distribution of some species. [WMWR, OK]
• Dallas and Fort Worth are interested in acquiring water from the area. [WMWR, OK]
• Stream flows are low, which is/can be exacerbated by changes in ground cover, diversion and
disposal of saline inflows, drawdown of aquifers, and interbasin transfers to serve the City of Dallas.
[Wichita Falls, TX]
• Water conservation is needed and has been implemented in the area, but general cooperation from
the public remains to be seen. [Wichita Falls, TX]
• Brush control efforts must be properly managed to conserve stream flows while restoring
appropriate land cover. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Water Quality
• Tree removal and grazing of streams are destroying riparian buffer zones and increasing
sedimentation/ turbidity in the upper Red. [WMWR, OK]
• Human population is shrinking in western Oklahoma, so urban development is only an isolated
concern. [WMWR, OK]
Sports Fishing
• Recreational fishing is important as are other recreational uses. Lake Arrowhead is the most
important recreational lake in the area. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 30
Native Aquatic Species
• Naturally high salinity in the river means chlorides must be removed to facilitate human
consumption but may threaten aquatic species including unique native populations and at least one
species important to recreational fishing. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Invasive aquatic species, particularly golden algae, are present. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESS:
Nutrients
SOURCES:
Nonpoint pollution – farming and animal feeding operations
STRATEGIES:
• None identified in the meeting.
STRESS:
Reduced stream flow
SOURCES:
Reservoir development, salt cedar, irrigation, drawdown of aquifers
STRATEGIES:
• Programs to foster use of rain collection systems may be a good approach if they balance integrity of
water supply systems with user-friendly regulation. [Wichita Falls, TX]
STRESS:
Turbidity
SOURCES:
Removal of riparian buffers, Grazing of streams
STRATEGIES:
• The NCRS Conservation Reserve Program increases riparian buffer zones on a voluntary, incentivized
basis.
STRESS:
Fish kills
SOURCES:
Golden alga
STRATEGIES:
• Use ammonium sulfate, liquid copper compound where applicable*.
• Barley straw is another treatment method researched by Texas Dundee Fish Hatchery.
* see success story below.
SUCCESSES:
• The City of Wichita Falls has incorporated water conservation into its operations and provides
related information to the public. [Wichita Falls, TX]
• Water conservation may be part of the solution to controlling Golden Alga and is surely a solution to
low stream flows. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 31
•
•
•
•
•
•
A reverse osmosis plant that returns the chlorides to the stream after removal is in use in Wichita
Falls. Investigating use of this technology as part of a plan to serve human consumptive needs while
maintaining natural ecosystem conditions may be of interest. [Wichita Falls, TX]
Preservation of native species is a priority within the wildlife refuge system and is enabled by the
Refuge Improvement Act. The refuge is in an advantageous position due to such mandates as well
as its physical position in the uppermost part of the watershed. [WMWR, OK]
Some invasive species are present, but the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge is primarily
in a preventive mode. [WMWR, OK]
Hackberry Flat was restored as a wetland area and the water provided by a reservoir that was
underused. [WMWR, OK]
A system of reservoirs on the Washita River provides sediment control that alleviates a concern at
Lake Texoma. [Wichita Falls, TX]
ODWC has successfully treated golden alga with ammonium sulfate at Altus Lake and, on another
occasion, used a liquid copper compound. Cost makes these impractical on large systems, but they
did work. Texas’ Dundee State Fish Hatchery developed the techniques. [Personal communication,
L. Cofer, ODWC, 9/1/2009]
HUC 11120104
Tule
Mackenzie Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Henegar, 2004)
This small reservoir serves as a water supply for four cities and has never filled to capacity in the 35
years since it was constructed. Maintaining the population of palmetto bass, which requires stocking, is
the featured item in the TPWD management plan.
Mackenzie Reservoir
Owner
Mackenzie Municipal Water Authority
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1974
900
6.96
Tule Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, Palmetto bass, crapppie
Not available
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 32
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Good
None noted
Record low
Adequate
Adequate
HUC 11120105
Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red
Baylor Creek Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Munger, 2007)
As of the last survey, the lake level currently was so low as to render boat ramps on the lake unusable.
Repeated blooms of golden alga have decimated fish populations and re-stocking has not been
successful. The management strategy is to delay stocking until golden alga blooms are less likely. Due
to the turbidity in this lake, it provides limited aquatic vegetation for habitat. Salinity has increased but
not enough to impact fish populations.
Baylor Creek Reservoir
Owner
City of Childress
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
TX
1950
600
*
SDI
Stream
2.39
Baylor Creek
Purposes
River Basin
Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden alga
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Largemouth bass, white crappie, and catfish
Not available
STATUS (2007)
Low abundance
Reoccurring fish kills
Low (boat ramps unusable)
Not noted
Adequate (when levels are normal)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 33
HUC 11120201
Upper Salt Fork Red
Greenbelt Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Munger & Henegar, 2003)
Situated on the Salt Fork of the Red River in Donley County, Texas, this reservoir is operated by the
Greenbelt Municipal and Industrial Water Authority for water supply and recreation. Historically, water
levels have fluctuated but they have been stable since 2000. Issues and management strategies imply a
healthy system and focus on enhancing and maintaining sports fish populations.
Greenbelt Reservoir
Owner
Greenbelt M&I Water Authority, TWDB
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1967
1990
1.3
Salt Fork Red River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply;Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass is the most sought-after species
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2003)
Good
None noted
Low
Good
Good
HUC 11120301
Upper North Fork Red
McClellan Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Munger & Henegar, 2005)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 34
This lake is part of the Black Kettle National Grassland and has dried up due to drought conditions three
times in ten years. It was constructed for recreational purposes.
McClellan Reservoir
Owner
US Forest Service
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1938
405
1.06
McClellan Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
White crappie and catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2005)
Overly abundant
None noted
Low
Excellent
Good
HUC 11130101
Groesbeck-Sandy
Pauline Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Munger, 2004)
Low water levels prevented sampling activities during the 2004 survey. Angler access had been limited
as well, but levels had begun to rise. Plans were made to restock with sports species once warranted by
lake level.
Pauline Reservoir
Owner
West Texas Utilities Company
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
TX
1910
600
*
SDI
0
Stream
Wanderers Creek
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling); Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 35
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Not noted
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden alga
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Not noted
Fish kill 2005
Low (1998-2004)
Adequate (at normal lake level)
Adequate (at normal lake level)
HUC 11130201
Farmers-Mud
Moss Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Moczygemba & Hysmith, 2006)
The City of Gainesville charges for boat access but shoreline angling is free. Recent interactions
between TPWD and the City resulted in improved access and repairs. The fishery is of low to moderate
productivity due to low chlorophyll-a. The City is not interested in enhancing the nutrient content.
Moss Reservoir
Owner
City of Gainesville
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1966
1140
3.43
Fish Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, and white bass
Not available
STATUS
Low in abundance
Present, not problematic
Good
Good (no fee)
Good (fee-based)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 36
Nocona Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Hysmith & Moczygemba, 2007)
This reservoir supports a productive fishery due to high nutrient levels. Eurasian watermilfoil has
historically been problematic but was not treated due to proximity to the water supply intake.
Currently, the plant is not a problem.
Lake Nocona
Owner
North Montague County Water Supply District
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
TX
1961
1323
4.5
*
Stream
Farmers Creek
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Blue & channel catfish, white bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Eurasion watermilfoil
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Adequate
Confined
Good
Good
Good
HUC 11130202
Cache
Lake Lawtonka
Summary of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) fishery management plan
(Cofer, Bodine & Perry, 2008)
This is the oldest reservoir in Oklahoma and provides water to the City of Lawton and to Fort Sill. It
receives flows from Medicine Creek, Canyon Creek, from small springs, as well as from Lake Ellsworth via
pipeline, another Red River basin reservoir located nearby. The fishery is managed cooperatively by the
City of Lawton and ODWC.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 37
HIGHLIGHTS:
• While a stocking program has produced trophy bass from the lake, including a former state record
Florida bass, the overall abundance of bass did not improve until habitat improved.
• Recommendations for stocking mention shortages of shad and improving chances of trophy catches.
• Fish kills in recent years were observed but no causes were confirmed, although the outlet from
Lake Ellsworth was implicated in the first episode.
• Golden alga is not likely blooming in the lake due to its low salinity, but prevention efforts should be
continued as zebra mussels move toward the region.
• Water quality has been stable but potential damages should be prevented from new development
that is occurring in the area.
• Local economic development plans could, if realized, create substantial demands on water inflows
and reduce productivity of the fishery.
• A boat ramp and dock provide public access and anglers have expressed interest in more access but
the area best suited for further development is dominated by private facilities. A lack of convenient
shoreline access has also been a source of complaints.
Lake Lawtonka
Owner
City of Lawton
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
OK
1905
2400
3.06
Medicine Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Largemouth bass, crappie, walleye, saugeye, white bass, channel catfish
Not available
STATUS
Fair
None reported
Stable
Limited
Limited
HUC 11130206
Wichita
Buffalo Creek Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Howell & Mauk, 2006)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 38
Located not far from Wichita Falls, Texas, this reservoir experienced low water levels from 2003 to 2007,
which adversely impacted fish and fishing. Physical habitat for fish was limited as was access for anglers
when boat ramps could no longer be used. During the extended period of low levels, municipal demand
for water from Buffalo Creek Reservoir ended, creating an increased opportunity for enhancing the
largemouth bass fishery. Management actions included a supplemental stocking of Florida largemouth
bass fingerlings in 2008. Creation of fish attractors has been successful when lake levels were higher.
Buffalo Creek Reservoir
Owner
City of Iowa Park, Wichita County WID
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1964
1577
3.7
North Fork Buffalo Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, white crappie, channel and blue catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2006)
Good
None noted
Low (boat ramp unusable)
Good
Adequate (when levels are normal)
Lake Diversion
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Mauk & Howell, 2004)
This saline lake is surrounded by privately owned land and is primarily used for irrigation, and in
emergencies as a supplemental water supply for the City of Wichita Falls. Public access is allowed for a
fee. Persistent blooms of golden alga have plagued the lake, which serves as the water supply for
Dundee State Fish Hatchery.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 39
Lake Diversion
Owner
City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County Water
Improvement District No. 2
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1924
3491
3.4
Wichita River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Agriculture; Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, blue catfish, largemouth bass
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden Alga
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Good
Reoccurring blooms, fish kills
Not available
Fair (Fee-based, private)
Fair (Fee-based, private)
Kemp Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Howell & Mauk, 2005)
Land around the reservoir is privately owned and access to the public access points requires a small fee.
Fish populations have been reduced by blooms of golden alga since 2002. Spotted bass have been
virtually eliminated.
Kemp Reservoir
Owner
City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County Irrigation
District No. 2.
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1923
15104
10.6
Wichita River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Agriculture; Flood control; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel and blue catfish; largemouth, white, and striped bass; crappie
Not available
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 40
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden alga
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2005)
Fair
Reoccurring
Stable
Adequate (Fee-based, private)
Good (Fee-based, private)
Lake Wichita
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Howell & Mauk, 2004)
This lake sustained an excellent crappie population before it was lowered substantially in 1995 as a flood
control measure. The City of Wichita Falls, Texas had developed alternative water supplies, making the
modifications feasible. A bloom of golden alga killed 7,700 fish, almost exclusively non-game fish.
Lake Wichita
Owner
City of Wichita Falls
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1901
1224
2.4
Holiday Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Catfish, white bass
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden alga
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Good
Large fish kill 2004
Stable
Fair
Good
HUC 11130209
Little Wichita
Arrowhead Reservoir
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 41
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Howell & Mauk, 2008)
About 20 miles from Wichita Falls, Texas, on the Little Wichita River, Lake Arrowhead is operated by the
city for water supply, but it is the biggest destination for recreational fishing in the area. Anglers visiting
Lake Arrowhead State Park need no fishing license and do not receive the TPWD manual with fishing
regulations. Park officials post informational signs to compensate and provide measuring devices.
Christmas trees have been collected at Lake Arrowhead State Park annually and placed near popular
fishing piers as fish attractors. This has successfully improved angling opportunities as well as increased
awareness while actively engaging the community.
Arrowhead Reservoir
Owner
City of Wichita Falls
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1966
14969
6.36
Little Wichita River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply;Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, and white bass
$681,022 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance plants
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2008)
Good
Undetected, currently and historically
Good (Low 2004)
Adequate
Adequate
Kickapoo Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Howell & Mauk, 2005)
This lake has a reputation for good crappie fishing but also offers good populations of catfish and
largemouth bass.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 42
Kickapoo Reservoir
Owner
City of Wichita Falls
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1947
6028
5.44
Little Wichita River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply;Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Catfish, white bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie
$75,974 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance plants
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Northern largemouth bass
STATUS (2005)
Good
Historically not present
Good, rising
Adequate
Adequate
Genetically pure
HUC 11130210
Lake Texoma
Lake Texoma Reservoir
The largest reservoir on the Red River, Lake Texoma was built in 1944 by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), which currently controls the reservoir. Purposes include flood control; hydropower;
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply; and recreation. The lake straddles the
Oklahoma/Texas border not far from Dallas-Fort Worth and is a popular recreational destination for
residents of the Metroplex. The fishery is managed by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation (ODWC) on one side of the state line and Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) on
the other. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Oklahoma Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office, near
Tishomingo, Oklahoma, works with the state agencies on management issues.
Lake Texoma boasts one of a handful of striped bass fisheries in the nation with a self-sustaining
population. Striped bass spawn in both the Red River and the Washita River, the two streams that flow
into the lake. Other sport fishes important to the fishery include blue and channel catfish; white bass;
smallmouth, spotted, and largemouth bass; and black and white crappie. All stakeholders consulted
recognized the economic importance of this reservoir in terms of its recreational assets and the role of
the striped bass in that economy.
Citizen groups, recreational fishing interests, fisheries biologists, and other stakeholders are concerned
about the potential impacts of the Red River Chloride Control Project (RRCCP) due to its potential impact
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 43
on the fishery. A study of spawning locations utilized by striped bass in Lake Texoma concluded,
“Management agencies should exercise caution with respect to the implementation of water
development projects within the watershed that could alter river flow or water chemistry, as these are
probably key to the continued reproductive success of striped bass in the Lake Texoma system.” USACE
has analyzed the potential impacts and asserts that the fishery will not be significantly harmed. For
more on the RRCCP, see that section under Projects.
The lake was built for flood control and power generation but a recreational industry grew up around
the lake, based primarily on hunting and fishing. Natural flooding events in 2007 and 2009 caused
damages to Lake Texoma assets and industry estimated at $30 million. The stakeholders affected want
USACE management policies to consider them on equal footing with the downstream interests. USACE
has adjusted its process over time and takes into account billions of dollars in damages that could occur
downstream.
The USACE has sold some of the lands it owned to private interests and has been directed by Congress
to convey additional publicly-owned lands to private ownership. Stakeholders expressed concern that
this shoreline property, currently available for public recreational use, will be used for private
development once sold. State parks throughout Oklahoma already have been sold to private entities,
leaving Eisenhower State Park, on the Texas side, as the only public park on the Lake.
The City of Dallas wants to use water from Lake Texoma for public consumption. Interbasin transfers
like this can transport the larvae of the Zebra Mussel. Potential solutions to migration of this invasive
species include outreach and education, or identifying and introducing a species which could eat it.
Erosion is a major concern in the upper Red River as well as in the Washita, which leaves Lake Texoma
threatened with sedimentation. A system of reservoirs on the Washita River provides sediment control
upstream of Lake Texoma but there is concern among fishery managers of the ecosystem effects from
that system. Overall, the amount of sedimentation has not exceeded expectations from the original
reservoir planning, but its distribution is different.
The main concerns among stakeholders are the potential fishery impacts from the removal of chlorides
and stream flows upstream, the damage to tourism interests during flooding conditions, interbasin
water transfers out of the lake, and the increasing threats to ecosystem health and public access posed
by increased privatization of riparian land. Additionally and subsequent to the completion of this
project, zebra mussels have been found at numerous sites in the reservoir and an interagency task force
has been convened to deal with the problem. The stakeholder input outlined below does not reflect the
magnitude of this threat, which is now a major and immediate concern.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 44
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for Lake Texoma:
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Water Quantity
• The City of Dallas wants to use water from Lake Texoma for public consumption.
• Selling water across state lines creates additional stress on a flow-challenged system.
• The proliferation of reservoirs in the upper Red has taxed stream flows, increased chloride
concentrations downstream, and limited the original distribution of some species.
• Reductions in stream flows create the biggest challenge to the Upper Red and Lake Texoma and are
attributable to plans for new reservoirs, the RRCCP, interstate water sales (inter-basin transfers), red
and salt cedar, and groundwater withdrawals.
• Unsustainable groundwater withdrawals continue in large part because Oklahoma and Texas law
treat groundwater and surface water differently.
Water Quality
• Impending declines in stream flows could degrade water quality.
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Invasive aquatic species have been introduced to Lake Texoma, including hydrilla, zebra mussels,
golden alga, and asian carp and are spreading to other areas.
• Inter-basin transfers of water threaten to spread zebra mussels and golden alga to other areas.
• Nutrient influx and the resulting eutrophication need to be controlled to control golden alga.
Riparian Development
• Privatization of public assets around the lake (conveyance of USACE-owned lands and State of
Oklahoma parks) hampers stewardship. It increases ecosystem stress associated with private
ownership of riparian lands and leaves riparian buffer zones vulnerable. Even if agency plans are
updated, they generally will not apply to lands which have already been sold to private entities.
• Increasing trends in private ownership of riparian lands reduces public access to Lake Texoma and
increases ecosystem stress.
Economics
• Management of Lake Texoma and Denison Dam is primarily driven by flood control considerations
to protect substantial downstream interests, and recreational stakeholders have suffered
economically.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 45
•
Denison Dam and Lake Texoma are managed according to enabling mandates and the need to
protect billions of dollars of assets downstream.
Sports fishing
• The construction of Lake Texoma created an environment that mimics the native habitat of the
Striped Bass, which has thrived since its introduction there. [Shreveport, LA]
Salinity
• Chloride removal occurring upstream of Lake Texoma is excessive.
• Salinity in the Red River and Lake Texoma comes from natural sources, is important ecologically and
allowed the creation of a Striped Bass fishery; it is also an impediment to human consumptive uses
of the water.
• Removing chlorides from the stream may have a negative impact on the Lake Texoma fishery with
serious economic consequences; reduced stream flows will result along with reduced salinity. One
participant speculated that removal of the chloride may not impact the Striped Bass so much as the
removal of stream flow that occurs with implementation of the RRCCP.
Management
• Existing management plans for Lake Texoma are out of date and were created before modern
decision-making tools were developed. Updates and a new EIS should be done to address increasing
pressures on aquatic resources.
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESSES:
Reduced stream flows, Reduced salinity
SOURCES:
Impoundment—managed for flood control
• Groundwater withdrawals
• Stream flow diversions and disposal
• Invasive plant species—salt and red cedar
• Interbasin transfers of water (possible future source)
STRATEGIES:
• Develop minimum stream flow requirements for all competing uses along the river and incorporate
them into a plan to manage the system as a whole. The Red River Compact Commission may be the
appropriate place for a Red River In-stream flow plan to reside.
• System-wide modeling to support planning and decision-making
• Develop municipal water recycling programs.
• Assess the total value of all recreational uses of the reservoir.
• Brush control: Develop a landscape-scale approach to controlling red and salt cedar.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 46
STRESSES:
Reduced habitat, fish kills
SOURCES:
Invasive aquatic species—golden alga, hydrilla, zebra mussels
STRATEGIES:
• Reduce nutrient loadings
• Continue and augment education and public awareness
SUCCESSES:
• Ammonium sulfate has been used to control golden alga with some success near Altus, OK.
• Education/outreach is and has been an effective means of preventing the spread of invasive species.
STRESS:
Loss of riparian buffers
SOURCES:
Riparian development, conveyance of public land, grazing of streams (upstream)
STRATEGIES:
• Develop a master development plan around the lake that incorporates a stewardship focus.
STRESS:
Water quality—nutrients
SOURCES:
STRATEGIES:
• Increase and conserve instream flows (see strategies above).
• Develop a regional wastewater management system.
STRESS:
Reduced habitat
SOURCES:
Erosion, Sedimentation
STRATEGIES:
• Increase riparian buffers.
• Preserve natural salinity (one study indicates salinity affects sediment transport).
SUCCESSES:
• The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program increases riparian buffer zones on a voluntary,
incentivized basis.
• A system of reservoirs on the Washita River provides sediment control designed to alleviate
sedimentation at Lake Texoma.
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan:
(Hysmith & Moczygemba, 2008)
There are 30 public boat ramps on the lake but the trend is to “out-grant” them to private operators
who will charge a fee if they allow general public access at all.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 47
Texoma Reservoir
Owner
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
OK, TX
1944
74686
13.9
Red River, Washita River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Agriculture; Flood control; Hydropower; Industrial water supply; Municipal water
supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Impact:
ISSUE
Prey species
Golden alga
Zebra mussels
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Blue and channel catfish; white bass; striped bass; smallmouth, spotted,
and largemouth bass; and black and white crappie
Noted $22 million from a 1995 study (Schoor, et al.)
STATUS (2007)
Good
Reoccurring fish kills
Detected, monitoring
Good (flooded 2007)
Adequate (trending to fee-based)
Adequate (trending to fee-based)
ISSUE: Monitoring the economically important striped bass fishery.
STRATEGIES:
• Annual gill net surveys in concert with ODWC, covering both sides of the lake.
• Analyze the data and share results at a Texoma Reservoir management meeting.
ISSUE: Golden alga, Prymnesium parvum, has been discovered in Texoma Reservoir and caused a fish
kill in 2004. Subsequent fish kills have been limited to the upper Red River arm of the lake.
STRATEGY:
• Continue monitoring, resource review, public awareness, and training in concert with personnel
from ODWC and University of Oklahoma.
ISSUE: One adult zebra mussel has been found in Lake Texoma and several boats with the invasive
mussel attached have been found trying to enter the lake since that time.
[Note that zebra mussels have since been found at numerous sites in the reservoir and an interagency
task force has been convened to deal with the problem. The TPWD white paper Zebra Mussels in Texas:
Assessment of relative risks to fishery resources,recommendations for action, and expectations for the
future provides a current overview of the threat and implicates interbasin transfers as one likely cause
of the infestation at Lake Texoma.]
STRATEGIES:
• Continue monitoring, resource review, public awareness, and training in concert with personnel
from ODWC and USFWS.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 48
•
Make periodic observations of Portland Zebra Mussel Samplers located at three strategic points on
the Texas shore of the reservoir.
ODWC is currently developing a fishery management plan for Lake Texoma.
USACE has a plan for shoreline management that controls installation of docks and other improvements
along the shoreline and on lands owned by the Corps.
The Red and Its Tributaries Below Lake Texoma
Lake Texoma, Southeast Oklahoma, and Southwest Arkansas
While the river basin only takes up a small corner of the state of Arkansas, recreational fishing and duck
hunting enjoy dedicated support and projects perceived as threatening those natural assets encounter
significant opposition from influential hunting clubs and others. Agriculture is present but not so
prominent as in other parts of the state and agencies are engaged to provide support for preservation of
water quality. A navigation project is in the planning stages in an effort to bring to Texarkana some of
the economic benefits garnered downstream in Louisiana where a similar project has been in operation
for years (see Projects, below).
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for the Red River below Lake Texoma:
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Water Sales
• The sale of water across state lines is controversial and would likely bring effects that are
detrimental to aquatic resources while revenues generated accrue to other parts of the state.
[Idabel, OK]
• Advocates of the water sale believe the potential revenue outweighs their chances of attracting new
industries who would need the water. [Idabel, OK]
Sports Fishing
• Trout fishing in streams is an important recreational activity. [Idabel, OK]
• The fishery at Millwood Lake has been in decline for years and brim are unable to spawn, reducing
the food source for bass. [Texarkana, AR]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 49
•
Duck habitat is in good shape, duck hunting is popular, but duck season does not coincide with their
presence. [Texarkana, AR]
Sedimentation/Erosion
• Excess sediment is causing Millwood Lake, an already shallow reservoir, to fill in, threatening its
function for flood storage as well as impairing its economic productivity and ecological integrity.
[Texarkana, AR]
Water Quality
• Clear-cutting and poultry litter are affecting water quality in the Little River watershed.
• Land use is primarily farming and timber. [Texarkana, AR]
• Continued and increasing demand for water is reducing water quality and, in particular, increasing
salinity. [Texarkana, AR]
Navigation Development
• The extension of the Red River Navigation Project to Texarkana is still undergoing review of its
feasibility, which faces new challenges for the near term. [Texarkana, AR]
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESS:
SOURCES:
Sedimentation
Erosion – Natural stream bank conditions, Loss of streamside forest, Sediment flow too
high
STRATEGIES:
• USACE and Millwood Lake Focus Committee are working together to identify stresses, sources, and
solutions at the watershed scale.
STRESS:
Pathogens
SOURCES:
Nonpoint pollution—Poultry farming, among others
STRATEGIES:
• Nutrient management training and planning
STRESS:
Less abundant fish or other aquatic species
SOURCES:
Loss of habitat – Sedimentation
STRATEGIES:
• USACE and Millwood Lake Focus Committee are working together to identify stresses, sources, and
solutions at the watershed scale.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 50
SUCCESSES:
• NRCS, the University of Arkansas Agricultural Extension, the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission,
and the Soil & Water Conservation Districts participate in a nutrient management program that is
voluntary in places and mandated in others. Participation is good in either case and water quality
trends are promising.
HUC 11140101
Bois D'arc-Island
Bonham City Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Hysmith & Moczygemba, 2004)
Located on Timber Creek, a tributary to Bois d’Arc Creek and the Red River, this reservoir provides water
for consumptive, irrigation, and recreational uses. Built by the City of Bonham in 1969, the lake
supports a productive fishery with good access for anglers.
Bonham City Reservoir
Owner
Bonham Municipal Water Authority
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1969
1020
4.1
Red River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Agriculture; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, white and black crappie
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Adequate
None noted
Good
Adequate
Good
Lake Crook
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 51
(Jubar & Storey, 2006)
This lake is located on Pine Creek near Paris, Texas and is operated by the city as a secondary water
supply. Access for boaters is provided at two ramps and a fishing pier at the city park is in need of
repairs.
Lake Crook
Owner
City of Paris
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1923
1226
3.4
Pine Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, white crappie, blue and channel catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Northern-strain largemouth bass
STATUS (2006)
Good
None noted
Not noted
Fair
Fair
May be genetically-pure population
Pat Mayse Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Storey & Jubar, 2004)
Largemouth bass show great potential in this lake. Fish kills affecting white bass have occurred twice,
and TPWD staff speculate that this was due to population density as the kills followed record gill net
surveys for the species. Hydrilla coverage has been reduced substantially.
Pat Mayse Reservoir
Owner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1967
5865
6.18
Sanders Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 52
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, palmetto bass
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2004)
Adequate
Present, declining
Nothing noted
Adequate (4-day use areas)
Good
HUC 11140106
Pecan-Waterhole
Broken Bow Lake
No issues came up regarding Broken Bow in the stakeholder meetings but one stakeholder stated that
the black bass fishery attracts significant tourism from across state lines.
Summary of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) fishery management plan
(Groom, 2008)
Located in the mountains of Southeast Oklahoma, Broken Bow Lake supports a productive fishery. This
report mentions a consumption advisory due to mercury levels in fish tissue and states that Oklahoma
records higher levels of mercury deposition from the air than many other areas. It also calls attention to
land uses in the watershed—Forestry and Farming—that could impact upon aquatic resources in the
lake. ODWC staff is working with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the community to improve fishing
opportunities on the lake, and mentions strategies such as public meetings, a creel survey,
improvements to access, tournament reporting, and public outreach to keep aquatic nuisance species
from spreading to the lake.
Broken Bow Lake
Owner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
OK
1970
14200
10.8
Mountain Fork River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Largemouth bass, spotted bass, smallmouth bass, white bass, hybrid
striped bass, white crappie, black crappie, channel catfish, flathead
catfish, and walleye
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 53
Economic Impact (angling):
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2008)
Low abundance
None confirmed in the lake
High
Needs improvement
Needs improvement
Little River Basin and the Red River in Southwest Arkansas
Figure 1. Arkansas Red River Ecobasin Boundaries
Starting in the southeast corner of
Oklahoma, the Little River feeds several
reservoirs in southwestern Arkansas, the
largest one of which is Millwood Lake.
Primary concerns expressed by stakeholders
for this area included sedimentation, aquatic
nuisance plants, and nutrient loadings.
As stated in the Arkansas Wildlife Action
Plan (AWAP), “ecobasins are a version of the
seven (level III) ecoregions (Woods and
others
2004) further subdivided by six major
Adapted from map on p. 1578 of AWAP
river basins to form 18 ecobasins to describe
aquatic habitats in Arkansas.” Information on species and habitat, along with threats and sources, that
occur in the Red River basin can be identified within AWAP by references to the two ecobasins
“Ouachita Mountains - Red River” and “South Central Plains - Red River”, which include the portion of
the project area that falls within the state of Arkansas.
1 - Ouachita Mountains
2 - South Central Plains
Table 7, reproduced from AWAP, indicates the level of anthropogenic disturbance to aquatic habitats
based on six factors. For each factor, a score of 1 represents the greatest amount of disturbance. The
two Red River ecobasins are highlighted.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 54
Table 7. Aquatic Habitat Scores For Arkansas Ecobasins
Stressors Ranked
Road Density Rank
Riparian Road Density
Rank
Crossing Density Rank
Percent Forest Rank
Percent Forest in
Riparian Rank
Ozark Highlands - Arkansas River
1
1
1
1
3
2
9
Mississippi Valley Loess Plains - St. Francis River
1
1
2
1
3
3
11
Mississippi Valley Loess Plains - White River
1
1
2
1
3
3
11
Mississippi R. Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River
2
3
2
4
2
2
15
Mississippi R. Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River
5
3
2
3
1
1
15
Arkansas Valley - Arkansas River
4
1
3
1
4
3
16
Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Mississippi River
4
5
2
4
1
1
17
Ouachita Mountains - Ouachita River
2
2
1
2
5
5
17
Arkansas Valley - White River
2
3
4
2
4
4
19
Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Ouachita River
3
5
3
5
2
2
20
Mississippi R. Alluvial Plain - White River
5
4
3
4
2
2
20
Ouachita Mountains - Arkansas River
4
2
2
2
5
5
20
Ouachita Mountains - Red River
2
2
3
5
5
5
22
Ozark Highlands - White River
5
3
3
3
5
4
23
South Central Plains - Red River
2
4
5
4
4
4
23
South Central Plains - Ouachita River
4
4
5
3
5
5
26
Boston Mountains - White River
3
5
4
5
5
5
27
Boston Mountains - Arkansas River
3
5
5
5
5
5
28
Ecobasin
Sum of Ranks
Dam Density Rank
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, Table 5.43, p. 1612a
Threats to species and sources that are identified for this area in the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan are
seen in Table 8. This is likely not a complete list as the information appears in the Plan as threats to
species. Those whose relevance to the Red River basin could be confirmed are displayed here.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 55
Table 8. Threats and Sources to Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) – Red River Basin, AR
Ecobasin
Red River Shiner
Habitat destruction
Dam
Ouachita Mountains - Red River


Hydrological alteration
Ouachita Mountains - Red River


Nutrient loading
Dam
Municipal/Industrial
point source
Ouachita Mountains - Red River


Sedimentation
Forestry activities
Ouachita Mountains - Red River


Sedimentation
Road construction
Ouachita Mountains - Red River


Chemical alteration
Forestry activities
South Central Plains - Red River

Chemical alteration
Resource extraction
South Central Plains - Red River

Habitat destruction
Channel alteration
South Central Plains - Red River

Habitat destruction
Dam
South Central Plains - Red River

Habitat destruction
Forestry activities
South Central Plains - Red River
Habitat destruction
Resource extraction
South Central Plains - Red River

Hydrological alteration
Channel alteration
South Central Plains - Red River

Hydrological alteration
Dam
South Central Plains - Red River
Hydrological alteration
Resource extraction
South Central Plains - Red River

Hydrological alteration
Water diversion
South Central Plains - Red River

Sedimentation
Forestry activities
South Central Plains - Red River

Sedimentation
Resource extraction
South Central Plains - Red River

Sedimentation
Grazing
South Central Plains - Red River

Sedimentation
Urban development
South Central Plains - Red River

Ouachita Shiner
Source
Brown Madtom
Threat/Stress
Leopard Darter
Blackspot Shiner
SGCN Impacted
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, Species Reports









HUC 11140109
Lower Little
Millwood Lake
Citizen groups have joined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Arkansas Game & Fish
Commission (AGFC), and others to preserve and restore this manmade. This is a shallow lake that is
primarily threatened by siltation. A citizen group, the Millwood Lake Focus Committee, is working with
the USACE to assess the problems and work toward solutions. The Focus Committee is conducting
research, pulling together existing knowledge, including a 1994 study. Sources contributing to the
sediment problem include timber industry practices, such as clear-cutting of trees on privately-owned
lands, poorly managed roads, and naturally-occurring steep banks and flood events. Poultry operations
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 56
in the area create a water quality problem that is addressed through a well-managed and functioning
nutrient management program. Invasive aquatic plants are also present—primarily alligator weed, but
hydrilla is also in the lake. USACE managers are using lake drawdowns and even burning the weeds on
the lake bed as control measures.
PROJECTS
Southwest Arkansas General Investigation
Project Leader: Laura Cameron, USACE, Little Rock District
Project Status: Management plan created, cost-share partners secured
After completing a 905(b) Reconnaissance Report in 2004, USACE is moving forward with an
investigation of the portion of the Red River basin that falls within Arkansas, which includes the tributary
system of the Little River. The focus is on “water resource problems, needs, and opportunities” within
the project area with an emphasis on flood control losses, habitat integrity, water quality and quantity,
water supplies, and recreation. AGFC, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and Little River County
will act as cost-share partners but citizen groups and numerous other stakeholders are engaged and will
collaborate.
The draft project management plan mentions the impact of sedimentation and aquatic nuisance species
on Millwood Lake. The project should shed some light on those issues in the context of preserving and
improving recreational opportunities along wth flood control and water supplies. Sedimentation and
aquatic nuisance plants are two of the main concerns elicited from stakeholders in that area during this
SARP study.
Southwest Arkansas Navigation Study
Project Leader: Gary Walker, USACE, Vicksburg District
Project Partner: Bob Tullos, Arkansas Red River Commission
Website: http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/projects/swans/index.htm
The extension of the navigable waterway from Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana to Texarkana is still in
the feasibility phase. The Arkansas Red River Commission is under contract to complete the study,
which is currently undergoing a complete review and revision. Given that the number of industries and
ports willing to make use of the waterway is a key component of the assessment process, the recent
recession coupled with a new federal requirement for a 3/1 benefit/cost ratio rendered much of the
work that had been done out of date, triggering a review which may yield a less favorable result.
Partners working on the project expect a delay, rather than cancellation, of construction.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 57
As with the J. Bennett Waterway, located on the river to the South, the substantial economic benefits
are touted along with new sports fisheries that are anticipated as the river is widened and deepened.
Locks and dams would also be evaluated for their ecosystem impacts as required by law.
Lower Red River
The Sulphur River tributary system of Northeast Texas, its confluence with the Red River in Northwest
Louisiana to the confluence with the Black River
Two distinct but contiguous tributary systems in Northeast Texas, the Sulphur River and Cypress River,
flow across state lines to join the Red River in Arkansas (Sulphur) and Louisiana (Cypress). They are
managed separately in Texas and stretch from the southern edge of the Red River watershed to the
northern bounds of the Sabine. Little came up about these systems in the stakeholder meetings but the
fishery management reports summarized in that section below offer some insight to the issues present
there, albeit with the emphasis solely on management of recreational fisheries.
Development of navigation projects in Louisiana has permanently changed the nature of the Red River.
Channelization and fragmentation of aquatic habitat from Shreveport to Natchitoches and beyond has
posed challenges to some species while creating new habitat for developing recreational fisheries. The
Red River Waterway Commission (RRWC), the state agency focused specifically on developing
recreational and other economic opportunities on the Red River, touts the surprising success of the
riverine fisheries that has exceeded expectations, attracting national attention and world-class
tournaments. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who designed as well as controls and
maintains the locks and dams, mitigation for the project is highly beneficial. Marginal farmland is sought
out and purchased, then converted to hardwood bottomland. Ken Guidry, Director of RRWC, concurred
as did other area stakeholders.
One Biologist mentioned the plight of the Least Tern, a federally-listed endangered bird species,
suggesting that USACE needs to implement a plan for the species within the scope of its navigation
projects (see Stakeholder Input, below). The bird is challenged by the disappearance of sandbars, which
has occurred substantially as the river has been modified. The Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan mentions
the species in the context of degraded sandbar habitat on the Mississippi River and suggests working
with USACE to regulate water levels during breeding season as well as potentially using abandoned
barges for artificial nesting sites, among other strategies. Although this is not an aquatic species,
conservation strategies that affect riverine habitat could be evaluated for their impacts or benefits for
aquatic resources. Threats listed for the species and sandbars, an important habitat feature, are
“channelization, water diversions, frequent and prolonged fluctuations in river water levels, changes in
vegetation, and disturbance from recreational use.” Sandbars are also listed as important to several
species of turtles (LWAP, p. 175).
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 58
Development of natural gas in the Haynesville Shale formation puts pressure on groundwater resources
that are hydrologically connected to both the Red and the Sabine. The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer extends
from the Texas border with Mexico into Northwestern Louisiana. The fracturing of wells, a waterintensive technique used for gas production, is common and groundwater is often the most convenient
and cost-effective source. Stakeholders in the region, such as the Red River Watershed Management
Institute, work with Oil & Gas producers to reduce the negative impacts and some progress has been
made in transitioning from groundwater to use of more abundant surface water. Many groundwater
permits have already been issued, so outreach and training are favored strategies. Making surface
water more accessible succeeded in steering some users away from groundwater in DeSoto Parish.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Issues and attitudes identified for the Lower Red River
Following are issues, along with stresses, sources, strategies, and successes yielded by stakeholder meetings
conducted during this project and included here for their relevance to this part of the basin. Meeting locations for
each item are referenced in brackets.
Sport Fishing
• Additional development of recreational fishing would be welcome. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
• The fishery on the Red River appeared due to the navigation project and is exceeding expectations.
[Natchitoches, LA]
• Recreational fishing is important and related development is present, if not dominant. [Coushatta,
LA]
Economics
• Navigation has brought significant economic benefits. [Natchitoches, LA]
Groundwater
• Use of groundwater should be curtailed, but probably not through regulation. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
Salinity
• Construction of Lake Texoma reduced salinity downstream of the dam. [Shreveport, LA]
Water Quality
• Participants do not want regulations implemented to control nonpoint pollution from agriculture.
[DeSoto Parish, LA]
• Watershed management decisions should be made locally. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
• The navigation project has potentially impacted water quality. [Natchitoches, LA]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 59
•
•
Illegal dumping of trash threatens water quality due to a lack of convenient disposal facilities and
because subscription to trash removal services is not universal. [Coushatta, LA]
Septic systems near local waters are generally modern and meet new, more protective standards.
[Coushatta, LA]
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Aquatic weeds—invasive plants species are a concern in some places. [Natchitoches, LA]
• Carp are present, but participants are not sure how/if they represent a concern. [Natchitoches, LA]
Stewardship
• There is significant support for environmental stewardship among the citizens of Louisiana.
[Shreveport, LA]
• Landowners in Red River Parish are interested in stewardship of natural resources and programs are
available to support them in that. [Coushatta, LA]
Ecological Integrity
• Sufficient data may not exist to determine historical trends in aquatic resources, but such data is
being collected today. [Natchitoches, LA]
• Changes to ecosystem balance, integrity, and function are facts we have to live with. [Natchitoches,
LA]
• The Interior Least Tern is an imperiled bird species affected by the loss of sandbars and islands in the
Red River. A plan is needed for the Shreveport portion of the navigation project. [Shreveport, LA]
• After the navigation project, some fish species either found new habitat upstream or have
disappeared from the river. [Shreveport, LA]
• Salinity in the Red River and Lake Texoma comes from natural sources, is important ecologically and
allowed the creation of a Striped Bass fishery; it is also an impediment to human consumptive uses
of the water. [Shreveport, LA]
Water Quantity – Water Law
• The state has ample water supplies overall; water-related challenges stem from the lack of a holistic
approach that takes a long-term view. [Natchitoches, LA]
• The prospect of interstate sales of water, the overuse of groundwater, and the need to make the
best use of water resources underline the need for developing a statewide law that governs water
use and allocation. The perceived potential for loss of property rights poses a primary impediment
to progress. A strategy and public motivation are needed to succeed. [Natchitoches, LA]
• Water can be sold out of state but caution should be exercised in selling rights, or risking permanent
loss of water rights. [Shreveport, LA]
• A holistic, basin-wide management approach to Red River stream flows would be a good idea.
[Shreveport, LA]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 60
Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Invasive plants are a primary concern. [Shreveport, LA]
Stresses, Sources, Strategies, and Successes identified by stakeholders
STRESS:
Loss of habitat
SOURCES:
Aquatic nuisance species – giant salvinia
STRATEGIES:
• Fluctuating levels on the river provide some control over invasive plants.
• A hydrilla farming project seeks to determine its potential value as a soil amendment.
• Testing of a nontraditional chemical control for Giant Salvinia is early in the experimental stages.
STRESSES:
Loss of sediment
SOURCES:
Hydrologic modifications , Impoundments—for navigation
STRATEGIES:
• A plan to conserve, preserve, restore habitat for the Interior Least Tern is needed for the Shreveport
portion of the navigation project.
STRESSES:
SOURCES:
Degraded water quality
Hydrologic modifications , Impoundments—for navigation
STRESSES:
SOURCES:
Loss of fish species
Habitat fragmentation
STRESSES:
SOURCES:
Reduced salinity
Impoundment (Texoma)—recreation, flood control, water supply, hydropower (Texoma)
SUCCESSES:
• Abundance of Paddlefish has increased. [Shreveport, LA]
• Mitigation for navigation project: returning marginal farmland to ecological service by reestablishing bottomland hardwoods there. [Natchitoches, LA]
• Deepening and widening the river has created a productive fishery.
• The navigation project has improved productivity of the sports fishery on the river and generated
new recreational uses. [Shreveport, LA]
• Re-establishment of bottomland hardwood forests has been beneficial to aquatic resources.
[Shreveport, LA]
• Watershed planning has been implemented at the local level. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
• Creation of DeSoto Parish Waterworks made use of surface water more convenient, and could
reduce use of groundwater. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
• Market price fluctuations have inspired more judicious use of fertilizer. [DeSoto Parish, LA]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 61
•
•
•
•
•
Low tillage methods reduce erosion and improve productivity for farmers. [Coushatta, LA]
NRCS incentives for converting marginal farmlands to wooded bottomlands improve aquatic habitat
and water quality. [Coushatta, LA]
Regulation of brine ponds was strengthened; better linings reduce the possibility of migration.
[Coushatta, LA]
Farmers are realizing cost savings by recirculating irrigation water while also reducing demand on
water supply as well as nonpoint pollution. [Coushatta, LA]
Requirements for two-stage septic systems are protective of water quality. [Coushatta, LA]
The Sulphur River (East Texas, SW Arkansas)
No stakeholders working with this Red River tributary system appeared at stakeholder events, but a
Sulphur River Basin Authority meeting attended by the Project Manager revealed that stakeholder
concerns within that Texas-based group, focused on improving water quality and balancing the
consumptive needs of competing communities with considerable but finite stream flows. Insights with
more of an aquatic resources focus are gained from a review of fishery management plans, which are
summarized below.
HUC 11140301
Sulphur Headwaters
Big Creek Lake
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2007)
The City of Cooper, Texas, manages this lake in concert with TPWD, who would like to improve angler
access. Degradation of the existing boat launch and encroaching weeds have conspired to inhibit use.
Attempts to establish a fishery for catfish have been unsuccessful but the lake has produced trophy
largemouth bass in the past. Management activities will focus on restoring that fishery and on
improving angler knowledge.
Big Creek Lake
Owner
City of Cooper
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1987
520
3.52
Big Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 62
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, white crappie, and channel catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Eurasian watermilfoil
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Good
Confined
Not noted
Poor
Poor
Cooper Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2007)
Situated on the Middle and South Forks of the Sulphur River near Cooper, Texas, this lake had just
returned to normal water levels after a record low during 2006. Consequently, management actions
were focused on improving sports species and modifying access facilities to accommodate future low
water conditions. The palmetto bass fishery offers a unique and important opportunity for anglers. The
likelihood of hydrilla becoming problematic is low due to turbidity, but the popularity of Cooper Lake
with waterfowl hunters and the presence of giant salvinia in nearby waters points out the need for
prevention.
Cooper Reservoir
Owner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1991
19280
6.42
South Sulphur River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Palmetto bass, white bass, blue & channel catfish, and largemouth bass
Not available
STATUS (2007)
Good
Present, not problematic
Good (historic low 2006)
Good
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 63
Boat access
Good
HUC 11140302
Lower Sulphur
Lake Wright Patman
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice, 2004)
Wright Patman supports good fishing and management actions are geared to improving the largemouth
bass fishery. Hydrilla accounted for less than one percent of total area in the lake in 2004.
Lake Wright Patman
Owner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1956
20300
8.5
Sulphur River
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Catfish, white bass, and crappie
Not available
STATUS (2004)
Good
Present, not problematic
Stable
Adequate
Adequate
HUC 11140303
White Oak Bayou
Sulphur Springs Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Jubar & Storey, 2005)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 64
This municipal reservoir is challenged by high turbidity. No management action is planned due to high
cost and the availability of large and productive fisheries in nearby lakes, such as Lake Fork.
Sulphur Springs Reservoir
Owner
City of Sulphur Springs
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1973
1766
2.16
White Oak Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Municipal water supply
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, white crappie, and blue catfish
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Aquatic nuisance species
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Turbidity
STATUS (2005)
Good
None noted
Not noted
Fair
Good
High
Cypress River (E Texas, NW Louisiana)
This watershed sits between the Sulphur River to the North and the Sabine River below. An attempt was
made to include a stakeholder event in the basin near Caddo Lake, an important system on the Cypress
River in terms of its offerings as well as the challenges it faces. Those plans were canceled once
stakeholders conveyed a preference that information be gathered by other means. Substantial
information is available via Internet from some of the active and organized stakeholder groups on the
lake, which could collectively serve as a model for grassroots organizing and collaborative conservation.
As this report was composed, the Watershed Protection Plan initiated by this diverse group of advocates
was well underway for the entire river basin as a means to protect Caddo Lake but not yet complete.
HUC 11140305
Lake O'the Pines
Lake O’ the Pines
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 65
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Bister & Brice, 2006)
In East Texas, spanning four counties, this lake provides a productive fishery. Hydrilla provides habitat
for spawning but was increasing as of the last survey, causing concerns about the potential for limiting
access for boaters. Historically, this has not occurred but USACE is monitoring coverage.
Lake O' The Pines
Owner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1956
16269
7.5
Big Cypress Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Flood control; Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, channel catfish, white bass, sunfish, and crappie
Not available
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2006)
Good
Substantial, monitored
Stable (low 2005-2007)
Good
Good
Lake Bob Sandlin
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice & Bister, 2006)
Spanning three counties in East Texas, Lake Bob Sandlin provides municipal and industrial water supply
to the area under the control of Titus County Fresh Water District No. 1. Water levels were down
substantially in 2006.
Lake Bob Sandlin
Owner
Titus County Freshwater District No.1
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1977
9116
5.5
Big Cypress Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply; Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 66
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, white bass, largemouth bass, and crappie
$664,761 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Eurasian watermilfoil
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2006)
Good
Present, Some application of herbicide
Present, confined
Low
Limited
Good
Lake Cypress Springs
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice & Biister, 2006)
Lake Cypress Springs
Owner
Franklin County Water District
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1970
3461
5.2
Big Cypress Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply;Municipal water supply;Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass, and crappie
$263,895 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2006)
Good
Problematic, stocking grass carp
Low 2005 – 2007
Poor
Good
Monticello Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Bister & Brice, 2007)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 67
TPWD staff speculate that waterhyacinth was introduced to the lake by a boater using an unauthorized,
primitive access point. Access to that site has been secured since then but the invasive weed has caused
access problems. This lake can depend on Lake Bob Sandlin, an adjacent reservoir, if levels became
problematic. Water temperatures can reach 95°F, due to its use for cooling power plant boilers, which
contributes to occasional fish kills.
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake
Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1972
2001
2.6
Smith Creek and Blundell Creek
Monticello Reservoir
Owner
Texas Utilities
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling);Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Channel catfish, largemouth bass
$136,367 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Waterhyacinth
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Adequate
Problematic, under treatment
Present, not problematic
Stable
Limited
Adequate
Welsh Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice & Bister, 2007)
This lake belongs to American Electric Power, who has installed parking and other amenities for anglers
at the urging of TPWD. Due to limited habitat, Christmas trees were placed in the lake as fish attractors.
Welsh Reservoir
Owner
American Electric Power Company
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1976
1333
5.3
Swaunano Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling)
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 68
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass and channel catfish
$106,050 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Waterhyacinth
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2007)
Good
Found but removed
Stable
Limited
Adequate
HUC 11140306
Caddo Lake
Caddo Lake
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Bister & Brice, 2005)
Caddo Lake, often touted as the only natural lake in Texas, straddles the Texas/Louisiana border and is
situated on the Cypress River, which flows into the Red River in Louisiana. The naturally-occurring log
jam that formed the lake was removed in the 19th century, and USACE constructed a low-water dam to
facilitate navigation in 1912. TPWD operates a wildlife management area and USFWS manages a wildlife
preserve on the lake. Caddo Lake is renowned for its Bald Cypress wetlands and has inspired a wellorganized grassroots advocacy effort that includes a range of local interests.
Funding has been sought for a comprehensive management plan for aquatic nuisance plants, a primary
concern on the lake. Control and monitoring efforts have been ongoing, including not only TPWD but
also the Cypress Valley Navigation District and the Greater Caddo Lake Association. Development of a
watershed protection plan to protect Caddo Lake is underway led by a group of stakeholders.
Another issue addressed in the management plan is the confusion caused among anglers by the
differences in fishing regulations between the states of Louisiana and Texas. Unified rules would
presumably be beneficial to the fishery.
Changes in harvest regulations are credited with helping develop a trophy fishery for largemouth bass.
Florida largemouth bass were first stocked in the lake in the 1980s and the fishery subsequently
developed.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 69
Caddo Lake
Owner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
Natural
27472
8.88
Big Cypress Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Navigation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
Largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, and crappie
$1,119,841 (Total directed expenditures)
ISSUE
Prey species
Waterhyacinth
Hydrilla
Amercian lotus (native)
Alligatorweed
East Indian hygrophila
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
STATUS (2005)
Adequate
Problematic, under treatment
Isolated (historically problematic)
Problematic
Present, not problematic
Present, not problematic
Good
Limited
Adequate
HUC 11140307
Little Cypress
Gilmer Reservoir
Summary of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) fishery management plan
(Brice, 2004)
The precipitating event that caused the City of Gilmer, Texas, to build this small reservoir was the
promise a new, gas-fired power plant which later was canceled by the power company. One boat ramp
is available at a county park.
Gilmer Reservoir
Owner
City of Gilmer
State(s)
Year
Built
Lake Size
(acres)
SDI
Stream
TX
1995
1010
1.6
Kelsey Creek
*
Purposes
River Basin
Industrial water supply (cooling);Municipal water supply; Recreation
Red River
*Shoreline Development Index
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 70
Important Sport Fish:
Economic Report (angling):
ISSUE
Prey species
Hydrilla
Water levels
Bank angling access
Boat access
Channel, blue, flathead catfish; spotted bass, largemouth bass, crappie
Not available
STATUS (2004)
Good
Present
Not available
Good
Good
Concluding Remarks
Non-sports aquatic species are present and challenged in both basins, and additional conservation
activities are needed. The primary focus among the stakeholders participating was on the tangible
benefits of river-related resources, like recreational fishing and water supply. Ecosystem integrity has
benefits and its advocates, but conservation activities that benefit sports fishing attract more robust
support, perhaps because they are generally understood. The role of ecosystem integrity itself in
supporting quality of life was missing from the conversations. The economic benefits that functioning
aquatic ecosystems bring should be identified, understood, and considered along with the nonmarket
value they contribute to human quality of life. Making this type of information available may strengthen
support for conservation that goes beyond management of sports fisheries as other species gradually
diminish.
Within the Sabine and Red River basins, there is capacity and interest in conservation of aquatic
resources. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership should continue to work with the stakeholders
in the region to promote and actualize conservation at the watershed scale.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 71
Recommendations – Targets & Strategies
Specific objectives, styled after those in the SAHP, are organized geographically (by system) and based
on stakeholder input. These are offered for evaluation, testing, and expert review prior to
implementation or incorporation into planning. Threats, targets, and strategies from management plans
are summarized and presented in charts and appendices to preserve their original intent. Those tables
follow these recommendations crafted from stakeholder input.
The Sabine River
OBJECTIVE:
Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by nonnative aquatic species.
THREAT:
Giant salvinia
TARGET:
Reduce the area of lake surface covered by giant salvinia
STRATEGIES:
1. Increase application of control measures, chemical and biological, substantially.
2. Raise political support for increased funding for control programs by raising awareness of the
threat the potential for migration poses to other areas.
3. Capitalize on opportunities from natural events, such as floods and droughts, when they cause
nuisance species to collect temporarily on shore or in open water.
4. Designate the federal excise taxes currently dispersed through the Sports Fish Restoration
Program specifically for control of nuisance species.
OBJECTIVE:
Improve and restore riparian zones.
THREAT:
Bottomland forests managed for timber production
TARGET:
Increase the area of bottomland forestland under conservation management.
STRATEGIES:
1. Acquire privately-owned bottomland forests and place them with land trusts.
2. Contribute to the expansion of the Big Thicket National Preserve along the Neches River.
3. Seek designation of appropriate segments of the river as a Wild and Scenic River under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.
Sabine Lake
OBJECTIVE:
Restore estuarine and coastal marsh habitat.
THREAT:
Salt water intrusion
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 72
TARGET:
Reduce the vulnerability of the Sabine Lake estuary and of coastal marshes.
STRATEGIES:
1. Construct salt water barriers.
2. Restore natural stream flow regimes.
3. Restore coastal marshes and reduce channelization of coastal marshes.
Upper Red (above Lake Texoma)
OBJECTIVE:
Increase stream flows OR maintain current stream flows.
THREAT:
Drawdown of aquifers
TARGET:
Reduce groundwater withdrawals that affect springs that flow into the Red River or its
tributaries; prioritize segments that are not scheduled for diversion and disposal under RRCCP.
STRATEGIES:
1. Education/outreach for water conservation among groundwater-dependent users.
THREAT:
Stream flow diversions and disposal (RRCCP)
TARGET:
Reduce diversion and disposal of stream flows
STRATEGIES:
1. Research and model the impacts of stream flow reductions on aquatic resources.
2. Assess the total value of all recreational uses of the reservoir.
3. Research alternative methods for chloride removal that minimize ecosystem impacts.
THREAT:
Non-native riparian brush – red cedar, salt cedar
TARGET:
Reduce the amount of red cedar and salt cedar in riparian zones and aquifer recharge
zones; consider the likelihood of diversion and disposal under RRCCP when prioritizing segments.
STRATEGIES:
1. Develop a landscape-scale approach to controlling red and salt cedar.
2. Spearhead locally-led, concerted efforts to increase brush control.
THREAT:
Added evaporation losses due to new reservoir development
TARGET:
Reduce the demand for new reservoirs
STRATEGIES:
1. Develop and implement a holistic, river-system-wide stream flow management regime.
THREAT:
Consumptive use in municipal systems
TARGET:
Reduce water demand from municipal systems
STRATEGIES:
1. Foster water conservation programs in municipal systems.
2. Foster water recycling programs in municipal systems.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 73
3. Include municipal systems seeking to acquire water via interbasin transfers.
4. Develop and implement a holistic, river-system-wide stream flow management regime.
OBJECTIVE:
Reduce sediment flow.
THREAT:
Grazing of streams
TARGET:
Reduce number of stream miles where livestock can access streams
STRATEGIES:
1. Spearhead a locally-led, concerted effort to increase stream miles participating in the NRCS
Conservation Reserve Program.
THREAT:
Reduction in chloride levels
TARGET:
Maintain chloride levels to the extent needed to maintain sediment dropout rates
STRATEGIES:
1. Research and model the impacts of chloride reductions on sediment transport and reservoir
function.
OBJECTIVE:
Maintain water quality.
THREAT:
Reduction in chloride levels
TARGET:
Maintain chloride levels as needed to sustain native aquatic species
STRATEGIES:
2. Research and model the impacts of chloride reductions on aquatic resources.
3. Assess the total economic impact of chloride reductions.
4. Research alternative methods for chloride removal that minimize ecosystem impacts.
OBJECTIVE:
Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by nonnative aquatic species.
THREAT:
Golden alga
TARGET:
Reduce fish kills from and spread of golden alga
STRATEGIES:
1. Reduce nutrient levels to limit blooms; consult University of Oklahoma Biological Station.
2. Use ammonium sulfate, liquid copper compound where applicable; consult the TPWD Dundee
State Fish Hatchery and ODWC.
3. Consult the TPWD Dundee State Fish Hatchery regarding the use of barley straw for treatment.
4. Reduce risk of transporting golden alga through interbasin transfers
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 74
Red below Lake Texoma
OBJECTIVE:
Reduce sediment flow.
THREAT:
Erosion due to naturally steep stream banks, loss of streamside forest
TARGET:
Reduce erosion of stream banks
STRATEGIES:
1. Partner with USACE Little Rock office on their Southeast Arkansas General Investigation to
research contributory issues.
2. Encourage planting of riparian zones.
OBJECTIVE:
Improve water quality.
THREAT:
Nutrient loadings from poultry and livestock
TARGET:
Increase the number of landowners under nutrient management plans
STRATEGIES:
1. Promote awareness of nutrient management planning and training available through the
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Districts.
Cypress Creek basin
NOTE: Monitor progress in the development of a watershed management plan for Caddo Lake and the
Cypress Creek basin, which should yield a current picture of ecosystem needs. That planning was
underway at the time of publication of this report.
The Lower Red
OBJECTIVE:
Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by nonnative aquatic species.
THREAT:
Aquatic nuisance species – giant salvinia
TARGET:
Increase the number of landowners under nutrient management plans
STRATEGIES:
1. Fluctuating levels on the river may be a feasible method of control in this area.
2. Promote awareness of and prevent transmission of aquatic nuisance species.
OBJECTIVE:
Restore physical, riverine habitat that has been lost.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 75
THREAT:
Impoundments—for navigation
TARGET:
Increase the number of landowners under nutrient management plans
STRATEGIES:
1. Research strategies for replacing lost riverine sandbars.
2. A plan to conserve, preserve, restore habitat for the Interior Least Tern is needed for the
Shreveport portion of the navigation project.
River system-wide
OBJECTIVE:
Create a holistic, river basin-wide management scheme for water quantity and flows.
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE:
Create a management plan for water quantity and stream flows along the entire length of the Red River
system. Incorporate all demands from all competing and potential uses that affect water quantity and
stream flows, including:
• Contractual obligations and legislative mandates
• Environmental flow needs
• Existing water rights
• Existing plans
RATIONALE:
Water quantity and instream flow are factors that reside at the nexus of competition among interests on
the river and are central to solving most of the root concerns. This is particularly true of the Red due to
its transboundary setting and diversity of priorities among stakeholders in four states. The Red River
Compact Commission and the EPA have been suggested as potential facilitators for the management
authority.
This stakeholder suggestion is featured in this report because water quantity and flow regimes are
central to the success of conservation of aquatic habitat and species. Management of the river as a
whole is a needed approach. Water development projects are being planned under a fragmented
management system. Establishing minimum stream flow requirements for each segment of the river
would create a basis for a holistic management plan. System-wide modeling could serve as a
management tool to evaluate projected changes as water supplies fluctuate and development is
considered.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 76
OBJECTIVE 1:
Initiate preservation of aquatic ecosystem balance, sustainability, and integrity.
THREAT:
Non-sports species familiarity gap; Human apathy – acceptance of decline in
biodiversity, habitat, and abundance
Stakeholders at the local watershed scale
TARGET:
PROPOSED STRATEGY:
SARP Toolbox development:
1. SARP would develop brochures, presentations, and outreach materials; incorporate case studies
that illustrate costs and benefits of preserving robust and productive aquatic ecosystems as well
as the documented decline.
2. SARP would catalog strategies and resources – e.g., land trusts, funding sources, conservancies,
special stewardship designations – as a toolbox for local strategy development.
Within each watershed:
3. Identify and recruit outreach and action partners.
4. Guide them in acquiring funding for outreach and actions.
5. Identify and engage local beneficiaries of aquatic ecosystem services (e.g., chambers of
commerce, sports/naturalist clubs, tourism associations), targeting those with tangible or
known benefits *e.g., recreation, fishing, tourism, land values).
a. Frame the discussion around aquatic resources and in local terms.
b. Collect data on and affecting aquatic species in the watershed of interest.
c. Map systems, stresses, sources, species, and trends for the watershed of interest; utilize
data-driven assessment tools (e.g., Hartley/Jenkins Red River/Sabine assessment tool,
National Wetlands Research Laboratory, USGS).
d. List specific stressors and effects.
e. List specific costs and benefits – tangible and undetermined – of aquatic ecosystem
balance, sustainability, and integrity.
f. Explain Precautionary Principle.
g. Sell participants on the value in aquatic ecosystem balance, sustainability, and integrity.
h. Engage them in strategic discussions, listing costs and benefits paired with strategies and
actions.
i. Offer continued support as they mobilize to take local action.
6. Link local stakeholders with scientists, academics, and biologists to resolve local concerns.
PARTNERS:
• Agency extension and outreach staff
• Retirees with knowledge of and interest in relevant fields and stewardship
1
This recommendation inspired by comments provided by Jill Jenkins, National Wetlands Research Laboratory,
USGS, on reading a draft of this report. It is a synthesis of those thoughts and findings from this report.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 77
Wildlife Action Plans
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan
The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan was approved by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2007 after a
collaborative effort that included representatives from Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC),
Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Audubon Arkansas, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest
Service, The Arkansas Academy of Science, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and many Arkansas Universities. Science was collected and species of greatest
conservation need were prioritized through a scoring system. This process yielded a database that will
be updated as implementation priorities are completed. Implementation priorities fall into the
categories Data Gaps, Conservation Actions, and Monitoring Needs. Projects to serve these priorities
are implemented under the State Wildlife Grant program, administered by AGFC.
The Plan contains a wealth of information, some of which could be isolated for its specific relevance to
the Red River basin. That information is displayed in the discussion of that segment of the Red above in
Table 7 and Table 8 and should be useful in prioritizing conservation actions.
Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) led the effort to develop the Louisiana
Wildlife Action Plan (LWAP). Objectives are organized under three goal categories: Species
Conservation, Habitat Conservation, Public Outreach and Education, and Partnerships.
The plan states that the Red River, among others, serves as a major pathway for invasive fish and mussel
species, emphasizing the Asian carp and Zebra mussel, and their impact on native species. Priorities for
the Red include monitoring invasive species and the effects of locks and dams for navigation and flood
control purposes on SGCN. For the Sabine, monitoring the effects of dam operations on fish is the
singular priority for monitoring. Taxonomic surveys to identify populations are the first steps for both
basins.
For the coastal zone, LWAP cites loss and degradation of marshes as the main threat to SGCN
populations, further stating that “habitat threats are at a critical level. For that reason, LDWF is
approaching conservation based on habitat threats rather than focusing primarily on species (LWAP, p.
320).
LWAP does not assign priority levels to aquatic habitats, citing “the overall lack of ecological and
biological information for the majority of aquatic habitats and associated species of conservation
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 78
concern.” Louisiana set filling those data gaps as its top priority with the objective as determining
“ecological and biological needs”.
Information relevant to action items for the project area from the LWAP was geographically referenced
and therefore included in the text of the Red River and Sabine River sections above. See Table 1, Table
2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5. Species of greatest conservation concern noted in the Plan are listed
below.
Table 9. Species of Conservation Concern for the Red River Basin
From the Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan
CRUSTACEANS
FRESHWATER FISH
Kisatchie Painted Crawfish
Pallid Sturgeon
Javelin Crawfish
Paddlefish
Vernal Crawfish
Chub Shiner
Twin Crawfish
Suckermouth Minnow
Bluehead Shiner
MUSSELS
Blue Sucker
Louisiana Pearlshell
River Redhorse
Louisiana Pigtoe
Crystal Darter
Western Sand Darter
REPTILES
Alligator Snapping Turtle
Ouachita Map Turtle
Table 10. Species of Conservation Concern for the Sabine River Basin
From the Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan
CRUSTACEANS
MUSSELS
Calcasieu Painted Crawfish
Sandbank Pocketbook
Kisatchie Painted Crawfish
Louisiana Pigtoe
Twin Crawfish
Texas Heelsplitter
Southern Creekmussel
FRESHWATER FISH
Paddlefish
REPTILES
Suckermouth Minnow
Alligator Snapping Turtle
Western Sand Darter
Sabine Map Turtle
Bigscale Logperch
Mississippi Diamond-backed Terrapin
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 79
Oklahoma Wildlife Action Plan
Conservation issues and actions are grouped within OWAP under large ecoregions but not further
divided by watershed, making it difficult to identify issues and actions that are specifically relevant to
the Red River basin. Subsections within the discussions of each region are entitled “conservation
landscapes”, two of which deal with rivers, and provided some content that is included in this report.
Texas Wildlife Action Plan
The Texas Wildlife Action Plan employs multiple charts and letter designations to correlate species of
greatest conservation need (SGCN) with problems (threats) and actions. These can be seen in their
original arrangement in Section IV of the original document. While the Plan does not correlate them
precisely to river basins, the threats, or “Problems”, have been configured versus imperiled species in
Table 11,Table 12,Table 13 below. The species included occur in the project area and were prioritized
and supplied by Jenkins, et al, USGS National Wetlands Research Laboratory.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 80
Table 11. Problems Threatening Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas
Adapted from the Texas Wildlife Action
Plan, Section IV
Blackspot shiner
Blue sucker
Chub shiner
Creek chubsucker
Goldeye
Ironcolor shiner
Orangebelly darter
Paddlefish
Prairie chub
Red River shiner
Sabine shiner
Sharpnose shiner
Silverband shiner
Smalleye shiner
Western sand darter



























































































































































































































































Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Red River pupfish
Blackside darter

Bluehead shiner
Arkansas River shiner
Development (2)
a Construction activity (i.e. building
roads, structures, hardscape,oil and gas
exploration)
b Modification of natural community
with 110m of population location
c Urbanization; urban sprawl
d Utilities
e Direct mortality with structures
f Creation/modification of large
reservoirs
Erosion (3)
a Infrastructure (i.e. ditches, jetties
collision structures, ship channels,
navigation traffic)
b Sea level rise
c Siltation and/or beach erosion
d Subsidence
e Lack of sedimentation from
freshwater inflow
Fragmentation (4)
a Salt-water intrusion
b Reservoirs and dams
c Instream flows
American eel
Problems
SGCN
Page 81
Adapted from the Texas Wildlife Action
Plan, Section IV
Blackspot shiner
Blue sucker
Chub shiner
Creek chubsucker
Goldeye
Ironcolor shiner
Orangebelly darter
Paddlefish
Prairie chub
Red River shiner
Sabine shiner
Sharpnose shiner
Silverband shiner
Smalleye shiner
Western sand darter








































































































































































































































































































































Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Red River pupfish
Blackside darter


Bluehead shiner
Arkansas River shiner
d Fencing
e Channelization
f Inhibited dispersal due to
fragmentation (i.e. lack of habitat,
highways, agricultural fields, and human
development)
g Reduced genetic variability and
reduced gene flow
h Hybridization
Human Disturbance (5)
a Foot traffic
b Garbage
c Noise
d Vegetation disturbance
e Popular with collectors, accidental
takes, or popular for target practice
g Fishing Line
h Recreation
i Land or drainage alteration; land-use
changes (i.e. draining, filling,
bulkheading)
j Dredging activities
k Fishing (commercial)
l Increased turbidity
m Conflict with rookeries
American eel
Problems
SGCN
Page 82
Adapted from the Texas Wildlife Action
Plan, Section IV
Arkansas River shiner
Blackside darter
Blackspot shiner
Blue sucker
Bluehead shiner
Chub shiner
Creek chubsucker
Goldeye
Ironcolor shiner
Orangebelly darter
Paddlefish
Prairie chub
Red River pupfish
Red River shiner
Sabine shiner
Sharpnose shiner
Silverband shiner
Smalleye shiner
Western sand darter
n Drainage of wetlands
p Vandalism
r Food source is threatened
Invasive (6)
a Disease and pathogens (oyster drill
and Vibrio species)
c Animals (i.e. feral goats, feral hogs,
non-native big game, red imported fire
ants, carp, apple snails, European
starling, pets, poultry)
d Herbaceous plants (i.e.wild mustard)
e Aquatic plants (i.e. water hyacinth,
hydrilla, cattail, giant salvinia, water
trumpet)
f Grasses & grass-like plants (i.e. fescue,
bahia, bufflegrass, bermudagrass, KR
bluestem, cogon grass, deep-rooted
sedge)
g Woody plants (i.e.coral bean, salt
cedar, privet, ligustrum, Chinese tallow,
Brazilian pepper)
Management (7)
c Lack of authority to manipulate water
levels to improve habitat
American eel
Problems
SGCN














































































Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs


Page 83
Adapted from the Texas Wildlife Action
Plan, Section IV
f Species or populations are considered
destructive or pests
Natural (8)
a Hurricanes
b Flood events
Pollution (9)
a Petroleum/chemical spills
b Non-point and point source
c Contaminated water discharge
d Airborne sulfates, nitrates, heavy
metals, and other pollutants from
population and industrial centers
located in North America or other parts
of the World
e Indiscriminate pesticide use
Political (10)
Fragmentation due to tax policies
Protection (12)
Lack of protection
Vehicle Traffic (14)
b Nest disturbance
c Energy expenditure
d Direct mortality (i.e. road kill)
e Boat traffic


































































Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs


















































Western sand darter
Smalleye shiner
Silverband shiner
Sharpnose shiner
Sabine shiner
Red River shiner
Red River pupfish
Prairie chub
Paddlefish
Orangebelly darter
Ironcolor shiner
Goldeye
Creek chubsucker
Chub shiner
Bluehead shiner
Blue sucker
Blackspot shiner
Blackside darter
Arkansas River shiner
American eel
Problems
SGCN




Page 84
Table 12. Conservation Actions For Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas
Excerpted from the Texas Wildlife Action Plan, Section IV
The following are conservation actions listed in the plan that are designated as relevant to the SGCN prioritized for the Red and Sabine River
basins.
Development (2)
c Land use planning and zoning to control urban sprawl and to conserve habitat corridors along streams and rivers (seek to minimize encroachment of
urban development along riparian areas, including hike and bike trails); retro-active property tax penalties when agricultural land is sold for development.
d Education and habitat preservation in areas undergoing urbanization.
e Natural resource agencies and private landowners should make every effort to ensure that oil, gas, and wind power development proceed with as little
impact as possible to native wildlife.
f Continue to monitor Section 404 Permit Applications submitted through USACE and TCEQ, continue educating landowners concerning best management
practices for construction activites, actively participate in planning meetings with local/municipal governments, provide information to landowners/public
concerning utilization of native plants/ecosystems in landscaping, limit mining permits on state land, utilize GIS and Ground-truthing to analyze landscape
to identify areas with critical conservation/corridor values, work with TxDOT, and the Public Utilities Commission to . . . [final wording missing from
publication]
g Identify opportunities to work with public utilities concerning conservation issues and provide information concerning best management practices to
utilities.
h Lobby for a more effective and inclusive Coastal Zone Management Program from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAA).
Erosion (3)
a Continue to monitor Section 404 Permit Applications submitted through USACE and TCEQ, continue educating landowners concerning best management
practices for agriculture/forest management/community planning, maintain communication with farming community through the NRCS and FSA, and
support conservation through Farm Bill Programs.
b Education through Technical Guidance - TAES/NRCS Seminars, Field Days, BW Brigade Summer Camps, 4-H Projects, literature on wind and water erosian
control, mechanical and natural means to reduce head cutting.
d Improve water quality by restoring the habitat upstream. Wetland and Riparian habitat can serve as a buffer (filter) for the surrounding land use.
Restoration of grasslands and the creation of grass buffers will improve water and land quality. Utilize conservation programs that are available through
TPWD, NRCS, FSA, USFWS, etc… Provide technical guidance to landowners, businesses and municipalities about downstream issues.
e Work with local, state, and federal governments to encourage marsh creation using marsh mounds, terracing,etc., using dredge material.
f Manually move sediments from upshore sedimentation areas to downshore areas that need it. This is already being done by the Galveston District of
USACE at the Old Colorado River Channel. Work on designing new systems that allow sediment transport at ship channel entrances.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 85
g Put in measures like shoreline protection to stop erosion (ex. Mad Island Marsh Preserve) of intertidal marshes along the GIWW. Enforce shipping traffic
laws and pass legislation to slow vessels down or make shipping industry responsible. Use dredge material from channels in ways to build marsh, create
bird islands, etc. (The widening and deepening of the Houston Ship Channel Project is a good example)
h Covering existing live oyster reef with sediments can be detrimental; find ways of protecting reefs or management practices to increase reef production
and growth.
i Work with subsidence districts. Develop proactive wetlands restoration and protection projects using Corps of Engineers, Texas General Land Office,
Texas Parks and Wildife, US Fish and Wildlife programs.
j Work with Texas Water Development Board long-term planning groups to secure adequate future inflows. Support sand nourishment projects where
appropriate.
k Participate in federal navigation project review to insure proper jetty construction, sand bypassing, etc.
l Develop coastal wetland protection/restoration projects using Corps of Engineers, Texas General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildife, US Fish and
Wildlife, NOAA, and other funding programs.
Fragmentation (4)
a Encourage broad coalition (environmental and agricultural) support for environmentally favorable policies that have application in the restriction of what
can be done on public lands with public resources.
c Natural resource agencies should utilize GIS models to plan cooperative habitat restoration efforts for declining species.
d Continue to monitor Section 404 Permit Applications submitted through USACE and TCEQ, participate in local levee and flood planning board meetings,
work with local Water Planning Boards to emphasize use of water conservation and other measures rather than new reservoir construction, work with
local conservation groups to seek alternatives to new reservoir construction, maintain contact with local legislators concerning biological/ecological
impacts that will result from construction of new reservoirs, and restoration and conservation of large blocks of habitat.
Habitat (6)
a Work with local, state, and federal governments to encourage and fund systematically checking for suitable habitat locations; move the data to a
common database such as NatureServe.
b Work with local, state, and federal governments to encourage and fund the survey of all known colonies of host vegetation or food sources; Determine
the status of all host plant populations and available food sources; move the data to a common database such as NatureServe.
d If possible, encourage the use of artificial habitats (i.e. artificial hollow trees, buildings, artifical reefs, bat houses, replica hollow trees and caves).
Human Disturbance (7)
c Education through Technical Guidance - TAES/NRCS Seminars, Field Days, BW Brigade Summer Camps, 4-H Projects, literature on advantages of stock
tanks and water for wildlife, offer SWG for challenge-cost share with NRCS for wetland reserve program, riparian buffers and other Farm Billing practices
on private land.
d Seek agreement with International Water and Boundary Commission and various water districts to limit brush eradication within floodways.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 86
e Education through Technical Guidance - TCEX/TAES/NRCS Seminars, Field Days, BW Brigade Summer Camps, 4-H Projects, literature on recreational
value of land, property tax incentives, and qualifying wildlife management practices.
g Continue to support scientific management of fisheries and establish and enforce appropriate fishing regulations.
h Continue educating landowners concerning best management practices for forest management, work with Texas Forestry Association to communicate
the value of bottomland hardwood forests both ecologically and economically, work with Texas Logging Council to continue improvement of logging
operations in bottomland hardwoods, and continue to educate landowners concerning programs to restore bottomland hardwoods like LIP, PFW and
Farm Bill programs.
k Enforce Clean Water Act and restore hydrology.
l Document resources that could be affected by disturbances at each location. Seasonal area closures and buffer zones could be implemented in areas
where species are breeding or feeding. Any type of "unnatural" disturbance should not be allowed in these areas at fragile times. Provide recreational
users with educational material that discusses the impact of disturbance on wildlife and provide them with alternative recreational suggestions.
m Reduce filling and drainage of wetlands; reduce amount habitat conversion of natural habitats to various types of construction.
n Reduce or minmize the impact of dredging activities regarding the productivity of water resources (i.e bay seagrasses, etc.) or bury existing faunal or
floral communities.
o Limit commercial fishing and stabilize shrimp and crab stocks, change harvesting practices to environmentally friendly methods. Encourage fisherman to
use it once it is available. Protect fishery nursery habitat, TPWD is already doing so in the Eastern Arm of Matagorda Bay.
p Support and educate landowners concerning restroration of native wetlands, and programs that provide support to do so, continue to monitor Section
404 Permit Applications submitted through USACE and TCEQ, continue educating landowners concerning best management practices for forest
management/agriculture/community planning, maintain communication with farming community through the NRCS and FSA, and support conservation
through Farm Bill Programs.
q Encourage and support the preservation and planting of limited and necessary food and shelter sources.
Invasive (8)
c Support any research on improving control measures of invasive species. Educate and inform about the spreading of invasive species, its possible that
certain habitat management techniques help spread the distribution of certain invasive species.
d Work with state, federal, and private agencies to continue to develop cost-effective means of removal of invasive species.
e Educate and inform landowners about the effects of exotics on wildlife.
f Fund research on invasive species such as with the Texas invasive species monitoring committee to assess risks and recommend policies that regulate
importation of exotics.
i Educate boaters concerning the transport of aquatic invasives on boat trailers, boat motors and fishing equipment, support additional research on
management techniques for invasive species, and actively apply control measures.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 87
j Institute water level fluctuations for the management of certain specie (i.e. Properly timed freshwater inflows will keep both Dermo and the oyster drill
populations down allowing oysters to thrive. Too much freshwater will kill oyster reefs too, so there must be a balance).
Management (9)
e Fund broad coalition (environmental and agricultural, industry and private foundations) support for ground water quality and conservation policies that
may take form in statutory restrictions on 'right of capture.' Fund Joint Ventures and other partners that leverage resources to purchase or obtain
conservation easements on surface and ground water rights that are most vulnerable to loss or degradation.
f Education through Technical Guidance - TAES/NRCS Brush Sculpting Seminars, Field Days, literature, Realistic water conservation policy and practice 100% eradication not economically or ecologically sound.
h Lake management is a something historically biologist have had little influence over but which has a lot of potential for migratory bird management. For
example, Lake Texoma has a plan in place that allows for some water level manipulations to encourage wetland vegetation to germinate that will provide
a forage base for waterfowl in winter. A similar management plan could be negotiated with other reservoir management organizations to provide new
mudflats during shorebird migration or time specific water levels to coincide when rookeries are active.
Political (10)
Natural resource agencies need to take a more active role in promoting and holding conservation easements.
Pollution (11)
a Educate landowners about indiscriminate pesticide use.
b Reduction of non-point pollutants and the monitoring of air, soil, water, and plant and animal tissues for trends in non-point pollutants; Better
monitoring of discharge permit conditions, BMP during construction, maintaining buffers to prevent direct runoff.
c Increase awareness of the effects of groundwater and hydrocarbon pumping along the Upper Texas Coast.
d Prevention, Rapid Cleanup, Proper preparation/drills, develop innovative cleanup techniques.
Population (12)
a Baseline study needed before further research and conservation actions can continue: Determine the distribution and abundance to yield a final species
status
b Baseline study needed before further research and conservation actions can continue: Reintroduce populations when feasible.
c Baseline study needed before further research and conservation actions can continue: Survey and search for populations to determine/refine knowledge
of their biology
Protection (14)
a Protection of fragile locations from various forms of habitat destruction
b Protection extant populations from various forms of habitat destruction
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 88
c Fund broad coalition (environmental and agricultural, industry and private foundations) support for water conservation policies that have application to
insure instream flows to coastal estuaries and bays and healthy riparian ecosystems. Fund Joint Ventures and other partners that leverage resources to
purchase or obtain conservation easements on critical or high priority sites (surface or water rights) vulnerable to loss or degradation.
d State protection for isolated wetlands.
e Using current GIS; analyze the landscape and identify critical corridors with high conservation needs, continue to participate in West Gulf Coastal Plain,
and other similar intiatives, support additional acquisition of lands for conservation, continue to promote LIP and PFW programs for private landowners
and actively pursue identification of funding sources for these conservation purchases.
Range (15)
Baseline study needed before further research and conservation actions can continue: Delimit range.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 89
Table 13. Monitoring Needs For Aquatic Fish Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas
Excerpted from the Texas Wildlife Action Plan, Section IV
The following are Monitoring needs listed in the plan that are designated as relevant to the SGCN prioritized for the Red and Sabine River basins.
Disturbance (3)
Determine and continue to monitor how manmade alterations influence species or populations (i.e. roads, fire breaks, structures)
Habitat (5)
a Identify and monitor foraging habitat requirements
b Identify and quantify diet; continue to monitor food habits
c Identify and study environmental parameters required for species or populations (i.e. temperature, humidity, seasons, plants); monitor any changes
d Identify and study possibilities for artificial habitats; monitor their use
e Determine habitat availability and monitor locations
f Survey and monitor the effects of species or populations on the local habitat
Management (6)
Determine and monitor effects of various management practices on species, populations, and habiats (i.e. prescribed burning, discing)
Population (7)
a Monitor size of population
b Monitor seasonal fluctuations in population size
c Monitor long term trends in population size
d Determine date of most recent occurrence in the region; monitor and document futher occurrences
e Determine and document incidental take
f Estimate life history parameters (i.e. litter size, survival, age at first reproduction, reproductive behavior)
g Determine and monitor minimum viable population
Range (8)
a Determine habitat range of species or population; monitor changes
b Determine and monitor dispersal and movement patterns
c Determine historical range and monitor movements
Survey (9)
a Monitor and document successful survey techniques, creating protocols
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 90
Appendices
Contents
Appendix A – Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................. 92
Project Brochure ................................................................................................................................. 92
Sample of Stakeholder Meeting Invitation ......................................................................................... 94
Opening Page of Project Website ....................................................................................................... 96
Organizations Contacted to Participate in the Project ....................................................................... 96
Appendix B – Stakeholder Meetings ....................................................................................................... 98
Meeting Schedule and Distribution .................................................................................................... 98
Summaries of the Stakeholder Meetings ........................................................................................... 98
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................... 162
Appendix C – Survey Instrument and Results ....................................................................................... 166
Survey Recap ..................................................................................................................................... 166
Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 166
Objectives and Constraints ............................................................................................................... 166
Opening page as it appeared online: ................................................................................................ 167
Survey Response Detail ..................................................................................................................... 168
Acknowledgement of contributors to imperiled species list ............................................................ 184
Digital Library Database (CD attached) ............................................................................................ 185
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 91
Appendix A – Marketing and Outreach
Project Brochure
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 92
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 93
Sample of Stakeholder Meeting Invitation
Red River and Sabine River Stakeholders:
The SARP Community Watershed Project is coming to your area. As a stakeholder in the waters, the aquatic resources, and the use of the land,
you are invited to participate. In case you have not already read about the project, please look over the information provided here to find out
about it as well as why you are being invited into our planning process.
A QUICK LOOK AT THE MEETING SCHEDULE:
7/20/2009
Lawton, OK-(Wichita Mtn Refuge)
7/21/2009
Durant, OK (Lake Texoma)
7/21/2009
Eisenhower St Pk, TX (Lake Texoma)
7/22/2009
Hugo, OK
7/22/2009
Idabel, OK
7/27/2009
Natchitoches, LA
7/27/2009
Coushatta, LA
7/28/2009
Emory, TX
7/28/2009
Yantis, TX
7/29/2009
Texarkana, AR
7/30/2009
Shreveport, LA
7/30/2009 Mansfield/Grand Cane, LA
SEE DETAILED SCHEDULE AT BOTTOM
What is the SARP Community Watershed Project?
The SARP Community Watershed Project seeks to find out what key stakeholders in the Sabine and Red River basins know and care about—
specifically with regard to aquatic resources. Aquatic resources are the fish and other species which make up the diverse ecosystems found in
our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. SARP (see below) is an alliance of the 14 southeastern states, some federal agencies, Bass Anglers
Sportsman Society, and others focused on preserving the benefits we receive from healthy fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. The Watershed
Project brings a range of interests together to bring a diversity of local perspectives and knowledge into the planning process.
The guiding document for SARP is the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan (SAHP), which sets targets and strategies for conservation. 34% of North
American fish species and 90% of the native mussel species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern are found in the
Southeast. Read on to see how you can communicate your knowledge and concerns to SARP and its partners as they work to turn this around.
Who is SARP?
The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) is an alliance working to “restore aquatic resources including habitats throughout the
Southeast, for the continuing benefit, use, and enjoyment of the American people.”
SARP focuses on six key issue areas of greatest concern and interest to the Southeast
· Public Use
Increase recreational fishing and other sustainable uses of aquatic resources by the public.
· Fishery Mitigation
Provide high quality angling opportunities at water development projects.
· Imperiled Fish & Aquatic Species Recovery
Reduce the number of imperiled species in the Southeast.
· Inter-jurisdictional Fisheries
Protect, conserve, and restore inter-jurisdictional fisheries in the Southeast.
· Aquatic Habitat Conservation
Appropriate biological, chemical and physical integrity to support healthy functional communities for aquatic habitats.
· Aquatic Nuisance Species
Prevent and control the impact of invasive species on the ecological, economic and societal values of the Southeast.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 94
Our Targeted Stakeholder Categories – If you are engaged and informed on issues that are relevant to the project , we need to hear from you.
Water supply management (human)
Water supply management (environmental)
Water quality management
Land use planning
Real Estate
Economic Development
Financial
Industrial
Fishing, recreational
Fishing, commercial
Conservation advocacy
Natural resource management
Oil & Gas, Mining
Agriculture
Forestry/Timber
Research
Policy, Regulation and Law
Citizen/Grassroots
Friends of [the lake]
Get Involved
Stakeholder meetings
Join a live, in-person discussion and help us nail down local issues and priorities. See the schedule below and please attend if you can. Other If
you would like information about one of those meetings, email [email protected].
The Stakeholder Survey
Tell us what you know about issues relevant to aquatic resources by filling out a convenient, online survey. Go to
www.gulfmex.org/sarp.htm. Whether or not you attend one of the meetings, please contribute your knowledge by taking the survey.
Your contributions to the Watershed Project can take two forms:
#1—Express your knowledge and priorities by participating in stakeholder meetings and our online survey.
· What you have experienced and what you care about.
· Local issues and priorities.
· Aquatic ecosystems and populations you know to be under stress.
· Conservation efforts planned, ongoing, or completed.
#2-Direct us to relevant work — studies, reports, databases.
· Bring it up in the survey.
· Email it to me at [email protected].
Please read the attached brochure for more information and forward this email to others who are engaged and informed about the river basins
and the resources they provide. We will continue to collect input and information through the middle of August 2009. The SARP Community
Watershed Project is conducted by the Gulf of Mexico Foundation through a grant from the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership. Learn
more about the Foundation on our website at www.gulfmex.org.
“Why can’t we do for fish what we did for ducks?” Gary Myers
In 1985, waterfowl populations were in trouble in North America. Three nations came together to identify and solve the issues that
threatened these birds, and did so with great success. 15.7 million acres of habitat were protected, restored, or enhanced. The benefits
spilled over to other species associated with those habitats, and human populations will continue to benefit from all of them. Today, fish in
the Southeast are facing serious challenges. A national movement is afoot today to do the same for fish and other aquatic resources .
Thanks,
Mike Smith
Project Manager
Gulf of Mexico Foundation
[email protected]
361-882-3939 office
361-563-3406 mobile
361-882-1262 fax
http://www.gulfmex.org
EVENT SCHEDULE AND DETAILS
[location details were provided but are omitted here to save space]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 95
We want to extend our sincere thanks to these folks for hosting these meetings and to the many others who aided with setting them up.
[truncated, see Acknowledgements]
Opening Page of Project Website
Organizations Contacted to Participate in the Project
ORGANIZATION
ACRONYM
ORGANIZATION
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
AGFC
Panhandle Water Planning District, TX
Arkansas Natural Resources Commission
ANRC
Red River Authority of Texas
Arkansas Red River Commission
Red River Parish Chamber of Commerce, LA
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm
Red River Valley Association
Arkansas Water Resources Center
Red River Watershed Management Institute
Caddo Lake Institute
CLI
ACRONYM
RRA-TX
Red River Waterway Commission, LA
RRWC
City of Durant, OK
River Systems Institute, TX
RSI
City of Hemphill, TX
Sabine County Chamber of Commerce, TX
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 96
City of Hugo, OK
Sabine Parish Chamber of Commerce, LA
City of Lawton, OK
Sabine Parish Farm Bureau, LA
City of Orange, TX
Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
SRA-LA
City of Dallas, TX
Coushatta-Red River Chamber of
Commerce, LA
Sabine River Authority of Texas
SRA-TX
Ducks Unlimited
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Durant Chamber of Commerce, OK
South Toledo Bend State Park
Eisenhower State Park, TX
Stephen F. Austin State University, TX
SFA
Emory Economic Development Corp, TX
Sulphur River Basin Authority
Texas A&M - Commerce, Dept of Biological and
Environmental Sciences
Texas A&M University Dept of Biological and
Environmental Sciences
SBRA
Sabine River Compact Administration
Farm Bureau Insurance of Texas
Greater Texoma Utility Authority
GTUA
Heart of the Hills Fisheries Science Center
Texas AgriLife Extension Service
Hugo Area Chamber of Commerce, OK
Texas AgriLife Research
Hugo Lake State Park, OK
Texas Christian University
TCU
Lake Arrowhead State Park, TX
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TCEQ
Lake Fork Area Chamber of Commerce, TX
Texas Farm Bureau
Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association, TX
Texas Fish & Game Magazine
Lake Tawakoni State Park, TX
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
TPWD
Lake Texoma Advisory Committee
Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board
TSSWCB
Lake Texoma Association
Texas Water Development Board
TWDB
Lamar State College, TX
Texas Water Resources Institute
TWRI
Lawton Fort Sill Chamber of Commerce, OK
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development
Louisiana Department of Wildlife &
Fisheries
The Nature Conservancy
TNC
Louisiana Rural Water Association
Louisiana Water Resources Research
Institute
LDEQ
The University of Oklahoma Biological Station
Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
LDWF
Toledo Bend Citizen's Advisory Committee
LRWA
Toledo Bend Lake Association
Toledo Bend Tourist Commission
Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Foundation
Town of Coushatta, LA
LSU Ag Extension
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development
Area
National Watershed Coalition
Natural Resources Conservation Service
New Mexico Water Resources Research
Institute
NRCS
University of Arkansas
University of Louisiana - Monroe
North Toledo Bend State Park
University of Texas at Tyler
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
USACE
USFWS
VFW - Hemphill
ODWC
VFW Post 7287
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 97
Conservation
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Oklahoma Water Resources Research
Institute
OWRB
Waters of East Texas Center
OWRRI
West Texas A&M University
Ouachita National Forest
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge
Appendix B – Stakeholder Meetings
Meeting Schedule and Distribution
DATE
RIVER
LOCATION
ST
FACILITY
Stakeholder meetings
AR
LA
OK
TX
1
5
4
6
0
0
0
1
Allocation by state
6/22/2009
SAB
SRA-TX (Staff)*
TX
SRA-TX
6/22/2009
SAB
Orange
TX
Library
6/23/2009
SAB
SRA-LA (Staff)*
LA
SRA-LA
6/23/2009
SAB
Many (Toledo Bend)
LA
SRA-LA
0
1
0
0
6/24/2009
SAB
Hemphill (Toledo Bend)
TX
Library
0
0
0
1
6/29/2009
RED
RRA-TX (Staff)*
TX
RRA-TX
6/30/2009
RED
Wichita Falls
TX
Midwestern University
0
0
0
1
7/20/2009
RED
Lawton-(Wichita Mtn Refuge)
OK
Wichita Mtn Refuge
0
0
1
0
7/21/2009
RED
Durant (Lake Texoma)
OK
Kiamichi Tech Ctr
0
0
1
0
7/21/2009
RED
Eisenhower St Pk (Lake Texoma)
TX
Eisenhower St Pk
0
0
0
1
7/22/2009
RED
Hugo
OK
Kiamichi Tech Ctr
0
0
1
0
7/22/2009
RED
Idabel
OK
Kiamichi Tech Ctr
0
0
1
0
7/27/2009
RED
RRWC (Staff)*
LA
RRWC
7/27/2009
RED
Natchitoches
LA
RRWC-LA
0
1
0
0
7/27/2009
RED
Coushatta
LA
VFW Hall
0
1
0
0
7/28/2009
SAB
Yantis
TX
Community Center
0
0
0
1
7/29/2009
RED
Texarkana
AR
Miller Cty Courthouse
1
0
0
0
7/30/2009
RED
Shreveport
LA
LSU Ag Center
0
1
0
0
7/30/2009
RED
DeSoto Parish
LA
0
1
0
0
* State River Authority
Summaries of the Stakeholder Meetings
The following pages contain the final drafts of notes from each of the stakeholder meetings.
NOTE: Boilerplate introductory and closing text is eliminated from all but the first summary to reduce
redundancies and save space.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 98
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Sabine River Authority of Texas – staff only, Orange, Texas
Monday, June 22, 2009
In Attendance: Jack Tatum, Sabine River Authority of Texas
John Payne, Sabine River Authority of Texas
James E. Brown, III, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Mark Howard, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Miles A. Hall, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Ann Galassi, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Gerard N. Sala, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Bill Hughes, Jr., Sabine River Authority of Texas
Melvin T. Swoboda, Toledo Bend Project Joint Operation
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
This was an informal discussion among key staff of SRA-LA and Mike Smith, who opened by briefly
explaining SARP, Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and the project. Once questions about that were satisfied,
the group moved on to discuss local issues relevant to aquatic resources in the area.
Mel Swoboda had asked who represents SARP for Texas and Louisiana. Dave Terre, of Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department (TPWD), as well as Brian Alford and Gary Tilyou, of Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, are good places to start. John Payne asked how SARP could substantiate the
claims made about imperiled species—34% of fish and 90% of mussels—being in the Southeast. He
would like to see the references that were used as well as which fisheries and species were used. Smith
agreed to inquire.
Participants were surprised that the Neches River was not included in the study area since it drains into
Sabine Lake, which has been included. Approximately 42% of the inflows to Sabine Lake come from the
Neches and about 46% from the Sabine. About half of the inflows from the Sabine are from
uncontrolled drains below the dam for Toledo Bend (TB). Smith explained that he was aware and would
be interested in information they could provide about the Neches. The RFP and the proposal itself
specified the Sabine and Red River basins, which covers a lot of ground. Any attribution of stresses on
Sabine Lake to Neches River sources can and will be investigated and included in the report, but no
stakeholder meetings will be scheduled specifically to address the Neches River basin. If SARP decides
to continue this type of work, the Neches will perhaps be included in the future.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 99
TCEQ’s Herman Settemeyer works with the Red River Compact Commission and would be a good
contact for information about that basin (512-239-4707).
Imposing in-stream flow standards is a concern since they will not take into account situational and sitespecific considerations. An in-stream flow study is currently underway on parts of the Sabine.
A conservation area was set up for waterfowl on the north end of TB. Giant salvinia is a big challenge
there. There is also a wildlife refuge east of Sabine Lake that is suffering from channelization created
initially for trapping activities, and later to serve Oil & Gas navigation needs. Louisiana is taking
measures to protect its shoreline, restoring lots of marshland. Coastal marshes retard saltwater
intrusion, and participants believe restoration of marshes would be a better solution than increasing
freshwater inflows. They alluded to a division of opinions within Texas Parks & Wildlife Department:
Freshwater fisheries staffers want naturalized flows while the coastal management unit likes flows as
they are, ~1200-1300 cfs. Without the ship channel, freshwater flows would cause the marsh to flood.
There is no flood pool for TB. The hydroelectric power generated by the dam as well as the water supply
are shared equally among Texas and Louisiana.
Changes in forestry practices have been successful (see Texas Forest Service, at A&M). Temple-Inland
broke up and sold land to The Campbell Group. Andy Jones, in Austin, is involved in land acquisition for
conservation purposes. Since Campbell wants to sell, a corridor may be available for purchase.
Conservation easements exist in the basin but are focused on wildlife. U.S. Fish & Wildlife made the
decision to take land owned by Little Sandy Hunting and Fishing Club, the land being in the path of a
reservoir project, and make it part of a wildlife refuge. Mitigation banks are a good tool for preserving
riparian areas (e.g., Water’s Bluff, Fastrill Reservoir).
The Neches and Calcasieu Rivers have saltwater barriers; the Sabine does not and one is needed to
prevent deterioration of bottomland hardwoods. The Tony Houseman Wildlife Management Area is
vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.
At river mile 30, near Hwy 12 at Deweyville, TX, near the most downstream USGS gauge, is a distributary
stream that may be trying to find the old river bed. If allowed to continue, it could impact flows to Texas
as well as fisheries there. We should try to maintain flows to Texas, especially under low-flow
conditions. The solution may involve a structure that directs flows. Dr. Phillips is working on this and
information is included in the TB Joint Operations CD.
Other reports that may be of interest include the TPWD Performance Report for TB, a study of the
economic benefits of TB by Dr. Ditton, the Texas Instream Flow Studies Technical Overview from TPWD.
and work done by Tulane University.
--------------------------end of discussion
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 100
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Sabine Lake is heavily influenced by the Neches River as well as by uncontrolled drains that flow into
the lower Sabine River.
• In-stream flow standards may not be the best approach.
• Coastal marshes have declined in function and size due to channelization.
• Some bottomland hardwoods are threatened by saltwater intrusion.
• The Sabine River is unprotected from saltwater intrusion.
Systems
• Toledo Bend
• Sabine Lake
• Neches River
• Lower Sabine River
Stresses
• Loss of wetlands
Sources (of stress)
• Channelization
• Invasive species—giant salvinia
Strategies and Successes
• Restoration of coastal marshes, ongoing in Louisiana, can help control saltwater intrusion.
• Some beneficial changes in forestry practices have occurred.
• Mitigation banks have preserved riparian areas.
• Conservation is accomplished through conservation easements and land acquisition.
• Barriers on the Neches and Calcasieu Rivers protect them from saltwater intrusion.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Herman Settemeyer, TCEQ, Red River Compact Commission
• Andy Jones, The Conservation Fund
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
Since this is a draft, please let me know if you have any additions or revisions to suggest, as well as any
additional comments to make. Be sure to clarify which it is—a suggested change to the summary or a
supplemental comment.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 101
I asked Scott Robinson, SARP Coordinator, for the information that would substantiate the claims made
about the plight of aquatic species in the Southeast and believe he was in touch with you about that,
sending a couple of maps. I have attempted to provide here some additional information given that the
statistics of interest were compiled in the early days of SARP’s formation and a bibliography has not
been found. I found a Natureserve document called Rivers of Life that discusses the state and
distribution of imperiled species. Six species are listed as imperiled in the Middle Sabine and five for
Toledo Bend on p. 64 of this report, but most of the imperiled species are concentrated in other areas.
Scott believes the support for the claims made in SARP literature, and my presentation, were based on
data from Natureserve. While I am not sure I will be able to provide you with precisely what you have
asked for, this may shed some light. Also, a new SARP website has been released that has been under
development for some months. Please peruse it as you have time and interest.
In some meetings with Red River stakeholders, the idea of a holistic approach to managing stream flows,
in which minimum flow requirements would be determined for each use along the river. Existing
agreements and mandates would need to be worked into such a plan. The in-stream flow project
currently underway sounds like the first steps in this process. Do you see any promise in that idea for
the Sabine? I will be interested to know your thoughts on the pitfalls or promise of managing stream
flows this way, and what your concerns are about in-stream flow standards.
At the meeting, you provided me with many documents, which I am reviewing and expect to glean
many answers from, but please feel free to offer additional information or direct me to resources that
come to mind.
Thank you all for making time in your day, and for providing useful information. Please stay in touch and
take the survey if you have not already.
Best regards,
Mike Smith, Project Manager
SARP Community Watershed Project
Gulf of Mexico Foundation
PMB 51, 5403 Everhart Rd.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
[email protected]
361-882-3939 office
361-563-3406 mobile
361-882-1262 fax
http://www.gulfmex.org/sarp.htm
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 102
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Orange Public Library, Orange, Texas
Monday, June 22, 2009, 3:00 to 4:30 PM
In Attendance: Wendy J. Ledbetter, The Nature Conservancy
Gerard Sala, Sabine River Authority of Texas
John Payne, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Ann Galassi, Sabine River Authority of Texas
Jay Trahan, City of Orange
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
Mike Smith opened the meeting with a brief PowerPoint presentation that introduced the Gulf of
Mexico Foundation (GMF), the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP), and provided an
overview of the project. In response to a request for proposals issued by SARP, GMF is conducting this
project for SARP which is seeking stakeholder input in its quest to understand the state of aquatic
resources in the Red River and Sabine River basins. Understanding SARP and its objectives is the key to
knowing what the Watershed Project is about. SARP is an alliance of state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private entities which have signed on as partners in SARP—a regional
partnership working to “restore aquatic resources including habitats throughout the Southeast, for the
continuing benefit, use, and enjoyment of the American people.” Aquatic resources were defined as
“the fish and other species which make up the diverse ecosystems found in our rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters.” The SARP Community Watershed Project is a watershed-scale effort to find out what
stakeholders who are engaged and informed on issues and activities relevant to aquatic resources know
and care about. In addition to their participation in the stakeholder meetings, stakeholders were asked
to participate by taking an online survey; by sharing relevant resources in the form of studies, reports,
scholarly works, websites, programs, plans and incentives; and by connecting other stakeholders to the
project so that their knowledge and priorities may be included. The knowledge gained during the course
of the project will be provided to SARP so it may inform their planning for conservation, preservation,
and restoration of aquatic resources.
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues. The Sabine River flows along the eastern edge of the city and Sabine Lake is just to the
south. TMDLs are being developed by TCEQ for Adams Bayou and Cow Bayou due to water quality
concerns there. The Shangri La Botanical Gardens and Nature Center is a good resource for information
about the area and is situated along Adams Bayou, which flows into the Sabine River as does Cow
Bayou. Mike Hoke is the Director and can be reached at 409-670-9113.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 103
The City of Orange planning department is headed up by Jimmie Lewis. They manage an Adopt-a-Street
program which is part of a beautification and anti-litter campaign. Lewis also directs the city’s code
enforcement. The City has developed a new boat ramp to improve access to the river and recently
hosted a fishing tournament that was very successful (see follow-up comment from Jay Trahan, below).
The City is also considering waterfront development that could bring needed revitalization (see followup comment from Jay Trahan, below). Smith observed that incorporating parcels that had been
previously developed could serve economic goals without taking additional land out of environmental
service. Creating access to water and related recreational activities also develops that market, creating
an economic imperative for stewardship of those natural assets.
Timber Investment Management Organizations were brought up as influential stakeholders in the
region. They currently manage forestlands on a for-profit basis with the objective of harvesting the
timber. Hancock Forest Management controls a lot of land locally and can be reached through Steve
Mariette at 409-385-5995 in Silsbee or Bob Castle in Alabama, who heads up the western region. One
participant stated that the current management strategies are short-sighted and worries that such large
parcels of forest lands are not protected.
The Conservation Fund, headed by Andy Jones in Austin, is a not-for-profit focused on conservation of
land for public use and has preserved a lot of land in East Texas. The Big Thicket is a large preserve that
falls within the Neches River basin, which drains into Sabine Lake. Participants mentioned the need to
expand the boundaries of that preserve. The Big Thicket Trust works on preservation of the preserve.
There is a move to designate part of the Neches River as a scenic river, which would bring it under a
program geared to conservation (see WildAndSScenicRivers_Ledbetter_Handout – QA, attached, and
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, below).
Saltwater intrusion to Sabine Lake and Taylor Bayou was mentioned and is influenced by a variety of
factors, including water flows from the Sabine River as well as the Neches. Storm surges during
Hurricanes Ike, Katrina, and Humberto significantly impacted habitat as well.
Recreational stakeholders identified include Tom Bell, of a sports fishing club chapter under the Coastal
Conservation Association, located in Beaumont and available at 409-832-5901. Also mentioned were
the Big Thicket Paddlers as well as sports fishing writer and angler Dicky Coburn, whose number is 409883-0723. Hunting clubs also exist in the area.
--------------------------end of discussion
A follow-up comment was received from Jay Trahan as follows:
The City of Orange hosted the inaugural “Speckled Trout Fishing Tournament” on May 16 &
17, 2009. The event was a partnership with Cabela’s (World’s Famous Outfitter) and Speck
Trout USA. Contestants could launch anywhere along the Sabine River and Gulf Coast from
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 104
Orange to Sabine Pass. There were 50 who registered and $10,000 in Cash and Prizes were
awarded winners.
The Downtown Master Plan is in its “conceptual design” stage with a focus on retail
development in the downtown area and possibly near the waterfront. At the top of
everyone’s list is a sit-down dining restaurant, preferably, with a waterfront view. Retail is at
the top of the list as well. At a later date, phase 2 of the Simmons Drive master plan (north of
the boat ramp) could include recreational fields for sporting events that would drive tourism
and hotel/motel occupancy rates.
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Adams Bayou and Cow Bayou are impaired due to water quality factors which impact aquatic
ecosystem health as well as recreational uses.
• Recreational fishing is important and being developed further.
• A significant portion of forested lands in the region currently are managed for profit with harvesting
of timber as the priority, rather than conservation and preservation.
• Saltwater intrusion to Sabine Lake and Taylor Bayou are caused by a variety of factors.
Systems
• Lower Sabine River
• Sabine Lake
• Taylor Bayou
• Neches River
Stresses
• Water quality
• Salinity
Sources (of stress)
• Wetlands loss
Strategies and Successes
• TMDLs are being developed for Cow Bayou and Adams Bayou.
• A master plan for development of riverfront property will create new recreational assets.
• Access to fishing improved with new boating ramp.
• A fishing tournament was attracted to the area.
• A beautification and anti-litter campaign were implemented.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 105
• Land trusts and Scenic River designations are being used to put more land into conservation.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Mike Hoke, Shangri La Botanical Gardens and Nature Center
• Jimmie Lewis, City of Orange, Planning and Zoning
• Steve Mariette, Hancock Forest Management
• Andy Jones, The Conservation Fund
• The Big Thicket Trust
• Tom Bell, Coastal Conservation Association
• Big Thicket Voyageurs
• Dicky Coburn
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• The stories of the boat ramp and the tournament—the strategies employed to create them and to
build them further
• Engineered and other hydrologic changes that have (or will) come to bear upon Sabine Lake and the
lower Sabine
• The status of aquatic resources (species and habitat) in Sabine Lake—stresses, sources, strategies,
successes
• Conservation/restoration projects in and around the area, including Sabine Lake, Sabine National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.
NOTE: As I mentioned at the meeting, the Sabine River Authority of Texas provided me with many
documents, which I am reviewing and expect to glean many answers from, but please feel free to offer
additional information if it comes to mind.
Documents and websites of interest:
• Improving Water Quality in Adams and Cow Bayous, A TMDL Project for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen
and pH
• Wild & Scenic Rivers Act
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 106
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sabine could now be home to nation's largest oyster reef
East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration
Flood Protection Study, City of Orange, 1994
http://www.conservationfund.org/southwest/texas
Big Thicket of East Texas Land Conservation and Land Trust Survey, methodology
http://www.txrivers.org
Texas Forest Service
Thank you all . . . . [truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Sabine River Authority of Louisiana – staff only, Many, Louisiana
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
In Attendance: Jim Pratt, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Mike Carr, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Kellie Ferguson, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Carl Chance, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
This was an informal discussion among key staff of SRA-LA and Mike Smith, who opened by briefly
explaining SARP, Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and the project. Once questions about that were satisfied,
the group moved on to discuss local issues relevant to aquatic resources in the area.
Carl Chance is the liaison for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing effort for
Toledo Bend Reservoir (TB), which is jointly conducted by SRA-LA and SRA-TX. That process will yield a
wealth of useful information due the thorough impact analyses that must be done.
On the Louisiana side, the Authority issues permits for docks and also uses a unique legal instrument,
called a leaseback, to manage a perimeter of land around Toledo Bend that extends beyond the
waterline formed when the lake level is at 172 feet mean sea level. This land belongs to SRA-LA and any
structures built within that zone must be approved and permitted. The leaseback serves as a sort of
protective environmental buffer. Smith asked about the types of shoreline structures allowed and was
told docks and seawalls, the latter being recommended to control erosion.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 107
A study was done on TB around 1999-2000 by a Dr. Ditton, from Texas A&M, on the economic impact of
recreational fishing.
Crappie fishing is not as good as it was 20 years ago, when the fishery peaked in productivity, but it is
still pretty good. Peaks in fishing often are observed in the early years of a new reservoir. When people
complain about a decline in fishing, they often are comparing current activity to peak levels, so it is
important to find out the frame of reference when discussing such concerns. Mike Carr, in addition to
his duties at SRA-LA, works as a fishing guide and had counted well over 3,000 crappies for the year
caught by him or his guests as of the time of this meeting. He had no concerns about the condition of
the crappie fishery.
The two states bordering TB share fishing licenses (mutually respect the licenses) although they are
issued separately and have different rules. This creates some confusion and difficulties for fishery
management. Jim Pratt mentioned he had been unsuccessful in getting consistent regulations between
the states. Participants agreed it would be better for anglers to make the rules uniform on both sides of
the reservoir.
Smith asked about economic studies or data on recreational uses of the lake and was told that the
fishing tournaments collect data on revenues and participation. SRA-LA is very proactive on economic
development related to the lake, including fishing. They offer services to attract tournaments, including
a pavilion at no charge as well as in-kind participation. SRA-LA also maintains public boat launches to
create access to the lake.
Oil & Gas exploration in the Haynesfield Shale formation has been of interest due to the demand for
water from that activity. This is focused in DeSoto Parish. Natural gas is the resource of interest and the
formation is very deep, so it takes a lot of water.
Inundated lands were purchased around TB when the reservoir was constructed but sellers retained the
mineral rights into perpetuity. No drilling rigs are allowed to operate in the water, so must use
directional/horizontal drilling techniques. Pipeline crossings are permitted.
Invasive species are a concern, particularly salvinia molesta or giant salvinia. Fluctuating lake levels can
help control it since the plant is naturally transported to the edges of the lake. When the lake is
lowered, the salvinia is left to dry out and die. Salviina proliferates on the north end of the lake, which is
shallower much of it ends up on dry land when the level goes down. Louisiana Department of Wildlife &
Fisheries has a chemical spray control program. Pratt is opposed to aerial spraying since the chemical
uses, diquat, is not selective and will kill other plants. Fluctuating lake levels are not an acceptable
solution to lake residents.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 108
When lake levels have been down, there has been a public outcry from those whose interests were
affected. In the drought of 2005 – 2006, lake levels became an issue and a deal was worked out with
the power companies that sell the power generated by the dam—Entergy and CLECO. So long as the
lake is above 162.2 feet MSL, the river authorities are obliged to provide power to the power
companies. The Times was recommended as a source that would have stories about this.
Carr stated that there is commercial fishing on the lake and feels the locals are pretty good stewards.
Pratt had some concerns about the methods of taking, but felt there may be an opportunity for
development of commercial fisheries for catfish, gar, carp—the latter being out of balance, ecologically.
Chance agreed that catfish are underutilized. Carr said that gill nets are illegal but are still used enough
to cause a problem. Hoop nets are legal and should, in his opinion, be outlawed. Studying the prospects
for developing a commercial fishery in TB may be a worthwhile project.
At this point, the group took a break until the stakeholder meeting scheduled for that afternoon.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• FERC relicensing and related impact studies are underway for the dam at TB.
• The fishery on TB is performing well; comments to the contrary should be evaluated based on the
commenter’s frame of reference.
• Rules for recreational fishing that vary from one part of the lake to another create confusion as well
as difficulty in enforcement.
• Recreational fishing has been successful and is of a high economic importance on TB.
• Oil & Gas exploration is placing a high demand on groundwater in DeSoto Parish.
• Giant salvinia is not adequately controlled on TB.
• The river authorities are required by law to provide a certain amount of water for power generation
so long as the lake level is above 162.2 feel MSL.
Systems
• Toledo Bend Reservoir
Stresses
• Loss of habitat
• Occasionally, low lake levels
Sources (of stress)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 109
• Invasive species—giant salvinia
• Impoundment—managed for hydropower
Strategies and Successes
• The “leaseback” allows SRA-LA to manage lands immediately adjacent to TB waters without
impinging on property rights.
• Offering in-kind participation and facilities has contributed to success in attracting fishing
tournaments.
• Providing amenities and access in support of recreational uses of TB has developed those sectors.
• Consolidating fishing rules on TB into one uniform scheme would benefit anglers as well as the
fishery. Incorporating a prohibition on hoop nets would be advisable.
• Studying the potential for a commercial fishery for catfish, gar, and carp on TB may be helpful in
maintaining ecological balance as well as lead to economic benefits.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Dr. Ditton, Texas A&M University
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
One of you had asked who the liaison is for Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. There are
two: Brian Alford and Gary Tilyou.
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• Enabling legislation or regulatory documents for the leaseback, sample language to include it as a
deed restriction, and rules for structures and other improvements allowed there
• Monitoring and distribution data on giant salvinia or other invasive species
• Impacts of invasive species on aquatic resources or related economic activity
• Local efforts to control invasive species—outreach/education, signage—are there any gaps?
Documents and websites of interest:
• Characteristics, Participation Patterns, Attitudes, Management Preferences, Expenditures, and
Economic Impacts of Toledo Bend Reservoir Anglers: Texas and Louisiana
• Gear Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat in the Southeastern Region
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 110
• Overfishing of Inland Waters
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Toledo Bend Tourist Center, Many, Louisiana
Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Jim Pratt, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Christy Rando, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Molly McKean, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Benny Dobson, Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area
Jack Horton, Louisiana Rural Water Association
Susan Robbins, Louisiana Rural Water Association
Linda Curtis Sparks, Sabine Parish Tourist Commission
Mike Carr, Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith asked participants to identify the primary issues relevant to aquatic resources for them, and to
include economics, land use, and other factors that impact upon water and habitat. Participants made
several points, as follows:
• Toledo Bend is an important source of water for consumption and supplies seven water systems.
• Participants from LDEQ offered to email information relevant to the basins, including impaired
waters from the 303(d) list as well as TMDL surveys and asked for the HUC codes that fall within the
study area.
• One participant noted that the map Smith had brought showing the study area left out portions of
the Red River basin, including parts of Rapides Parish.
• Economic studies had been done and are likely on the CD given Smith by Sabine River Authority of
Texas. [see Documents and websites of interest below.]
• In the Natchitoches area, there is a substantial influx of retired people, causing a change in land use
from cropland to housing.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 111
One participant brought up septic systems due to their impact on water quality. There are some
opportunities for improvement there since there are quite a few older systems in place. Newer systems
perform better and many grandfathered systems around Toledo Bend are going away with changes in
ownership since new owners must upgrade. A law implemented in the 1990s in Toledo Bend area
requires septic systems that meet newer specifications to re-connect services to the power utility.
Additional comments regarding water quality were as follows:
• One participant asked if there were any 303(d) listed waters in Toledo Bend and was told Lake
Anacoco may be on the list.
• Chris Piehler, of LDEQ, did a mercury study and report which may be useful to SARP.
• LDEQ has a program to reduce mercury levels in wastewater.
• One participant from SRA-LA stated that water quality overall is currently excellent.
Stakeholders who work with water in rural areas pointed out that limited water supply infrastructure
limits development in their area. Smith mentioned he had been looking for linkages between land use
and water planning. If new capacity was built into existing water supply systems, participants felt that
more development would occur.
Giant salvinia in the area is not under control, participants agreed. In addition to the serious problems
with it on Toledo Bend, Lake Bistineau has a problem with it. Fishing is increasingly of interest on the
Red River, which Lake Bistineau waters flow into.
Toledo Bend was built primarily for industrial economic development, but the parishes along its banks
are rural and poor. Local efforts at economic development have had success in building the recreational
fishing and tourism sectors, which are significant sources of economic activity. Oil & Gas development is
active in DeSoto Parish and causes concern due to a heavy demand placed on aquifers there.
NCRS programs that create incentives and may be useful for achieving SAHP objectives include the
Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Communities depend on Toledo Bend Reservoir for their public water supply.
• Recreational uses of Toledo Bend Reservoir provide substantial economic benefits in a region that is
economically challenged.
• Many older septic systems are in place around the lake that not up to current standards.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 112
Systems
• Toledo Bend
• Lake Bistineau
• Red River
Stresses
• Loss of habitat
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive species—giant salvinia
Strategies and Successes
• SRA-LA provides access and recreational infrastructure that facilitates recreational uses and attracts
tournaments.
• Grandfathered septic treatment systems are replaced incrementally due to a law that requires
upgrading to current standards on reconnection of utilities. Toledo Bend Reservoir is not listed for
any bacteriological impairments that could be related to sewage or septic systems.
• Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Chris Piehler, LDEQ
• NRCS
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• The specifications and requirements for septic systems on reconnection of service from the electric
utility in the Toledo Bend area
• Status of, trends in Toledo Bend water quality indicators of sewage/septic system impacts
• Awareness of fish consumption advisories in effect and the responses/level of concern
• The extent and nature of demand for new development that is limited by water supply in rural areas
• Water quality and supply management for new development in Natchitoches area
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 113
Documents and websites of interest:
• Characteristics, Participation Patterns, Attitudes, Management Preferences, Expenditures, and
Economic Impacts of Toledo Bend Reservoir Anglers: Texas and Louisiana
• DEQ Mercury Initiative
• Mercury Minimization Plan for the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES)
After examining the impaired water listings from LDEQ, it appears that Toledo Bend itself is listed for
invasive species only. Comments during the meeting indicated the water quality was good with the
exception of the warnings in effect for fish consumption due to mercury levels.
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
J.R. Huffman Public Library, Hemphill, Texas
Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 9:00 to 10:30 AM
In Attendance: Cliff Hunt, Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
Megan Strickland, Sabine County Reporter
Charles Watson, Sabine County Judge
Jim Bullock,
Maurice. M. Patterson, Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
Jim Binns, Sabine County Chamber of Commerce
Stan Verret
R. R. Rife, Sr.
John Martin
Don Hall
Don Iles, City of Hemphill
Phil Yocom, ToledoChronicle.com
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith asked participants to identify the primary issues relevant to aquatic resources for them. One
participant mentioned that the state senator for the area, Senator Robert Nichols, of Jacksonville, TX,
got things started for Toledo Bend and recommended that Smith speak with him. Senator Nichols has
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 114
worked on issues important to the Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance, a local group that had formed to
provide a voice for locals with a stake in the lake.
Smith asked if there were any concerns regarding species on the lake and was told that crappie seem to
be smaller and less abundant, based on catch. Additionally, anglers and perhaps commercial fishers
come from out of state to catch crappie and haul them away in large quantities. One participant
suggested imposing restrictions on crappie fishing until after they have spawned. Another suggested
enforcing the existing possession limit. Smith mentioned reports that the fishery may have peaked in
productivity during the 1980s and asked for a time reference for the decline in crappie catches. One
participant had noticed the decline over about 5 years and another said it had been about 8 years, the
latter saying she still catches some large ones.
Giant salvinia was emphasized as a huge concern, with the group in agreement that it was not under
control. The best solutions were perceived to be ramping up chemical spray controls and use of weevils
that eat the invasive plants. Weevils alone are not the answer because they slow down in cool weather.
Applying enough of the chemical is difficult since it is important to minimize the impacts to other plant
life. Texas Parks & Wildlife (TPWD) is responsible for administering the controls but, according to
participants, has not been responsive, saying there is not enough money. Aside from its mal-effects for
fisheries, giant salvinia impairs duck’s ability to recognize water, reducing chances they will land in the
area. Locals feel that they do not have the political clout to bring adequate resources to bear on the
problem. Those with the clout need to understand the problem can affect them, too—it could come
downstream to other communities there. Another strategy that has been proposed is drawing the lake
level down one or two feet to kill some of the plants. Howard Elder or Dan Bennett, of TPWD in Jasper,
would be able to explain that more. Plans may include drawing the lake down about four feet. One
participant said leaving the lake lower than 168 feet may be OK for the economy, but was not sure
about the unintended consequences of doing that. There is some chance it would be good for the
fishery.
Interest from Dallas in Toledo Bend water prompted comments about political power as well as the
danger of transporting invasive species through those interbasin transfers. Perhaps Dallas should be
concerned about invasives at Toledo Bend.
Smith was asked what the timeline was for this project and he told the group he would be presenting
results to the SARP Steering Committee in early November. He also was asked for SARP’s position on
new reservoirs and Smith stated that, although he could not speak officially for SARP he had not heard
any positions stated on that subject nor had he read about that on the SARP website. He mentioned
that reservoirs had come up in the context of recreational fishing and also when talking about dams and
the ecological stress they can cause, then went on to say that existing reservoirs, regardless of how one
feels about them, serve as important fisheries. When someone wants to build a new one, the public
process starts all over again.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 115
Participants asserted that power generation was not an enabling objective of the Toledo Bend project
but has taken precedence over the actual legislative mandated purposes behind building the reservoir.
Fishing, in their opinion, is just as important. The Sabine River Authority of Texas has nobody from
Sabine County on their board and that board is in control of how the lake levels and flows are managed.
There is a federal excise tax on all fish and boating supplies. One group member feels that money
should be allocated to resolve the problems that threaten lakes like Toledo Bend and referred Smith to
the Wallop-Breaux Fund and Pittman Robertson Act.
Smith mentioned that he had been told that fluctuating lake levels, as opposed to simply lowering lake
levels, is one strategy proposed to control Giant Salvinia. Participants were not sure of the efficacy of
this method.
Turbidity was mentioned as an issue for the City of Hemphill water supply. A stabilized lake, in terms of
level and flows, improves raw water turbidity, which reduces the expense of treatment for
consumption. There may also be an ecological benefit to a stabilized lake.
Another challenge to recreational uses has been hurricane damage. Camping areas at Texas Parks &
Wildlife facilities have still not been repaired in the wake of Hurricane Ike.
The daily limit of 8 on black bass is higher on Toledo Bend than elsewhere. Out-of-state folks enjoy the
higher limits and fill their ice chests with fish. This creates a demand on populations that was of concern
to participants. There is no commercial fishery on the lake, per se, but a lack of enforcement of netting
regulations results in abuse and stress on fish populations. Fines for violations should be increased.
Participants suggested that Smith find out if Dallas and Houston recycle effluent from their sewage
treatment plants. They also recommended talking with the following people about some of these
issues: Jack Canson, of Caddo Lake; The Governor’s office; and Chris Dionigi, who works with a national
program on invasive species. Megan Strickland said that Ms. Corley, of the Sabine County Reporter,
would be able to provide back issues of their newspaper to get an historical perspective on the lake and
the issues. Her number is 409-787-2172.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Crappie fishing is still good enough to attract anglers, but has declined over the past 5 to 8 years.
• Some out-of-state anglers take a disproportionate share of crappie and black bass out of the lake.
• Giant salvinia is a serious threat to fish and waterfowl on the lake, it is out of control, and not enough
is being done to combat it.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 116
• Power generation should not be given priority over recreational fishing in management decision
making.
• Turbidity increases with fluctuating lake levels and flows and adds cost to water treatment for the
City of Hemphill.
• Access to recreational opportunities on the lake has been limited to some degree by the lack of
repairs at state-owned camping facilities.
• Black bass limits on the lake should be the same as elsewhere.
Systems
• Toledo Bend
Stresses
• Turbidity
• Fluctuations of flows or levels
• Less abundant fish
Sources (of stress)
• Overfishing
• Invasive plants
• Impoundments managed for hydropower
Strategies and Successes
• Regulatory strategies for strengthening crappie populations include stronger enforcement of existing
possession limits and netting requirements, imposing new restrictions on crappie fishing until after
they have spawned, and increasing fines for violations.
• Raising awareness of the problems invasive species bring and their potential for migration, either
downstream of through interbasin water transfers, could bring more resources to bear on the
problem.
• Federal excise taxes on fish and boating supplies should be directed toward resolving the types of
problems experienced on Toledo Bend.
• Chemical and biological control methods for giant salvinia are preferable to manipulating lake levels.
• Water utilities seeking to draw water from the Sabine should implement conservation measures,
including recycling of effluent.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Senator Robert Nichols, Jacksonville, TX
• Howard Elder or Dan Bennett, TPWD, Jasper, TX
• The Governor’s office
• Chris Dionigi, National Invasive Species Council
• Ms. Corley, Sabine County Reporter
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 117
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• Angler surveys and fish abundance monitoring for crappie and other species
• Monitoring and distribution data on giant salvinia or other invasive species
• Impacts of invasive species on aquatic resources or related economic activity
• Additional treatment costs incurred by turbidity and/or the contributory events/management
decisions
• Local efforts to control invasive species—outreach/education, signage—are there any gaps?
Documents and websites of interest:
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act: The tax on some sports fishing equipment and where it goes,
according to USFWS
Sport Fish Restoration Program: TPWD page about Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux
The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act: USFWS page on where the tax from
ammunition and arms goes.
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Funding: TPWD page about funding under the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas
Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 3:00 to 4:30 PM
In Attendance: Penny Miller, League of Women Voters, Texas Master Naturalist
Curtis Campbell, Red River Authority of Texas
Harry Wied, Red River Authority of Texas
Mark Howell, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Mick Baldys, U. S. Geological Service
John Hirschi, Sierra Club
Jane McGough, Texas Master Naturalist, League of Women Voters
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 118
Jerrie Sowards, State Representative David Farabee
Tony Dean, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants for their comments on the state of aquatic resources in the area, and
which systems, such as Lake Arrowhead, are of note. The Wichita River system, which includes Lake
Arrowhead, was brought up. Golden Alga, a non-native alga that emits a toxin that kills fish, is present
there. One participant offered that it likes high levels of nitrogen and low levels of phosphorus. Texas
Parks & Wildlife has information and projects on Golden Alga. Good solutions are not available for
riverine systems but water conservation could be part of the solution in lakes since the alga tends to
grow when lake levels are low.
The Red River Chloride Control Project (RRCCP) may threaten the unique species Red River Pupfish.
Freshening the waters may increase predation due to migration upstream. The Striped Bass, in Lake
Texoma, benefits from the saline environment there and needs it since they reproduce there. One
participant speculated that removal of the chloride may not impact the Striped Bass so much as the
removal of stream flow that occurs with implementation of RRCCP. One way the chlorides are removed
is by diverting flow from saline streams and springs to disposal sites.
The City of Dallas wants to use water from Lake Texoma for public consumption. Interbasin transfers
like this can transport the larvae of the Zebra Mussel. Potential solutions to migration of this invasive
species include outreach and education, or introduction of another species which could eat it.
Water conservation is a key solution for the area since the Red River is a flow-challenged system. Water
rates in Wichita Falls are currently structured so they reward conservation. At least one participant felt
the city had done a great job of incorporating conservation into its water planning which includes water
reuse. Smith asked if local ordinances allowed use of gray water at the homeowner level. One
participant pointed out that gray water is needed to keep wastewater moving through the system.
Smith asked about the use of rain barrels and incentives for rain collection systems. Master Naturalist
has rain collection systems at River Bend Nature Center and such systems have been promoted at
events. Some cities, such as Dallas, require permit and use of a licensed plumber to install rain
collection systems.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 119
Lake Arrowhead is a large reservoir in the area. Lake levels have been good recently. Texas Parks &
Wildlife does angler surveys which reveal frequency of visits that could be useful in an economic
assessment. Mark Howell is directly involved with the recreational fishing community in the area.
The Red River Authority of Texas did a study on the Wichita River in the late 1990s. Wichita Falls has a
reverse osmosis plant that removes chlorides from water that is drawn from Lake Kemp and Lake
Diversion and used for the city’s water supply.
Conservation goals for agricultural land uses expressed in the meeting focused on keeping cover on the
land. Brush control, or removal of problem species, is a common approach since certain plants affect
stream flows. The concern is the changes in land cover. Putting grass in place of the problem species is
beneficial to stream flows but may increase livestock.
Smith asked Tony Dean for his thoughts on what issues information may be relevant to aquatic
resources and agriculture. He stated that NRCS is becoming more aware of the importance of riparian
areas and has implemented conservation programs. The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program
(CCRP) pays 90% of costs for landowners to fence off riparian areas in addition to paying rental fees for
not grazing those areas. Not all landowners want to participate and it is a voluntary program and
directly serves one of the objectives expressed in the Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.
Erosion begets sediment flow, which tends to collect in reservoirs, gradually filling them in. This is
another big concern on the upper Red and stems from land erosion. A system of reservoirs on the
Washita River provides sediment control upstream of Lake Texoma, where sediment influx is a concern.
The Texas Water Development Board has information about this.
The City of Wichita Falls is considering a study to look at changes in the floodplain.
Dr. Gary Garrett, of Texas Parks & Wildlife in Austin, was recommended as a resource. He heads up the
Watershed & Policy group.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Invasive aquatic species, particularly golden algae, are present.
• Naturally high salinity in the river means chlorides must be removed to facilitate human consumption
but may threaten aquatic species, including unique, native populations and at least one species
important to recreational fishing.
• Stream flows are low, which is/can be exacerbated by changes in ground cover, diversion and
disposal of saline inflows, drawdown of aquifers, and interbasin transfers to serve the City of Dallas.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 120
• Water conservation is needed and has been implemented in the area, but general cooperation from
the public remains to be seen.
• Brush control efforts must be properly managed to conserve stream flows while restoring
appropriate land cover.
• Recreational fishing is important as are other recreational uses. Lake Arrowhead is the most
important recreational lake in the area.
Systems
• Wichita River system
• Lake Arrowhead
• Lake Diversion
• Lake Kemp
• Lake Texoma
• Washita River
Stresses
• Nutrients
• Low in-stream flows
• Salinity
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive aquatic plants—Golden Alga
• Invasive or nuisance species that challenge stream flow (e.g., salt cedar)
• Groundwater extraction
• Interbasin transfers of water
• Sediment flow—erosion
• Hydrologic modification
Strategies and Successes
• The City of Wichita Falls has incorporated water conservation into its operations and provides related
information to the public. Their rate structure also rewards conservation.
• Water conservation may be part of the solution to controlling Golden Alga and is surely a solution to
low stream flows.
• Programs to foster use of rain collection systems may be a good approach if they balance integrity of
water supply systems with user-friendly regulation.
• A reverse osmosis plant that returns the chlorides to the stream after removal is in use in Wichita
Falls. Investigating use of this technology as part of a plan to serve human consumptive needs while
maintaining natural ecosystem conditions may be of interest.
• The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program increases riparian buffer zones on a voluntary,
incentivized basis.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 121
• A system of reservoirs on the Washita River provides sediment control that alleviates a concern at
Lake Texoma.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Dr. Gary Garrett, of Texas Parks & Wildlife in Austin, Watershed & Policy group
• Red River Authority of Texas
• Mark Howell, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Wichita Falls
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• The reverse osmosis plant in Wichita Falls apparently returns the brine from the removal process to
the stream. One could assume that, if the wastewater effluent is returned to the same stream that
the human and ecosystems needs would be served with minimal impacts.
• The role of a saline environment in reproduction of the Striped Bass. A comment noted above
implies that reproduction occurs in the saline lake while comments in subsequent meetings indicated
that they swim up the freshwater Washita River to spawn.
• Potential invasive species control measures for interbasin transfer systems.
Documents and Resources that may be of interest
http://cms.lcra.org/project.asp?pid=288
Effects of Low-Flow Diversions From the South Wichita River on Downstream Salinity of the South
Wichita River, Lake Kemp, and the Wichita River, North Texas, October 1982–September 1992
TCEQ Wichita River Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Project Plan
City realizes dream of potable water from lake with reverse osmosis plant
Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP)
[truncated due to redundant text]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 122
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma
Monday, July 20, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Jeff Rupert, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Jason Childress, Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Lee Silverton, Fort Sill Environmental Division
Toni M. Hodgkins, Fort Sill
Larry Cofer, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Jeremy Dixon, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Walter Munsterman, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The Tishomingo Fish Hatchery was mentioned due to
their function as a hatchery as well as their involvement with sampling. Reservoir fisheries are actively
managed by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) in partnership with cities and
Federal Agencies.
Many reservoirs have been built in the Upper Red within Oklahoma, causing impacts upon stream
resources. These impacts are monitored but not managed since most streams are in private ownership.
Paddlefish are being restored but one sturgeon species was lost in the upper Red. The base stream flow
is lower than it used to be in the summers, which was attributed to damming and irrigation. Chloride
levels are probably higher in Lake Texoma because of the lower stream flows. Some endemic fish
species are tolerant of chlorides, but they’re now threatened by the Red River Chloride Project (RRCCP).
Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the wildlife refuge system is able to focus on ecological integrity by
preserving native species. A Comprehensive Conservation Plan is a 15-year plan under development for
each refuge in the system. Big game management is part of that and they need a consistent water
supply. Bison have been restored on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, but they can no longer
migrate to find water. Adequate resources must be maintained within the Refuge.
One participant mentioned that there is a lack of base flow requirements on area rivers and streams.
The City of Lawton is the biggest stakeholder in terms of water use. There is little effort made toward
conservation there and the City earns revenue from water sales.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 123
Eastern Oklahoma is more worried about water quality than quantity. Western Oklahoma has
very few industries and is very lucky in terms of water quality. Some lakes and streams are
impacted by non-point source pollution by farming, and confined animal feeding operations.
Fort Sill is fighting salt cedar now, which challenges stream flow.
A lot of recreational fishing occurs on the Refuge, which is currently in a preventive mode
regarding invasives. They are monitoring for zebra mussels and submerged aquatics, such as
hydrilla. Invasives currently on the Refuge include Eurasian watermilfoil, grass carp, and
Brazilian elodea. Participants have questions and concerns about introducing carp as a control
measure. Efforts to stop zebra mussels from spreading across the country did not work.
Golden alga blooms have caused several fish kills in the upper Red watershed in recent years.
Overall, the area has been pretty lucky in terms of aquatic resources. Most original fish species are still
present in the upper Red, but ranges have been reduced for several due to damming and other impacts.
Dallas and Fort Worth are looking at water from Beaver Creek and Cache Creek, two fresh water
tributaries of the Red River south of Lawton. Surface water in Oklahoma is publicly owned.
One participant explained that one difference between conserving waterfowl and conserving fish is that
you can see ducks. Another is that reservoirs are artificial systems that need human help.
Land uses in the area are primarily grazing and crops, in addition to military training on the army base.
Unlike other regions, western Oklahoma is losing human population, which may offer some
conservation opportunities. A reservoir was built (Tom Steed) but water demand did not reach
expectations and the water was subsequently made available to a wetlands restoration project at
Hackberry Flat. This project was driven by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, the
USFWS and several supporting NGOs
Smith asked about how we can create value in preserving ecosystem integrity among stakeholders with
varying interests and between stakeholders with interests at different ends of the basin. Framing the
discussion in terms of “quality of life” has worked well for one participant and avoids pitting economic
and environmental health against one another. With regard to sharing resources up and down the
stream, stakeholders need to know that if they give up something it creates some real value
downstream.
Riparian buffer destruction is a problem in the upper Red and manifests in the removal of trees and the
grazing of streams. Turbidity and erosion are the results. Clinton Lake filled in due to sediment flow,
requiring excavation of mud to extend its life.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 124
The area could benefit from a more effective land management effort, perhaps taking a landscape-scale
approach to controlling red and salt cedar. This would produce indirect benefits for aquatic resources.
Fort Sill moved its artillery facilities around, which increased stormwater flow, so they are trying to
manage that. Federal agencies have mandates to conserve, which enables them to act on this.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• The proliferation of reservoirs has taxed stream flows, increased chloride concentrations
downstream, and limited the original distribution of some species.
• Preservation of native species is a priority within the wildlife refuge system and is enabled by the
Refuge Improvement Act. The refuge is in an advantageous position due to such mandates as well as
its physical position in the uppermost part of the watershed.
• Some invasive species are present, but the Refuge is primarily in a preventive mode.
• Dallas and Fort Worth are interested in acquiring water from the area.
• Human population is shrinking in western Oklahoma, so urban development is only a concern in
pockets.
• Tree removal and grazing of streams are destroying riparian buffer zones, and increasing
sedimentation/ turbidity in the upper Red.
Systems
• Upper Red River and its tributaries
Stresses
• Reduced stream flow—reservoir development
• Reduced stream flow—salt cedar
• Reduced stream flow—irrigation
• Increased salinity
• Loss of fish species ranges, and threats to species from chloride control
• Less abundant fish
• Habitat loss—excess sedimentation
• Turbidity
Sources (of stress)
• Impoundments
• Invasive plants—salt cedar
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 125
•
•
•
•
•
•
Invasive aquatic plants— Golden alga, Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea
Invasive species—grass carp
Sediment flow too high
Non-point pollution – Agriculture – farming and animal feeding operations
Removal of riparian buffers
Grazing of streams
Strategies and Successes
• The Refuge Improvement Act enables preservation of native species within the refuge system.
• Identified need: Initiate a progressive water conservation program in Lawton.
• Hackberry Flat was restored as a wetland area and the water provided by a reservoir that was
underused.
• Characterize conservation in terms of its quality of life impacts.
• Identified need: A landscape-scale approach to controlling red and salt cedar
Stakeholders to follow up with
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Ecological Services, Tulsa
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Fisheries Resources Office, Tishomingo Fish Hatchery
• City of Lawton, Water Utility
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• Plans for development of new reservoirs
• Plans for attracting new industries
• A complete list of aquatic species on the Red that are imperiled or struggling already, threatened by
proposed changes, and unique species
• Strategies, challenges, and successes at Fort Sill in controlling salt cedar
• How invasives are being monitored and controlled
• A landscape-scale approach to controlling red and salt cedar
Documents and websites of interest:
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 126
• The Wichita Mountains Wildlife Comprehensive Conservation Plan
• Water Supply Reliability As Influenced By Natural Salt Pollution
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Kiamichi Tech Center, Durant, Oklahoma
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 9:00 to 10:30 AM
In Attendance: Paul May, USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service
Matt Mauck, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
P. J. Martin, USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service
Edward Phillips, Lake Texoma Association
Janet Reed, Durant Area Chamber of Commerce
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The balance of notes on the discussion, unless noted
otherwise, represent comments from the participants.
Selling water across state lines is a big concern as has been privatization of public assets on Lake
Texoma. The lakes were built for flood control but the assets created and acquired are increasingly
privatized. State parks throughout the state were sold to private entities. The U.S. Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has sold some of the lands it owned to private interests and has been directed by Congress to
convey additional publicly-owned lands to private ownership. Stakeholders expressed concern that this
shoreline property, currently available for public recreational use, will be used for private development
once sold.
Tourism in and around the lake is based on hunting and fishing. This recreational industry grew up
around the lake and suffered substantially in 2007 and again in Spring 2009 when natural events caused
flooding in the area. Losses in revenue totaled around $15 million among businesses within a few miles
of the lake along with $15 million in physical damages along the shoreline. The lake is still being
managed for flood control, but to suit downstream needs. USACE has adjusted its process over time and
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 127
must take into account billions of dollars in damages that could occur downstream. Management of the
lake for flood control purposes creates adverse impacts upon residents around the lake as well as those
with a stake in the recreational uses.
Management of the river as a whole is a needed approach. Projects to create new dams and flood
control lakes are in the works. Federal stimulus money is going into this already. Establishing minimum
stream flow requirements for each segment of the river would create a basis for a holistic management
plan. In other words, we should establish minimum environmental and human stream flow
requirements and incorporate those into a plan for the basin. The problem is the limited number of
dollars available for this work. It is very expensive. Additionally, manipulating stream flows in and of
itself affects aquatic resources.
Partners for Wildlife, offered by U.S. Fish & Wildlife, is a good program that includes flood control.
River systems are heavily altered already, so challenges lie ahead. Flooding is good for some species but
bad for humans. There is a seasonal plan for managing lake levels, run by USACE, called the Seasonal
Water Level Management Plan. It was developed for Lake Texoma, to keep it between 615 and 619 msl.
So far that has been working, although economic losses still accrue to business and property interests
during drought and flood conditions. Downstream flow (below Denison Dam) is determined by
hydropower generation need.
Stakeholders located upstream of Lake Texoma favor taking chlorides out of the stream. This would
impact upon the $30 million per year fishery on the lake and the recreation/tourism industry estimated
at $600 million. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service conducted a study that showed there would be no flow to
the lake if upstream plans were realized. William L. Fisher, of U.S. Geological Survey, could probably
provide a copy of the report.
Water flows are the big issue for Lake Texoma stakeholders—the chlorides, flooding, and aquifer levels.
The draining of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer is a challenge and Oklahoma law does not recognize the
connections between ground and surface water.
Smith asked participants if they felt there was a disconnect between land use planning and water supply
planning. They agreed that the laws pertaining to water use and allocation need to be changed. The
master plan for Lake Texoma, which governs land use around the lake on lands belonging to USACE, has
not been updated since 1978. That should be revised along with the completion of a new
environmental impact statement (EIS), which has not been updated since 1976. System-wide modeling
that was not available in the 1970s is needed to make good planning decisions. Some participants felt
that USACE is underfunding management efforts and believed they must to find a way to get the facts
they need. Federal policies and funding should be updated to meet current economic and
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 128
environmental conditions and place recreation and the ecosystem on more of an equal footing with the
other federal lake purposes of flood control, hydroelectric power and water supply.
David Hambright would be a good resource for information about water quality on the lake. Declines in
water flows could result in loss of water quality. Recycling of water has been proposed. The City of
Durant proposed doing this on airport property, but the idea lost traction. There are lots of septic
systems around Lake Texoma. A regional waste water management system would be a great help. This
is a nutrient-rich lake. Fisheries need some nutrients.
Nuisance, invasive aquatic species found in the lake include Golden Algae, Zebra Mussels, Harris Mud
Crab, and Asian Carp. Hydrilla has been found within Texoma’s watershed. For the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, the number one issue is control of red and salt cedar, which draw a lot of water
within the Red River basin, affecting stream flows.
Conservation of water is one of the solutions. Kenneth Bland, with the Pushmataha Conservation
District, would be a good contact. He had been involved with a Gulf of Mexico Foundation project at
some point.
Kevin Stubbs, of USFWS, could provide an economic study of the Lake Texoma fishery.
One participant offered that we need more peer-reviewed studies of the system.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Selling water across state lines creates additional stress on a flow-challenged system.
• Privatization of public assets around the lake hampers stewardship; even if agency plans are updated,
they generally will not apply to lands which have been sold to private entities.
• Management of Lake Texoma and Denison Dam is primarily driven by flood control considerations to
protect downstream interests, and recreational stakeholders have suffered economically.
• Denison Dam and Lake Texoma are managed according to enabling mandates and the need to
protect billions of dollars of assets downstream.
• Removing chlorides from the stream will have a negative impact on the Lake Texoma fishery with
serious economic consequences; reduced stream flows will result along with reduced salinity.
• Reductions in stream flows create the biggest challenge to the Upper Red and Lake Texoma and are
attributable to plans for new reservoirs, the Chloride Control Project, interstate water sales (interbasin transfers), red and salt cedar, and groundwater withdrawals.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 129
• Unsustainable groundwater withdrawals continue in large part because Oklahoma law treats
groundwater and surface water differently and potentially will diminish flows for springs and
streams; this poses a substantial and current threat within the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.
• Existing management plans for Lake Texoma as well as the EIS are out of date and were created
before modern decision-making tools were developed. Major amendments to the Clean Water Act
and Clean Air Act, as well as other federal requirements have come along since then which should be
incorporated into the new documents.
• Impending declines in stream flows could degrade water quality.
• Invasive aquatic species have been introduced to Lake Texoma, including hydrilla, zebra mussels, and
asian carp.
• Interbasin water transfer present direct vectors for these harmful species to become established
elsewhere.
Systems
• Lake Texoma
• Upper Red River
• Springs and streams that rely on Arbuckle-Simpson
- Those that drain into the Washita River above Lake Texoma
- Those that drain into the Red River below Denison Dam
Stresses
• Reduced stream flows
• Threatened: reduced salinity
Sources (of stress)
• Impoundment—managed for flood control
• Invasive aquatic species—Golden Algae, Zebra Mussels, Harris Mud Crab, and Asian Carp (Texoma)
• Invasive aquatic species—hydrilla (other systems in the sub-basin)
• Invasive terrestrial plant species—salt and red cedar
• Groundwater withdrawals
• Stream flow diversions and disposal
Strategies and Successes
• Develop minimum stream flow requirements for all competing uses along the river and incorporate
them into a plan to manage the system as a whole.
• Develop municipal water recycling programs
• Develop a regional wastewater management system
• System-wide modeling to support planning and decision-making
• Develop a master plan with a stewardship focus for land use around the lake.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 130
Stakeholders to follow up with
• Partners for Wildlife
• Conservation Districts—part of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• A complete list of aquatic species on the Red that are imperiled or struggling already, threatened by
proposed changes, and unique species
• The sale of public lands—enabling law, programs, impending deals
• Status and impacts of nutrient loadings in Lake Texoma
• Specific models and decision-making support tools that may be applicable
• The Water Level Management Plan
Documents and websites of interest:
• USDA hands out stimulus money for flood projects
• WATER ISSUES RELATED TO THE USE OF LAKE TEXOMA
• Lake Texoma Shoreline Management Plan
• Texoma Reservoir - 2004 Survey Report
• Oklahoma's Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Eisenhower State Park (Lake Texoma), Texas
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Paul Kisel, Eisenhower State Park, Texas Parks & Wildlife
Edward Phillips, Citizens for Lake Texoma
Rich Zamor, University of Oklahoma Biological Station
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 131
Emily Remmel, University of Oklahoma Biological Station
Logan Beard, University of Oklahoma Biological Station
Michael Wingfield, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
James Easton, University of Oklahoma Biological Station
Joe L. Custer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jerry Chapman, Greater Texoma Utility Authority
Bruce Hysmith, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Bill Thornhill, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Richard Kellogg, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Chuck Jones, Texas Agrilife Extension Service—Grayson County
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The balance of notes on the discussion, unless noted
otherwise, represent comments from the participants.
Zebra mussels, already found in Lake Texoma, have been transported through interbasin transfers of
water, and will likely be spread further as more interbasin transfers occur. Evidence indicates that the
mussel’s larvae have already been transmitted from the Red River to the Trinity River in this way.
Golden Alga, also found in Lake Texoma, is easily transmitted this way, as well. A population of zebra
mussels found in Oologah Lake declined in numbers. It may be helpful to study that.
Golden Alga has persisted at the west end of Lake Texoma. Participants recounted fish kills from the
alga at the fish hatchery in Wichita Falls and on Lake Diversion. Smith asked about any successes in
eradicating or controlling it and was told the City of Altus, OK, had eliminated it from a small pond using
ammonium sulfate. Stakeholders doing work on golden alga include Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation (ODWC), University of Oklahoma Biological Station, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
(TPWD) in Waco and San Marcos, and the fish hatcheries in West Texas. One participant noted that
eutrophication is a key component in the problem.
Invasive species are spreading across the state (Texas) and, while recreational fishers like to see some
grass, the detrimental effects warrant concern among stakeholders everywhere.
The Shoreline Management Plan, which contains guidelines for use of shoreline areas, including
improvements such as docks, was last updated in 1996 and needs to be updated again. The update
requires an update of the 1976 environmental impact statement for the lake, which still awaits federal
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 132
funding. TPWD is concerned about the management plan revisions and wants to make sure the
resulting document provides for aquatic resources.
Smith asked if there was an area-wide master plan for development, one that encompasses more than
just the shoreline and the federally-owned properties. Participants suggested consulting the Denison
Development Alliance and the economic development group in Durant. The U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has a development plan for the land it owns.
The University of Oklahoma Biological Station is concerned about nutrients as a key to the golden alga
problem. Eutrophication is an issue in Lake Texoma and a driver in the golden alga situation. Control of
nutrients is the solution, along with education. Creation of wetlands is one way to control nutrients.
Participants agreed that outreach works; when it is done they can see the effects. USACE posts signs to
maintain public awareness.
A toll road is being built between Lake Texoma and the DFW area, which is of concern to participants.
Access to the lake is already diminishing due to the amount of private, riparian development along the
lake’s shore. This road will make the lake more accessible to DFW residents and will likely increase the
privatization trend as well as increase stress overall on the ecosystem. The state park on the Oklahoma
side already was privatized and USACE is being forced to sell off land it owns, conferring full ownership
to the State of Oklahoma and the City of Denison, TX. Property conveyed would extend down to the line
formed at the 617 msl level. The new landowner would be able to strip vegetation after gaining
ownership of the riparian zone. Once sold, the properties, Oklahoma State Park and the eastern shore
of Little Mineral Bay, would likely be re-sold to private interests.
Another concern expressed was excessive chloride removal occurring upstream of Lake Texoma.
Oklahoma State University conducted an economic study on Lake Texoma.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Invasive aquatic species are of concern on Lake Texoma and are spreading to other areas.
• Inter-basin transfers of water threaten to spread zebra mussels and golden alga to other areas.
• Updated management plans and a new EIS are long overdue for Lake Texoma and should be to
address increasing pressures on aquatic resources.
• Nutrient influx and the resulting eutrophication need to be controlled to control golden alga.
• Increasing trends in private ownership of riparian lands reduces public access to Lake Texoma and
increases ecosystem stress.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 133
• The sell-off of public lands by USACE increases the problems associated with private ownership of
riparian lands and leaves riparian buffer zones vulnerable.
• Chloride removal occurring upstream of Lake Texoma is excessive.
Systems
• Lake Texoma
Stresses
• Reduced salinity
• Loss of riparian buffers
• Water quality—nutrients
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive aquatic species
• Riparian development
• Stream flow diversions and disposal
Strategies and Successes
• Ammonium sulfate has been used to control golden alga with some success near Altus, OK.
• Develop a master development plan around the lake that incorporates a stewardship focus.
• Education/outreach is an effective means of preventing the spread of invasive species.
Stakeholders to follow up with
• ODWC, TPWD, OU Biological Station, and Dundee Fish Hatchery (golden alga mgmt.)
• Denison Development Alliance and Durant Economic Development
• Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
• Oklahoma State University
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• A complete list of aquatic species on the Red that are imperiled or struggling already, threatened by
proposed changes, and unique species
• The sale of public lands—enabling law, programs, impending deals
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 134
•
•
•
•
Sources, status and impacts of nutrient loadings in Lake Texoma
The decline of zebra mussels in Oologah Lake
Successful outreach/education efforts—who, what, where and how you knew it was effective
Specific models and decision-making support tools that may be applicable
Documents and websites of interest:
• Characteristics of Anglers and Guides at Lake Texoma, their Fishing Participation Patterns, and
Attitudes towards Management of the Recreational Fishery
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Kiamichi Technology Center, Idabel, Oklahoma
Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Ken Swift, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Jerry Robinson, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Carl Henderson, Langston University Extension Service
Josh Brecheen, Office of U. S. Senator Tom Coburn
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The balance of notes on the discussion, unless noted
otherwise, represent comments from the participants.
Participants brought up the matter of water sales across state lines and explained the relevant issues.
Loss of the water flows will hurt fishing, which is of economic importance in the general area. Sardis
Lake and Hugo Lake are relatively shallow reservoirs. While the sale would generate revenue, the
money would not likely be used locally. In the past, the area has lost out in the allocation of financial
resources to more populated and influential areas. Native American interests would surely claim a
portion of the proceeds. Some citizens believe keeping the water is key to attracting new industries and
jobs to the area, but others advocate the sale of the water because it would undoubtedly bring in
revenues where economic development efforts have failed to bring new employers.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 135
The timber industry is active in the region, dominated by Weyerhauser and International Paper. Much
land is also in agricultural use.
Stakeholders to contact for more information would be Walter Frye, of Idabel Chamber of Commerce,
and Charity O’Donnell with regard to trout fishing.
The group had many questions about the project and the entities involved, so much of the discussion
was about that. Smith encouraged participants to contact him after the meeting with information or
ideas that come up so they may be included in his final recommendations to SARP.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• The sale of water across state lines is controversial and would likely bring effects that are detrimental
to aquatic resources while revenues generated accrue to other parts of the state.
• Advocates of the water sale believe the potential revenue outweighs their chances of attracting new
industries who would need the water.
• Trout fishing in streams is an important recreational activity.
Systems
• Sardis Lake
• Hugo Lake
Stresses
None were identified in the meeting.
Sources (of stress)
• Water withdrawals—inter-basin transfers (threatened)
Strategies and Successes
None were identified in the meeting.
New stakeholders to follow up with
• Walter Frye, Idabel Chamber of Commerce
• Charity O’Donnell, McCurtain County Tourism Authority
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 136
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• How fishing would be harmed if water is sold to Texas
• The extent to which local stakeholders weigh the potential losses to aquatic resources and impacts
on recreational fishing that result from the water sale
• Any challenges, or success stories, with regard to fish, habitat, fishing, or water
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Red River Waterway Commission, Natchitoches, Louisiana
Monday, July 27, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Ken Guidry, Red River Waterway Commission
George Dauzat, Calcasieu Soil & Water Conservation District
Jacob Brister, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Molly McKean, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Benny Dobson, Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area
John Rogers, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Sean Kinney, Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Ricky Moses, Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Ricky Yeldell, Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Mimi Stoker, Natchitoches Police Jury
Glenn Austin, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Christy Rando, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 137
Prior to the general meeting, Ken Guidry and Jacob Brister met briefly with Mike Smith. Brister offices at
the Vicksburg, MS office of Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) field office and works with the Red River
navigation project. Guidry heads up the Red River Waterway Commission (RRWC), which works with
ACE to find local sponsors before doing projects and is funded by property taxes. Guidry has a
background in wildlife management.
The main priority for this part of the Red River is the navigation project. The ACE and Red River
Waterway Commission work with local port commissions as the project is planned and built out. The
navigation project in this area is relatively new. The primary purpose for the project is navigation, but it
has also yielded benefits for soil conservation, recreation, and flood control. Mitigation provisions
require purchase and protection of 26,000 acres of land, which will be mostly converted to bottomland
hardwood forests. There is a “willing seller only” provision and ACE is focusing on acquisition of
marginal farmland to fulfill this requirement. The re-establishment of hardwood bottomlands is greatly
beneficial.
An unexpected benefit of the navigation project has been the productive fishery that developed on the
river. The Bassmaster Classic is a fishing tournament of national importance that was recently held
nearby on the Red River. The increases in recreational uses have brought economic benefits that
exceeded expectations. Recreational fishing has occurred traditionally on area lakes, but not in the
river.
The navigation project is about 94% complete but is funded piecemeal and done incrementally. The
project started in the 1970s and has now been operational for 15 years. It starts in the Caddo/Bossier
area and continues to Natchitoches. Most parishes along the way have port commissions.
George Dauzat joined the meeting and spoke about his proposal to create a board to work toward a
statewide water law, which is currently lacking in Louisiana. Composition of the board would reflect a
wide range of interests with the goal of addressing the sale of water rights, currently being considered
and promoted by the Sabine River Authority of Louisiana (SRA-LA). Selling water rights could result in
the permanent loss of those rights. SRA-LA would receive the proceeds of any such sale and Dauzat
would like management decisions affecting water rights to consider the long-term and environmental
effects of giving up water. Changes in water flows and other changes in the rivers have an effect on the
value of land as well as wildlife and natural assets. The southeastern part of the state has already
suffered from saltwater intrusion.
[The remainder of these notes reflect the general meeting, with all listed above in attendance.]
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 138
Smith asked about the state of aquatic resources in the areas familiar to those present. One participant
explained that there is not a lot of good, historical information about species abundance, so it is hard to
express the state of aquatic resources in terms of historical trends. This limits our understanding of
what the natural state of aquatic resources is or has been. Currently, bass and crappie are plentiful.
Invasive species include carp, although participants were not sure how much of a problem they cause.
Commercial fishermen catch them but they have little commercial value. Some invasive plant species
are present but are not prominent. Fluctuating water levels help. There is giant salvinia on Black Lake
and chemical spray has been employed. It is ongoing but not too effective. Carp, being filter feeders,
compete with shad and other plankton feeders. They increase turbidity and can even injure people.
Stakeholders would be concerned if shad populations diminish due to competition from carp.
Species abundance and biodiversity data is now being collected. That information would be available
through the Baton Rouge office of Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries. Smith asked how aquatic species have
been affected by the navigation project. Wildlife management participants explained that changes
made to the river necessarily change ecosystems, and some species suffer. Several species have been
lost in the Sabine, and the Sabine Shiner is stressed but holding on. Hydropower dominates
management of Toledo Bend.
Smith asked about ecological balance, ecological integrity, and what happens as we take species out of
ecosystems. Participants responded that human activities always cause changes which affect species
and we will have to balance all of those concerns. We will probably have to learn to live with invasive
species and the loss of some species. This discussion implied a general acceptance that aquatic species
will be lost as human needs are met.
Smith asked Mr. Dauzat to introduce to the group his concerns about water flows and his ideas for
protection of water resources. He stated that re-routing of rivers and management of freshwater flows
had resulted in saltwater intrusion along the Gulf coast of Louisiana, harming groundwater and Sabine
lake. One participant suggested that the lower Sabine River had changed to the extent that salt water
species are sometimes found there. A WLF staff member stated that redfish had been caught below the
dam but that it was not because of saltwater intrusion.
Revisiting the state water board idea, and interest in working on a statewide water law/plan,
participants generally agreed that such board would need to represent all the relevant interest groups
and that there was a need to take a long-term view that recognizes the value of natural assets. One
person commented that he would be concerned about such a law interfering with his right to use water
on his land, giving a farm pond as an example. Other than that, comments reflected agreement that the
state should craft a universal water law that protects its natural assets. Currently, the abundance of
water in most areas leaves citizens feeling comfortable about things as they are. The public generally
reacts to a general sense of immediate need, so fostering support for a move toward change in the law
requires effectively communicating a sense of urgency about something people care about.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 139
Groundwater is being drawn down at an unsustainable rate in many areas even though the state has
ample surface water supplies. Participants felt that there should be a shift away from use of
groundwater toward use of surface water. A water recycling effort by Smurfit-Stone is one success story
mentioned by participants. Another example was a shift to surface water from the Sabine River by
Cheetah Oil & Gas.
The group turned to the navigation project, which must be maintained at nine feet depth and ? width.
RRWC has taken on recreational development for the project, promoting recreational uses and creating
access and amenities. Smith asked if aquatic species had been impacted by flood control and was told
that flooding still occurs. The river has been widened and deepened but still can overflow its banks.
Prior to building the project the river bed moved around over time, but that no longer occurs. A
comment was made that the engineered changes to the river, as well as a system of levies, have had
negative consequences for the coastal zone. One participant responded by explaining that, unlike the
navigation project, the levies were built for flood protection in 1945 under a legislative mandate. ACE
does what it does based on mandates from Congress that it must comply with.
Regarding water use by gas production activities in the Haynesville Shale formation, ACE had been
contacted by developers who wanted to pump water out of the river. ACE had no authority to stop
them due to riparian rights. One participant stated that the amount of water demanded “would not
bother the river”.
Some negative effects of the navigation project were brought up. Changes in sediment flow result in
less sedimentation in places and lower water quality in others. The 305(b) report will provide more
information.
One participant added that development is limited in some areas by the lack of accessible water
supplies. Smith pointed out that this is interesting and useful toward understanding the extent to which
land use planning and development are connected to, or disconnected from, the availability of water.
Mr. Dauzat distributed several handouts that pertain to the proposal for changes in water law and
protection of water resources as the meeting was brought to a close.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Aquatic weeds—invasive plants species are a concern in some places.
• Carp are present, but participants are not sure how/if they represent a concern.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 140
• Sufficient data may not exist to determine historical trends in aquatic resources, but such data is
being collected today.
• Changes to ecosystem balance, integrity, and function are facts we have to live with.
• The fishery on the Red River appeared due to the navigation project and is exceeding expectations.
• Navigation has brought significant economic benefits.
• The navigation project has potentially impacted water quality.
• The prospect of interstate sales of water, the overuse of groundwater, and the need to make the best
use of water resources underline the need for developing a statewide law that governs water use and
allocation. The perceived potential for loss of property rights poses a primary impediment to
progress. A strategy and public motivation are needed to succeed.
• The state has ample water supplies overall; water-related challenges stem from the lack of a holistic
approach that takes a long-term view.
Systems
• The Red River navigation project
• Black Lake
• Sabine Lake
• Toledo Bend, below the dam
• The coastal zone
Stresses
• Insufficient freshwater inflows
• Loss of aquatic species
• Water quality
• Saltwater intrusion
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive plants
• Invasive fish (carp)
• Impoundments—for navigation
• Impoundments—for hydropower
• Sediment flow
• Water withdrawals—surface water
• Water withdrawals—groundwater
• Hydrologic modifications
Strategies and Successes
• Mitigation for navigation project: returning marginal farmland to ecological service by re-establishing
bottomland hardwoods there.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 141
• Deepening and widening the river has created a productive fishery.
• Fluctuating levels on the river provide some control over invasive plants.
• Creating a representative, statewide board may be the first step toward creating a holistic approach
to water management in Louisiana, but the public must perceive an urgent need to get it done.
Stakeholders and Information, Projects, and Programs
• Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries – Baton Rouge—species abundance data
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—impact assessments
• Smurfit-Stone—water recycling
• Cheetah Oil & Gas—the shift to surface water
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• The water recycling effort by Smurfit-Stone in NE Louisiana
• Cheetah Oil & Gas: their shift to surface water
• Information and maps on mitigation activity—where lands have been acquired, how much, the status
of those projects, guidelines and objectives for the acquisition, which aquatic ecosystems they may
impact upon
• Fluctuating water levels on the river—what drives the decisions to alter water levels, where does it
happen, and who makes those decisions?
• How the locks and dams are operated—guidelines and objectives
• Saltwater intrusion—groundwater, surface water, estuarine
• Changes in sediment flow and its impact upon water quality, habitat, and anything else aquatic
resources depend upon; how sediment flows have been changed
• The state of shad populations and the competitive influence of carp
• The limitation of development based on access to water
• Efforts to expand access to surface water within the state
[truncated due to redundant text]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 142
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
VFW Hall Post 7287, Coushatta, Louisiana
Tuesday, July 27, 2009, 7:00 to 8:30 PM
In Attendance: Dan Cotton, VFW Post 7287
James Barfield, Town of Coushatta
Dennis Webb, Town of Coushatta
Erica Baxley, Red River Soil & Water Conservation District
Justin Hinkel, Natural Resources Conservation District
Benny Dobson, Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The balance of notes on the discussion, unless noted
otherwise, represent comments from the participants.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has programs which have recovered lots of wooded
bottomland. Participants pointed out that converting marginal farmland to forest improves water
quality and habitat in general. NRCS also offers support to farmers willing to cultivate using reduced
tillage methods and promotes this as a way to reduce erosion and improve productivity. There are
many wildlife-friendly landowners interested in stewardship.
Recreational fishing is important to residents and tournaments are held often. Grand Bayou Reservoir is
nearby and there is a resort located on it. Buddy Fowler is the manager. Fishing and tournaments occur
on the Red River itself as well.
The town of Coushatta uses well water for its public water supply.
Within Red River Parish, there are around 7 water supply systems. Oil & Gas is using a lot of water.
Participants value the jobs that industry brings but recognize the ecological stress their activities can
cause. Requirements for lining brine ponds have been improved, which adds some protection. Farmers
are recirculating water used for irrigation and using more surface water than in prior years. Reuse of
irrigation water allows them to get more benefit out of fertilizer, reducing fertilizer expense. Smith
asked if farmers were able to calculate how much to adjust their application of fertilizers based on the
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 143
amount returned in the recirculated water. There are devices that measure how much water a plant
needs.
Giant salvinia is a big problem on the north end of Toledo Bend and in other water bodies. Someone is
working on a mechanism designed to remove the invasive weed. Smith suggested that if it could be
efficiently harvested and a beneficial use identified, a daunting and perhaps idealistic prospect, perhaps
a market would develop. Participants were not aware of details of the mechanism they had heard was
being developed.
Dumping of trash, junk, and old appliances is a problem in the area. There is no local dump although a
trash removal service is available for about $17 per month. Many residents opt to dump trash illegally
rather than pay for the service or travel to the nearest landfills. The refuse is often dumped where it
poses a contamination threat to water.
Residential development is relatively sparse as the area is primarily rural. Several subdivisions are found
on or near local waters, including Grand Bayou, Magnolia, and Sunset Point. Since these developments
are relatively new (since about 2000) they have modern, two-stage septic systems.
The dominant industries in the area are Oil & Gas, Sawmills/timber, and coal mines. There is a coal mine
that supplies a power plant in the region. Other than that, the dominant land uses in the area are
pasture (about 55,000 acres) and crops (25,000 to 30,000 acres), including hay in the parish.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Landowners in Red River Parish are interested in stewardship of natural resources and programs are
available to support them in that.
• Recreational fishing is important and related development is present, if not dominant.
• Giant salvinia is a big challenge on North Toledo Bend.
• Illegal dumping of trash threatens water quality due to a lack of convenient disposal facilities and
because subscription to trash removal services is not universal.
• Septic systems near local waters are generally modern and meet new, more protective standards.
Systems
• Grand Bayou Reservoir
• Red River
Stresses
None were identified in the meeting.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 144
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive species—giant salvinia
• Water withdrawals—Oil & Gas
Strategies and Successes
• Low tillage methods reduce erosion and improve productivity for farmers.
• NRCS incentives for converting marginal farmlands to wooded bottomlands improves aquatic habitat
and water quality.
• Regulation of brine ponds was strengthened; better linings reduce the possibility of migration.
• Farmers are realizing cost savings by recirculating irrigation water while also reducing demand on
water supply as well as nonpoint pollution.
• Requirements for two-stage septic systems are protective of water quality.
New stakeholders to follow up with
• Buddy Fowler, Grand Bayou Resort
• North American Coal's Red River Mining Company
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• A complete list of aquatic species on the Red and the Sabine that are imperiled or struggling already,
threatened by proposed changes, and unique species
• Specific examples of success stories about low tillage, conversion of marginal bottomland, and
recirculation of irrigation water
• Names and web links of NRCS programs for low tillage, bottomland conversion, and recirculation of
water
• Methods and tools for managing (and adjusting) nutrient application when recirculating water for
irrigation
• Devices and processes under development for harvesting giant salvinia or other invasive plants
Documents and websites of interest:
• Fish Consumption Advisory for Grand Bayou Reservoir
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 145
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Yantis Community Center, Yantis, Texas
Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 6:30 to 8:00 PM
In Attendance: Sam Scroggins, Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association
Clyde Smith, Emory Economic Development Corporation
Sam Scroggins, Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association
Rick Loomis, Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association
Gerald Brown, Lake Fork Sportsmen's Association
Troy Henry
Tim Alexander
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants for their comments on the state of aquatic resources in the area, including
any studies on economic impacts, as well as information about other stakeholders to connect with. One
participant mentioned that Texas A&M University and Texas Parks & Wildlife Department teamed up to
conduct an economic study of Lake Fork in the mid-1990s. The Wood County Industrial Commission has
done economic studies of the area as well, and Gary McKinley would be a good person to contact about
that. The lake is of significant economic importance to the area and is a recreational fishing destination
of national, and even international, importance. Important tournaments are held on the lake and it is
considered a prime destination for bass fishing. One participant has clients who come all the way from
Japan to fish at Lake Fork.
Participants explained a bit about the history of Lake Fork in terms of productivity of the fishery and
recent trends. Constructed in 1980, the lake peaked in terms of fishing in the late 1990s. Fishing is still
good but has declined over the past 6 to 7 years, and locals would like to get it back to what it used to
be. Some habitat has been lost due to removal of hydrilla. The decline in dairy farms in the area may
result in some improvement due to lower loadings of related pollutants. Small dairies were plentiful at
one time, but many have gone out of business in recent years. There also was a virus that affected the
bass population, but that worked itself out. The lake level was down in 2006 due to a regional drought.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 146
Currently, lake levels are pretty stable. That may change as Dallas begins to exercise its option to draw
water from the lake. That city paid for construction of the lake with the objective of supplying future
water demand for its growing population. According to one participant, Lake Fork is the most expensive
place for Dallas to get water, which may cause them to choose other options first.
Smith asked about the state of fish and habitat in the area. One participant stated that he felt our
nation’s waters had been cleaned up since enactment of the Clean Water Act, while Smith and SARP
give the impression that our waters are in decline. Smith agreed that regulation has brought us a long
way toward cleaning up the nation’s waters—rivers don’t catch on fire anymore, the Houston Ship
Channel has fish living in it again. But biologists and resource managers who have studied aquatic
species and habitat for years see signs of decline—imperiled species, loss of species—across the
Southeast U.S. SARP seeks to identify and target priority watersheds and sub-basins within that large
region to focus on. Smith declared that the comments from this meeting do not suggest consideration
of Lake Fork as a priority basin for conservation efforts, which participants surely would believe is a good
thing. Participants agreed that the lake is in good shape.
Smith asked the group to share their beliefs about the need to protect ecosystem integrity, ecosystem
balance, and ecosystem resilience. How much do we know about what happens when we allow the
number of species to decline and how much do/should we care about species we don’t want to catch or
use for bait? Should we put resources into preserving snail darters or other species for which we see no
direct, identifiable benefits to humans? One participant stated that he knows each species perform
some kind of role in the ecosystem and supports preserving some of them, and others gave it some
thought. One other member of the group pointed out that the availability of dollars limits the amount
that we can do.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Invasive aquatic species, particularly hydrilla, are present; some hydrilla can be a good thing.
• Anticipated water withdrawals from Lake Fork to serve demand from the City of Dallas, which owns
rights to the water, are an impending concern.
• The Lake Fork fishery is productive, but locals would like fishing to be restored to what it was 6 or 7
years ago.
• Sports fishing is a major economic and recreational factor.
• Preservation of ecological integrity will be limited by available dollars.
Systems
• Lake Fork
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 147
Stresses
• Less abundant fish
• Habitat loss
• Pathogen—bass virus (currently not present or undetected)
Sources (of stress)
• Invasive plants
• Removal of invasive plants that served as habitat
Strategies and Successes
• Changes in land use and practices—reduction in water quality impacts from dairy farming
Stakeholders and Information, Projects, and Programs
• Texas A&M University and Texas Parks & Wildlife Department—Lake Fork economic study
• Gary McKinley, Wood County Industrial Commission—economic studies
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
The Clean Water Act took us a long way toward cleaning up our nation’s waters, but water quality
impairments are still an issue. Aquatic ecosystems are still affected by water quality, and our concerns
about the state of aquatic resources are also based on other factors, like loss of habitat, wetlands,
biodiversity . . . all of which have an impact on ecosystem integrity, resilience, and balance. Ultimately,
those factors have an effect on the productivity of fisheries and other benefits of the waters. SARP
brings that perspective to the table. Based on our conversation, I think you guys do, too. Given the
significant impact our species can have on natural systems, humans need to be proactive and accept the
job of managing our resources. Your perception of the state of our resources, or state of decline,
depends on what your baseline, acceptable set of conditions is as well as what indicators you track.
Here are some documents I found that may be of interest. They support your perceptions about the
current good condition of Lake Fork as much as they underline the importance of proactivity.
LAKE FORK CREEK HYDROLOGIC UNIT PROJECT REDUCES POLLUTION IN PRIME BASS RESERVOIR
1995 report showing positive results (as of that time) from a program implemented in response to
water quality concerns in the lake. Note the mention of “positive responses” typically appearing
years after action is taken. Proactivity based on environmental indicators and local concern averted
a decline in conditions.
Lake Fork Creek Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Project; same project, different report.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 148
Also see the Lake Fork economic study you told me about.
Lake Fork Watershed Stakeholders
Brochure from a watershed planning group dedicated to the preservation of their Lake Fork, located
in Colorado. Unlike yours, this Lake Fork battles contamination from historic mining in the area but,
other than that, seems to be battling things you guys are aware of and want to prevent.
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• How and where removal of hydrilla has a mal-effect; is there a optimum amount of hydrilla, is it
beneficial in some places and harmful in others, or does the removal process simply leave a void that
native species are too slow to fill?
• Who is conducting invasive species control in the area?
• Status of the Dallas pipeline and implementation of water withdrawals
• The bass virus—what it is and who knows about it
• The decline in the fishery over the past few years—the extent, the indications, and who is tracking it
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
Miller County Courthouse, Texarkana, Arkansas
Tuesday, July 29, 2009, 2:00 to 3:30 PM
In Attendance: Cathey Mueller, Arkansas Red River Commission
Andy Turner, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Ken Brazil, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission
Bob Ransdell, Southwest Arkansas Water District
Drew Wilson, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Justin Smith, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Jackie Runion, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Haze Hudson, Miller County Quorom Court
Jan Jenkins, Millwood Lake Focus Committee
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 149
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
Smith then asked participants to identify the aquatic systems of importance to the area as well as the
relevant issues and key stakeholders to contact. The balance of notes on the discussion, unless noted
otherwise, represent comments from the participants.
The Little River basin came up first and, in particular, Millwood Lake. This is a shallow lake that is
primarily threatened by siltation. A citizen group formed, called the Millwood Lake Focus Committee,
that is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assess the problems and work toward
solutions. The Focus Committee is conducting research, pulling together existing knowledge, including a
1994 study that was done. Contributory sources include timber industry practices, such as clear-cutting
of trees, on privately-owned lands. Poultry operations in the area create a poultry litter problem, and
invasive aquatic plants are present—primarily alligator weed, but hydrilla is also in the lake. The timber
companies in the area are Weyerhauser and International Paper. One participant felt progress may
have been made in convincing them to change their practices somewhat. Tyson was mentioned as a big
player in the area’s poultry industry.
A coal-fired power plant is under construction in the Little River area, but is encountering opposition.
Hunting clubs that are pretty influential are opposing the plant to protect Grassy Lake and an old cypress
forest that has never been logged. The hunting clubs own the land around the lake, which is pristine.
Primary concerns about the lake are sedimentation and water quality. Water is pumped in for duck
season and sometimes is of a degraded quality. Yancey Reynolds, of Hope, AR, is the contact for the
club at Grassy Lake. There is also a club at Yellow Creek.
Smith mentioned that the salinity of the Red River has been a topic at other meetings and asked if that
was an issue in this area. Participants stated that the river is pretty saline even this far below Lake
Texoma.
Regarding the state of recreational fishing, participants pointed out that the fishery at Millwood Lake
had been in decline for several years. From 50 to 60 bait shops have closed. Brim, a species that serves
as food for bass, can’t spawn. There is a general decline in abundance of desired species. Carp are
present and create some problems. Fishing in the Saline River is not good anymore. Siltation is an issue.
Duck hunting gets a lot of interest in the area, but ducks typically are not in the area during the duck
season. There are lots of duck hunters living in the area, but the availability of ducks is limited by the
timing of the season and the fact they are being fed in Canada. Participants felt that Arkansas should
adopt the same season as Texas, adding that the waterfowl habitat is not the problem.
Millwood Lake is too shallow for boating—water skiing, etc. Fishing is the main recreational activity on
the lake.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 150
Land use in the area is dominated by farming and timber.
The Arkansas Red River Commission (ARRC) has been working on a feasibility study for an extension of
the Red River Navigation Project for some time, and recent events have created new challenges for
completing it. The number of businesses interested in utilizing the facilities that would be created is a
key factor in assessing feasibility and, although there initially were enough, the economic crisis has
changed that. This, and an increased federal requirement in the benefit/cost ratio to 3/1, negated much
of the work that had been done. ARRC is reviewing, reconfirming, and recalculating based on the new
conditions and requirements at this time. Environmental impact studies were done and mussels were of
interest. Dams and locks always have significant ecological impacts. An article by LeRoy Poff, of
Colorado State University, about homogenization of rivers was recommended to illuminate this point.
In spite of the aquatic ecological effects of constructing the project, the transport of goods by water is
more economical and consumes less energy than transport by truck.
Another concern is the removal of water from the streams to serve agricultural use and demand from
the growing Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The Red River Compact Commission is charged with ensuring
that each of the four states in the Red River Basin gets the share that was agreed upon. One participant
explained that the Commission has not been successful in making decisions about water law and
allocation. The parties too often settle disputes in court.
Some homeowners are dependent on well water. Bacteriological impairment is a concern. Information
about this would be available from EPA Region 6.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• Excess sediment is causing Millwood Lake, an already shallow reservoir, to fill in, threatening its
function for flood storage as well as impairing its economic productivity and ecological integrity.
• The fishery at Millwood Lake has been in decline for years and brim are unable to spawn, reducing
the food source for bass.
• Clear-cutting and poultry litter are affecting water quality in the Little River watershed.
• Land use is primarily farming and timber.
• Duck habitat is in good shape, duck hunting is popular, but duck season does not coincide with their
presence.
• The extension of the Red River Navigation Project to Texarkana is still undergoing review of its
feasibility, which faces new challenges for the near term.
• Continued and increasing demands for water is reducing water quality and, in particular, increasing
salinity.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 151
• Despite formation of the Red River Compact Commission, disputes about the allocation of water
from the river are typically settled in court.
Systems
• Little River
• Millwood Lake
• Saline River
• Grassy Lake
• Yellow Creek
Stresses
• Excess sedimentation
• Loss of streamside forest
• High salinity
• Pathogens
• Less abundant fish or other aquatic species
• Habitat fragmentation
Sources (of stress)
• Sediment flow too high
• Impoundments—Flood storage
• Impoundments-- Navigation
• Nonpoint pollution—Poultry farming
• Deforestation
• Invasive aquatic species—alligator weed, hydrilla, carp
• Industrial pollution (threatened)
Strategies and Successes
• USACE and Millwood Lake Focus Committee are working together to identify stresses, sources, and
solutions at the watershed scale.
New stakeholders to follow up with
• Millwood Lake Focus Committee
• USACE, Little Rock
• Yancey Reynolds, Hempstead County Hunting Club
• Schultz Family Management Co.
• Po-Boy Land Co.
• Yellow Creek Corp., Yellow Creek Hunting Club
• EPA Region 6
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 152
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Items I am researching and could use some help on are listed below. Any information about who, what,
when, and where will be appreciated, as well as websites, contacts, or whatever you may know that will
aid my search. I need to understand these issues, their status, and their impact upon aquatic
ecosystems—habitat and populations—as well as any success stories from which we can export
strategies where they may be applicable. I am not asking any of you to write a report, just to point me
toward resources.
• A complete list of aquatic species on the Red that are imperiled or struggling already, threatened by
proposed changes, and unique species
• Improvements in timber industry practices in the Little River watershed—who approached them and
what they are doing
• Trends and dynamics in the decline of the Millwood Lake fishery
• Locations and status of projects proposed, underway, or completed for transferring water out of the
river basin
• Impediments to changing the duck season
• Environmental impact studies done for the Red River Navigation Project
Documents and websites of interest:
• Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications, LeRoy Poff
• Fishes of the Red River in Arkansas
[truncated due to redundant text]
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
LSU Ag Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 9:30 to 11:00 AM
In Attendance: Richard Brontoli, Red River Valley Association
Brian Baiamonte, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Amanda Lewis, Red River Watershed Management Institute
David Arnoldi, retired
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 153
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
One participant asked if birds were of interest and offered that the Interior Least Tern is an imperiled
species that inhabits the Red River and has been challenged by the disappearance of sand bars in the
river, which it uses to nest on. A low human impact is needed for this bird to succeed. Hubert Herby,
with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), tracks these birds and Amanda Lewis will provide contact
information for him. Smith stated that aquatic species are the focus but that any species that inhabits
the river may be of interest. It was also pointed out that ACE needs a plan for these birds and already
has one going north on the river, but not in Shreveport because that portion of the project was done in
the 1970s. The Terns need islands as well as sand bars.
A discussion of the Red River navigation project ensued, which has improved the productivity of the
fishery on the river. Deepening and widening of the river took it from a riverine habitat to a lake
environment, with backwaters created in some areas where purchased lands were flooded. Largemouth
Bass “exploded” while some minnows either moved upstream or disappeared. Florida Bass were
introduced. Prior to the navigation project, there was no recreation on the river. Paddlefish have been
seen in the river at the Oxbow. Paddlefish need moving water but can live in pools if some water is
moving. Numbers of paddlefish have increased.
Striped Bass were introduced to Lake Texoma (are not indigenous) and have done well there. The
Washita River is a freshwater stream that flows into the lake. Striped Bass swim up the Washita to
spawn as they would in a coastal environment. Lake Texoma is a saline reservoir on the Red River that
receives the chlorides from natural sources upstream. Since Lake Texoma was built, salinity declined
substantially downstream in Arkansas and Louisiana due to fresh water inflows below Denison Dam.
The USGS does testing of salinity.
Invasive plants, the number one concern according to one participant, are present in the basin.
Challenges in controlling Giant Salvinia include negative effects on other species from overspray during
application and the fact that native species are slow to reestablish—slower than the invasive. Dead and
decaying plants that are successfully exterminated present other problems. Hydrilla offers some
benefits in that it provides habitat for spawning and ducks love it. One participant mentioned that Black
Lake and Clear Lake (including Prairie Lake) are overgrown. Amanda Lewis told us about a farming
project she is working on. The objective is to use it as a soil amendment. While this project uses plot
areas to farm the hydrilla, creating value in the plant could create an incentive to harvest it from
problem areas. Drs. Banks and Gossett are working on tissue analysis of the plants. Dr. Banks is
developing a nontraditional chemical control for Giant Salvinia—a project currently in the experimental
stage.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 154
Smith posed a broad question about the importance of ecosystem or environmental integrity, balance,
and function—what we risk by making decisions based primarily on clearly identifiable human uses of
species, how participants feel when protection of a species blocks a project and whether we should
preserve species that anglers don’t care to use or catch. Participants agreed that it is sometimes hard to
agree with blocking a project based on the needs of one species in one location, but also believe lots of
citizens in the state would side with environmental issues.
Interstate sale of water from the Sabine River is an issue that has put the Sabine River Authority of
Louisiana at odds with the Soil & Water Conservation Districts. One participant felt it is a mistake to sell
water rights, but has no problem with selling water. SRA-LA has authority to sell a certain amount of
water without going through an approval process. Selling water rights may be regretted if wells later
begin to go dry.
On the Red River, states may sell water to the extent that it does not violate allocations agreed to under
the Red River Compact Commission. Oklahoma, for example, could sell water to Texas so long as
enough water is left in the river to satisfy the amount that must flow into Arkansas and Louisiana. Smith
mentioned the idea of a holistic approach to managing stream flows on the entire system, which had
come up in an earlier meeting. One participant suggested that the Compact Commission may be the
right place to do that, and that the idea could be presented to them at their next meeting. ACE has
minimum flows that are not flexible, so those would have to be taken as a starting point. There is an instream flow study in process on the Cypress and Caddo Lake systems.
The Caddo Lake dam is an overflow dam, cannot be managed, and local stakeholders are opposed to
changing that. Caddo Lake Institute is conducting the stream flow study for that system. Other
stakeholders in that area include a Caddo Lake recreation group and Caddo Lake Association.
Wetlands of significance . . . [notes need filling in].
Caddo and Bossier parishes, the City of Shreveport, and ACE are working on a water district and water
treatment for the two parishes, with an eye toward accommodating expansion anticipated north of the
city with the development of I-49 North. A utility district is also in the works.
One other stakeholder mentioned is the friends group for the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. There
is also a local bird study group.
One important land use change has been re-establishment of bottomland hardwood forests, which has
a favorable impact.
--------------------------end of discussion
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 155
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Priorities
• The Interior Least Tern is an imperiled bird species affected by the loss of sandbars and islands in the
Red River. A plan is needed for the Shreveport portion of the navigation project.
• After the navigation project, some fish species either found new habitat upstream or have
disappeared from the river.
• Salinity in the Red River and Lake Texoma comes from natural sources, is important ecologically and
allowed the creation of a Striped Bass fishery; it is also an impediment to human consumptive uses of
the water.
• Invasive plants are a primary concern.
• There is significant support for environmental stewardship among the citizens of Louisiana.
• Water can be sold out of state but caution should be exercised in selling rights, or risking permanent
loss of water rights.
• A holistic, basin-wide management approach to Red River stream flows would be a good idea.
Systems
• The Red River navigation project
• The Oxbow [need to identify]
• Lake Texoma
• Black Lake
• Clear Lake
• Prairie Lake
• Cypress River
• Caddo Lake
• Wetlands of significance [need to identify]
Stresses
• Habitat loss
• Habitat modification
• Habitat fragmentation
• Changes in salinity
• Loss of fish species
Sources (of stress)
• Impoundment (Navigation Project)—navigation, water supply
• Impoundment (Texoma)—recreation, flood control, water supply, hydropower
• Non-native, invasive plants
Strategies and Successes
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 156
• A plan to conserve, preserve, restore habitat for the Interior Least Tern is needed for the Shreveport
portion of the navigation project.
• The navigation project has improved productivity of the sports fishery on the river and generated
new recreational uses.
• Abundance of Paddlefish has increased.
• The construction of Lake Texoma created an environment that mimics the native habitat of the
Striped Bass, which has thrived since its introduction there.
• Construction of Lake Texoma reduced salinity downstream of the dam.
• A hydrilla farming project seeks to determine its potential value as a soil amendment.
• Testing of a nontraditional chemical control for Giant Salvinia is early in the experimental stages.
• The Red River Compact Commission may be the appropriate place for a Red River In-stream flow plan
to reside.
• Re-establishment of bottomland hardwood forests has been beneficial to aquatic resources.
Stakeholders and Information, Projects, and Programs
• Hubert Herby, Army Corps of Engineers: Status of the Interior Least Tern and conservation plan.
• Dr. Stephen Banks, Professor, LSU - Shreveport
• Dr. Dalton Gossett, Professor, LSU - Shreveport
• Caddo Lake Institute
• Caddo Lake recreation group [need to identify]
• Caddo Lake Association
• Friend of the River National Wildlife Refuge
• Bird Study Group
• Red River Compact Commission
• Soil & Water Conservation Districts
• Sabine River Authority of Louisiana
• Caddo – Bossier water district and utility district
• I-49 North project
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
[truncated due to redundant text]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 157
Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Discussion
SARP Community Watershed Project
LSU Ag Center, DeSoto Parish, Louisiana
Thursday, July 30, 2009, 3:00 to 4:30 PM
In Attendance: John Neilson, DeSoto Waterworks
Benny Dobson, Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area
Chuck Griffin, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service
Mary Ann Van Osdell, LSU Ag Center
Brian Baiamonte, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Freddie Allison, De Soto Soil & Water Conservation District
Charles R. Adams, retired—Natural Resource Conservation Service
Joey Register, De Soto Soil & Water Conservation District and DeSoto Farm Bureau
Steve Brown, DeSoto Parish Police Jury
Rex Clark, Town of Logansport
Fred Jones, DeSoto Parish Police Jury
Lisa Register, DeSoto Farm Bureau
Meeting Facilitator:
Mike Smith, Project Manager, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
DISCUSSION:
[truncated due to redundant text (see City of Orange summary introduction)]
This stimulated some questions about how the project could affect the local community. Specifically, a
concern was raised that the report may result in regulatory requirements from EPA that would be
onerous for agricultural interests. One participant wondered if, for example, the report may state that
DeSoto Parish generates a lot of nonpoint pollution. Smith assured participants that SARP has no
regulatory authority but acknowledged that he has no influence over EPA policy and can make no
promises about what they will do in the future. While many of its partners are charged with
promulgating and enforcing regulations, SARP is asking participants in this project for their input with
regard to conservation of aquatic resources, including recommendations for strategies. This project
provides an opportunity for local stakeholders to communicate their knowledge and concerns to SARP
so they may be taken into account in planning. Smith agreed that nonpoint pollution is a common topic
in discussions of aquatic environmental stresses and that agriculture is considered a source, although
other land uses are also recognized as significant sources, such as urban development.
Smith asked if participants would support 1) the use of incentives to reduce nonpoint pollution, as an
alternative to mandating controls or management practices, or 2) research efforts to identify the actual
sources of nonpoint pollution. One participant mentioned that testing of runoff from land in agricultural
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 158
use has not shown levels of pollution that are of concern. Smith mentioned the Buck Creek Project,
which used genotyping to identify the sources of bacteriological contamination in an impaired North
Texas watershed. This approach, developed and implemented by the agricultural extension service,
allowed landowners and authorities to understand the nature of the problem before implementing
costly solutions.
One participant reported that local authorities have already developed a watershed plan, which entailed
substantial research and studies. Smith explained that such plans and studies should be included in the
project database since SARP wishes to make use of existing efforts and avoid duplication. SARP is an
alliance of existing entities designed to improve their collective effectiveness, not to add redundant
layers of bureaucracy. Participants insisted that management decisions should be made at the local
level and that they do not want agencies making decisions for them. Smith mentioned the network of
watershed coordinators being developed in the state, and that the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has recognized the necessity of handling watershed management at the
local level. At least one participant was concerned that the LDEQ was funding the watershed
coordinator program. Benny Dobson, of Twin Valley Resource Conservation & Development Area and
charged with hiring one of the coordinators, assured others that watershed coordinators reporting to
him would have to subordinate their own priorities to those of the local population.
Steve Brown, of the DeSoto Parish Police Jury, suggested that Smith attend one of their meetings. Smith
stated that it may be possible and even useful in developing the approach to connecting SARP with local
decision makers, but that travel budgeted for the project was completed. He agreed to contemplate the
invitation in light of constraints of time and budget, consult his associates, and respond to the invitation.
Recreational fishing was discussed and is of significant economic importance. The northern end of
Toledo Bend Reservoir is nearby and participants expressed an interest in developing recreational
fishing further. Regarding the state of aquatic resources, participants said that fishing is pretty good.
One participant had heard from commercial fishers who had seen Giant Salvinia at Grand Isle.
Primary industries mentioned for the area were:
Forestry/Timber
Farming (eastern side of the parish)
Oil and gas extraction
Lignite mining
Power generation (CLECO plant nearby)
Smith asked for thoughts on water use and allocation. Participants stated that groundwater sources are
being depleted, lots of wells have been permitted, and that Oil & Gas extraction will continue to tax
those resources. Smith asked if they thought progress had been made in persuading Oil & Gas interests
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 159
to reduce their use of groundwater. Participants felt that the availability of the parish water supply
system, which utilizes surface water, had helped some but that Oil & Gas operations would use their
groundwater permits wherever it was more convenient.
Smith asked if there was any support for creating a state water law. Participants said they were
concerned about the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, for which a bill is moving through Congress
presently. They believe the bill would remove the word “non-navigable waters” from the law and
subject all water, even farm ponds, to regulation. One participant characterized the establishment of a
water law in Louisiana as a double-edged sword; it would benefit landowners to the extent that it limits
Oil & Gas water use, but government control of water usually results in difficulties.
Regarding the sale of water out of state, participants recognized the revenue generated as a benefit but
are also aware of the threat of losing rights to the water forever.
Briefly revisiting the matter of agricultural use of fertilizer, one participant offered that the rise in price
of fertilizer had helped to reduce its use.
--------------------------end of discussion
SUMMARY OF TAKEAWAYS:
Issues and Preferences
• Participants do not want regulations implemented to control nonpoint pollution from agriculture.
• Watershed management decisions should be made locally.
• Additional development of recreational fishing would be welcome.
• Use of groundwater should be curtailed, but probably not through regulation.
Strategies and Successes
• Watershed planning has been implemented at the local level.
• Creation of DeSoto Parish Waterworks made use of surface water more convenient, and could
reduce use of groundwater.
• Market price fluctuations have inspired more judicious use of fertilizer.
FACILITATOR FOLLOWUP COMMENTS:
Land use information is widely available and already utilized for research to support decision making.
My report will characterize land uses but not with any precision. SARP and its partners will surely rely
on existing data to analyze land use in specific watersheds. This project, along with participation in it,
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 160
adds your interests and concerns to the pool of information that supports decision making. I believe
that SARP’s outreach provides you with an opportunity rather than a threat.
One concern of yours that will go into my report is about the onerous nature of a regulatory approach to
mitigating nonpoint pollution. That message I got quite clearly. What I did not get clearly was whether
you would be willing to support and possibly participate in either of the two nonregulatory approaches
to dealing with nonpoint pollution that I mentioned: 1) identifying the actual sources of nonpoint
pollution through research and 2) utilizing incentives, rather than mandating controls or management
practices. Any information on alternative strategies will be of great interest to me. Bear in mind that a
prime takeaway from my meeting with the author of the Buck Creek study was that taking ownership of
the alleged problem put them in the driver’s seat rather than at the mercy of regulators.
[truncated due to redundant text]
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 161
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings (slides 1-6)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 162
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings (slides 7-12)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 163
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings (slides 13-18)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 164
Presentation Made at Stakeholder Meetings (slides 19-22)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 165
Appendix C – Survey Instrument and Results
Survey Title:
Launched:
Closed:
Conservation Priorities for Aquatic Resources
September 25, 2009
October 9, 2009
Survey Recap
Count
Total Invitations Sent
%
264
NA
10
NA
254
NA
Total Unsubscribed
1
0.4%
Total Abandoned
7
2.8%
30
11.8%
113
44.5%
98
38.6%
Total Undeliverable
Net Invitations Distributed
Total Responses Partially Completed
Total Responses Submitted as Complete
*
Total Responses Actually Complete
*
15 responses were submitted with demographics but no ratings of sub-basins or species and are excluded from this total.
Definitions
Abandoned responses: Respondent opened the survey but closed it without entering any responses.
Partially completed response: Respondent entered some responses but did not submit it as completed.
Responses submitted as complete: Responded entered at least some responses and selected “Finished?
Submit your survey” in the closing screen of the survey.
Objectives and Constraints
The goal of this survey was to get stakeholders to rate sub-basins and species in terms of their priority
for conservation. Stakeholders receiving invitations were selected for their presumed knowledge of the
basins and of the state of aquatic resources. Key staff of the state wildlife agencies, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, the river authorities,
along with other key stakeholders identified during the course of the project known to have substantial
and relevant knowledge and interest received personal invitations to take the survey. A minimum of
survey questions were set as required (respondent was forced to enter a response to continue) to allow
respondents to limit responses to those they felt qualified to offer. Required questions are noted as
such in the section Summary Response Detail, below. Questions aimed at assessing demographics or
expertise were included to aid in evaluating responses but those which offered no ratings of sub-basins
and species were not considered useful. None of the partially completed responses included any ratings
nor did 15 of those submitted as complete.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 166
Opening page as it appeared online:
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 167
Survey Response Detail (Responses are compiled for each survey question.)
1. If you are not familiar with SARP or their work that is underway in these two river
basins, select “Read More”.
Value
Read More
Total Responses:
Response count
14
14
2. Organization Representing (optional)
Alphabetical
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Caddo Parish Soil & Water Conservation District
Concerned Citizens for Millwood Lake
DeSoto Farm Bureau
Fort Sill Environmental Division
Friends of Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Texoma Association
Lamar State College
League of Women Voters of Wichita Falls
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
LSU Ag Extension
LSUS Red River Watershed Management Institute
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Parish of Caddo Parks and Recreation Department
Quartz Mountain Nature Park
Red River Valley Association
Red River Waterways Commission
Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana
Sabine River Compact Administration
Southwest Outdoors
Stephen F. Austin State University College of Forestry
Stephen F. Austin State University - Environmental Science
Texas Christian University
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
The Nature Conservancy
Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
Toledo Bend Project Joint Operations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
University of Oklahoma Biological Station
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Total Responses:
Response count
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
6
1
1
15
9
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
3
1
1
6
3
6
1
98
%
3.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
4.1%
6.1%
1.0%
1.0%
15.3%
9.2%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
17.3%
3.1%
1.0%
1.0%
6.1%
3.1%
6.1%
1.0%
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 168
By Category
State Agencies
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Federal Agencies
Natural Resource Conservation Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army - Fort Sill Environmental Division
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Response count
41
3
4
6
9
2
17
30
15
6
2
6
1
Citizen Groups
Concerned Citizens for Millwood Lake
Friends of Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Texoma Association
Toledo Bend Bi-State Alliance
4
1
1
1
1
Academic/Research
Lamar State College
LSUS Red River Watershed Management Institute
Stephen F. Austin State University College of Forestry
Stephen F. Austin State University - Environmental Science
Texas Christian University
University of Oklahoma Biological Station
8
1
1
1
1
1
3
Economic Development
Red River Valley Association
1
1
River Authorities
Red River Waterways Commission
Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana
Sabine River Compact Administration
Toledo Bend Project Joint Operations
4
1
1
1
1
Agriculture/Conservation Districts
Caddo Parish Soil & Water Conservation District
DeSoto Farm Bureau
LSU Ag Extension
3
1
1
1
Non-government Organizations
League of Women Voters of Wichita Falls
The Nature Conservancy
4
1
3
Miscellaneous
Parish of Caddo Parks and Recreation Department
Quartz Mountain Nature Park (private state park, OK)
Southwest Outdoors (online fishing magazine)
3
1
1
1
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 169
3. Zip Code
Zip
39183
70578
70601
70607
70615
70802
70808
70898
71019
71049
71052
71107
71115
71162
71209
71360
71403
Count
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
Zip
71429
71446
71449
71451
71457
71485
71801
71822
71854
72034
72201
72205
72207
72701
73072
73099
73105
4. State
State
TX
LA
OK
AR
MS
OH
Count
40
30
28
10
1
1
110
Zip
73118
73152
73439
73460
73503
73507
73527
73552
73655
74074
74104
74129
74578
74701
74729
74745
75020
6.
%
36.4%
27.3%
25.5%
9.1%
0.9%
0.9%
Total Responses
5. Parish (LA)
Parish
Caddo
Calcasieu
East Baton Rouge
Sabine
De Soto
Natchitoches
Rapides
Red River
Acadia
Ouachita
Vernon
Total Responses:
Count
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Count
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
29
Count
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
6
Zip
75076
75077
75661
75672
75702
75707
75948
75951
75962
76129
76133
76230
76301
76302
76309
76360
76365
County (TX)
County
Grayson
Harrison
Wichita
Hays
Jasper
Nacogdoches
Orange
Randall
Smith
Tarrant
Archer
Brazos
Clay
Hall
Hardin
Harris
Jefferson
Montague
Newton
Palo Pinto
Potter
Sabine
Travis
Total Responses:
Count
Zip
1
76385
1
76449
1
77532
2
77630
1
77631
1
77632
1
77642
2
77656
2
77843
1
78666
1
78667
1
78744
1
79015
1
79106
1
79109
1
1
Total Responses:
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
110
7. County (AK)
Count
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
38
County
Pulaski
Little River
Faulkner
Hempstead
Miller
Washington
Total Responses:
Count
4
2
1
1
1
1
10
8. County (OK)
County
Bryan
Comanche
Oklahoma
Marshall
Johnston
Tulsa
Canadian
Cleveland
Greer
Latimer
McCurtain
Total Responses:
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Count
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
24
Page 170
9. ORGANIZATION TYPE (Check the
one that best reflects your role in
completing the survey)*
Type (single select, Required)
State Government
Federal Government
Non-governmental
organization
Individual
Citizen/Grassroots
Regional Government
Local Government
Alliance
Business or Industry
Landowner
Trade/Industry association
Total Responses:
Count
54
31
%
47.8%
27.4%
10
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
113
8.8%
4.4%
3.5%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
10. OCCUPATION (Check all that apply)*
Occupation (multi-select, Required)
Natural resource management
Conservation
Fishing, recreational
Water quality management
Research
Water supply management
(environmental)
Agriculture
Water supply management (human)
Policy, Regulation and Law
Forestry/Timber
Land use planning
Fishing, commercial
Economic Development
Industrial, including power generation
Self-employed
Volunteer
Real Estate
OTHER - Aquatic Toxicologist
OTHER - conservation education
OTHER - fARMER....... How could that
category be omitted ? [The category
“Agriculture” was an option – Proj. Mgr.]
OTHER - Feasibility Study for navigating
Red River to AR/TX/OK
Financial
OTHER - Fish Hatchery Manager
OTHER - Fisheries Biologist
OTHER - Geomorphic restoration of
streams
OTHER - Graduate Student
OTHER - Higher Education Biology
Oil & Gas, Mining
OTHER - Parks and Recreation
OTHER - Parks Regional Director
OTHER - Public campground
Retired
OTHER - state fish and wildlife conservation
agency
Total Responses:
Count
60
56
36
33
25
%
53.1%
49.6%
31.9%
29.2%
22.1%
24
17
17
16
11
11
8
7
6
3
3
2
1
1
21.2%
15.0%
15.0%
14.2%
9.7%
9.7%
7.1%
6.2%
5.3%
2.7%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.9%
1
0.9%
1
1
1
1
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
1
113
0.9%
A multi-select response list with one “Other” option was
provided in the survey. Original text for “other” responses is
recorded above as entered by respondents.
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 171
11. How knowledgeable are you about each of the following?
Topic
Fisheries Management
Sports Fishing
Wildlife Management
Water Quality
Water Supply Management (human consumption)
Water Inflows (ecosystems)
Land use planning
Agricultural practices
Engineering
Economics
Wildlife or Fisheries Research
Environmental Health Assessment, Planning, or Design
Total Responses: 113
No significant
knowledge
15
13.3%
13
11.5%
7
6.2%
2
1.8%
29
25.7%
9
8.0%
29
25.7%
18
15.9%
58
51.3%
26
23.0%
9
8.0%
20
17.7%
Somewhat
knowledgeable
41
36.3%
40
35.4%
52
46.0%
41
36.3%
63
55.8%
52
46.0%
46
40.7%
57
50.4%
39
34.5%
68
60.2%
46
40.7%
63
55.8%
Very
knowledgeable
33
29.2%
41
36.3%
45
39.8%
54
47.8%
17
15.0%
43
38.1%
31
27.4%
31
27.4%
11
9.7%
12
10.6%
32
28.3%
22
19.5%
Expert
20 17.7%
16 14.2%
8
7.1%
14 12.4%
0
0.0%
6
5.3%
3
2.7%
6
5.3%
1
0.9%
1
0.9%
24 21.2%
5
4.4%
12. Please select the state(s) in which you primarily
conduct your work with aquatic species.
State (multi-select)
Texas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Arkansas
New Mexico
Total Responses:
Response Count
47
37
32
14
1
113
%
41.6%
32.7%
28.3%
12.4%
0.9%
13. Which river systems to you feel qualified to
comment on? You may select more than one.*
River System (multi-select)
Red River
Sabine River
Neches River
Total Responses:
Response Count
86
38
13
113
%
76.1%
33.6%
11.5%
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 172
14. Please select the imperiled species you feel qualified to comment on. Choose all those
you know about that occur in the Sabine River system. Your selections will appear in
the next screen where you can assign priority levels. The selections provided are
imperiled fish; feel free to enter any other aquatic species under "Other".
Species (Sabine River Basin)
Alligator Gar
Paddlefish
Blue Sucker
Sabine shiner
American eel
Harlequin Darter
Western Sand Darter
Bigscale Logperch
Chain Pickerel
Pallid Shiner (Chub)
Blackside Darter
Brown Bullhead
Suckermouth Minnow
Blackspot Shiner
Creole Darter
Crystal Darter
Lake Chubsucker
River Darter
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Swamp Darter
Alabama Shad
Black Buffalo
Brown Madtom
Creek chubsucker
Goldstripe Darter
Ironcolor Shiner
Mountain Madtom
Orangebelly Darter
Prairie Speckled Chub
Silverband shiner
Southern Brook Lamprey
OTHER - Freshwater mussels
OTHER - Macrobrachium spp (freshwater shrimp)
OTHER - Sandbank pocketbook.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas heelsplitter.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas pigtoe.(mussel)
Total Responses:
Response Count
20
15
11
11
10
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
%
80.0%
60.0%
44.0%
44.0%
40.0%
24.0%
24.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
Page 173
15. Please rate each species listed below in terms of its priority for conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents
selecting that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a
scale of 1 - 3, with 3 being the highest.
Species (Sabine River Basin)
Alabama Shad
Crystal Darter
Goldstripe Darter
Mountain Madtom
Orangebelly Darter
Shovelnose Sturgeon
OTHER - Freshwater mussels
OTHER - Sandbank pocketbook.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas heelsplitter.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas pigtoe.(mussel)
River Darter
Western Sand Darter
Suckermouth Minnow
Paddlefish
Blue Sucker
Sabine shiner
American eel
Bigscale Logperch
Black Buffalo
Blackside Darter
Brown Madtom
Creek chubsucker
Creole Darter
Harlequin Darter
Ironcolor Shiner
Pallid Shiner (Chub)
Prairie Speckled Chub
Silverband shiner
Southern Brook Lamprey
Swamp Darter
OTHER - Macrobrachium spp (freshwater shrimp)
Alligator Gar
Chain Pickerel
Brown Bullhead
Blackspot Shiner
Lake Chubsucker
Saltmarsh Topminnow
High
Priority
(Level 3)
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
7
4
4
2
1
1
1
6
1
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
1
3
2
3
4
4
5
2
1
3
1
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
6
1
2
1
1
4
2
3
2
1
1
1
8
2
1
1
1
2
Average
Priority
Level
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.33
2.21
2.20
2.09
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.90
1.75
1.67
1.50
1.50
1.00
Total
Respondents
Rating
Species
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
3
14
10
11
9
4
1
3
1
1
2
6
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
20
4
3
2
2
2
Total Responses: 97
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 174
16. Please select the Sabine River system sub-basins you are qualified to comment on.
Note that the HUC codes are provided here as well as on the project area map.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Lower Sabine 12010005
Toledo Bend Reservoir 12010004
Middle Sabine 12010002
Sabine Lake 12040201
Upper Sabine 12010001
Lake Fork 12010003
OTHER - Murvaul Reservoir
OTHER - Naconiche Reservoir (New)
OTHER - Sam Rayburn Reservoir
Response Count
19
18
12
10
9
6
1
1
1
34
Total Responses:
%
55.9%
52.9%
35.3%
29.4%
26.5%
17.6%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
17. Please rate each sub-basin you selected from the Sabine River system in terms of its
priority for conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents selecting
that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a scale of 1 - 3,
with 3 being the highest.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Toledo Bend Reservoir 12010004
Sabine Lake 12040201
Lower Sabine 12010005
Middle Sabine 12010002
OTHER - Murvaul Reservoir (Middle Sabine 12010002)
Upper Sabine 12010001
Lake Fork 12010003
Total Responses:
High
Priority
(Level 3)
11
5
10
6
3
1
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
4
3
7
3
1
4
2
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
1
1
Average
Priority
Level
2.63
2.63
2.59
2.50
2.00
2.43
2.33
Total
Respondents
Rating
Sub-basin
16
8
17
10
1
7
3
97
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 175
18. Please select the imperiled species you feel qualified to comment on. Choose all those
you know about that occur in the Red River system. Your selections will appear in
the next screen where you can assign priority levels. The selections provided are
imperiled fish; feel free to enter any other aquatic species under “Other”.
Species (Red River Basin)
Paddlefish
Alligator Gar
Leopard Darter
Red River Pupfish
Blue Sucker
American eel
Arkansas River Shiner
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Chain Pickerel
Red River Shiner
Orangebelly Darter
Plains Minnow
Blackside Darter
Central Stoneroller
Creek chubsucker
Brown Bullhead
Goldeye
Bigscale Logperch
Blackspot Shiner
Bluehead Shiner
Crystal Darter
Harlequin Darter
Swamp Darter
Taillight Shiner
Alabama Shad
Arkansas River Speckled Chub
Ironcolor Shiner
Ouachita Mountain Shiner
Prairie chub
River Darter
Suckermouth Minnow
Western Sand Darter
Black Buffalo
Brown Madtom
Chub Shiner
Creole Darter
Goldstripe Darter
Lake Chubsucker
Ouachita Shiner
Peppered (Colorless) Shiner
Prairie Speckled Chub
Sabine shiner
Silverband shiner
Response Count
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
33
31
13
13
12
10
10
10
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
%
66.0%
62.0%
26.0%
26.0%
24.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
14.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
10.0%
10.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
Page 176
Southern Brook Lamprey
Kiamichi Shiner
Mountain Madtom
Redspot Chub
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Slenderhead Darter
OTHER - Blue Catfish
OTHER - Ouachita rock pocketbook (mussel)
OTHER - Striped bass
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
49
Total Responses:
4.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
4.0%
19. Please rate each species you selected for the Red River basin in terms of its priority for
conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents
selecting that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a
scale of 1 - 3, with 3 being the highest.
Species (Red River Basin)
Alabama Shad
Brown Madtom
Mountain Madtom
Ouachita Mountain Shiner
Ouachita Shiner
Redspot Chub
Slenderhead Darter
OTHER - Blue Catfish
OTHER - Ouachita rock pocketbook
OTHER - Striped Bass
Leopard Darter
Crystal Darter
Paddlefish
Blue Sucker
Bluehead Shiner
Chub Shiner
Creole Darter
Goldstripe Darter
Harlequin Darter
Alligator Gar
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Western Sand Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Swamp Darter
American eel
Orangebelly Darter
Blackside Darter
Kiamichi Shiner
Peppered (Colorless) Shiner
Prairie chub
Prairie Speckled Chub
Red River Shiner
High
Priority
(Level 3)
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
11
3
20
7
3
1
1
1
2
17
5
1
6
2
4
1
1
2
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
1
1
1
9
4
1
1
1
2
8
4
2
1
1
4
5
4
1
2
3
2
4
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
3
1
1
5
1
3
1
2
1
2
Average
Priority
Level
2.67
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.92
2.75
2.53
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.40
2.33
2.30
2.25
2.20
2.17
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Total
Respondents
Rating
Species
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
12
4
32
12
4
2
2
2
4
30
10
3
10
4
10
6
6
1
2
3
2
8
Page 177
River Darter
Southern Brook Lamprey
Suckermouth Minnow
Taillight Shiner
Red River Pupfish
Goldeye
Bigscale Logperch
Blackspot Shiner
Creek chubsucker
Plains Minnow
Lake Chubsucker
Sabine shiner
Silverband shiner
Brown Bullhead
Arkansas River Speckled Chub
Chain Pickerel
Ironcolor Shiner
Central Stoneroller
Black Buffalo
Saltmarsh Topminnow
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
2
6
2
5
2
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.85
1.80
1.75
1.75
1.67
1.57
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.40
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.17
1.00
1.00
3
2
3
4
13
5
4
4
6
7
2
2
2
5
3
9
3
6
2
1
Total Responses: 98
20. Please select the Red River system sub-basins you are qualified to comment on.
Note that the HUC codes are provided here as well as on the project area map.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Lake Texoma 11130210
Caddo Lake 11140306
Kiamichi 11140105
Lower Little 11140109
Mountain Fork 11140108
Upper Salt Fork Red 11120201
Wichita 11130206
Bayou Pierre 11140206
Black Lake Bayou 11140209
Blue 11140102
Cache 11130202
Little Wichita 11130209
Lower North Fork Red 11120303
Lower Washita 11130304
Upper North Fork Red 11120301
West Cache 11130203
Clear Boggy 11140104
Lower Salt Fork Red 11120202
Bodcau Bayou 11140205
Cross Bayou 11140304
Elm Fork Red 11120304
Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 11120105
Middle North Fork Red 11120302
Response count
24
15
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
%
34.8%
21.7%
15.9%
15.9%
14.5%
14.5%
14.5%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
11.6%
11.6%
10.1%
10.1%
10.1%
10.1%
10.1%
Page 178
Muddy Boggy 11140103
Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 11120103
Upper Washita 11130302
Bois D'arc-Island 11140101
Lower Red-Lake Iatt 11140207
Middle Washita 11130303
Saline Bayou 11140208
Washita headwaters 11130301
Lake O'the Pines 11140305
Little Cypress 11140307
Loggy Bayou 11140203
Red Chute 11140204
Upper Little 11140107
Farmers-Mud 11130201
North Wichita 11130204
South Wichita 11130205
Northern Beaver 11130208
Palo Duro 11120102
Southern Beaver 11130207
Tierra Blanca 11120101
Tule 11120104
Blue-China 11130102
Other - Lake Texoma
Lower Calcasieu 08080206
Lower Sulphur 11140302
Mckinney-Posten Bayous 11140201
Middle Red-Coushatta 11140202
Pease 11130105
Whisky Chitto 08080204
OTHER - Wright Patman (Lower Sulphur 11140302)
Groesbeck-Sandy 11130101
Middle Pease 11130104
North Pease 11130103
Pecan-Waterhole 11140106
Sulphur headwaters 11140301
Upper Calcasieu 08080203
West Fork Calcasieu 08080205
White Oak Bayou 11140303
OTHER - Lake Wright Patman (Lower Sulphur 11140302)
OTHER - Bob Sandlin (Lake O'the Pines 11140305)
OTHER – Caddo (Caddo Lake 11140306)
OTHER - Cooper (11130209 OR 11140301, there are 2 Cooper lakes)
OTHER - Cypress Springs (Lake O'the Pines 11140305)
OTHER - Hugo Lake (Kiamichi 11140105)
OTHER - Lake Baylor (Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 11120105)
OTHER - Lake Greenbelt (Upper Salt Fork Red 11120201)
OTHER - Lake Lugert -Altus (Middle North Fork Red 11120302)
OTHER - Lake Meredith (outside project area)
OTHER - Millwood Lake (Lower Little 11140109)
OTHER - Sardis Lake (Kiamichi 11140105)
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.1%
10.1%
10.1%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
7.3%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
2.9%
5.8%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Page 179
OTHER - upper Red to Ark stateline
OTHER - Ute Lake New Mexico (outside project area)
1
1
69
Total Responses:
1.5%
1.5%
21. Please rate each sub-basin you selected from the Red River system in terms of its
priority for conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents selecting
that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a scale of 1 - 3,
with 3 being the highest.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Blue 11140102
Kiamichi 11140105
OTHER - Hugo Lake (Kiamichi 11140105)
OTHER - Sardis Lake (Kiamichi 11140105)
Middle Pease 11130104
North Pease 11130103
Mountain Fork 11140108
Caddo Lake 11140306
Lake Texoma 11130210
Little Cypress 11140307
Lower Little 11140109
OTHER - Millwood Lake (Lower Little 11140109)
Lower Sulphur 11140302
OTHER - Wright Patman (Lower Sulphur 11140302)
Pease 11130105
Lower North Fork Red 11120303
Upper Little 11140107
Black Lake Bayou 11140209
Cache 11130202
Little Wichita 11130209
West Cache 11130203
Bayou Pierre 11140206
Bois D'arc-Island 11140101
Lake O'the Pines 11140305
OTHER - Bob Sandlin (Lake O'the Pines 11140305)
OTHER - Cypress Springs (Lake O'the Pines 11140305)
Wichita 11130206
Bodcau Bayou 11140205
Clear Boggy 11140104
Elm Fork Red 11120304
Lower Red-Lake Iatt 11140207
Saline Bayou 11140208
Middle North Fork Red 11120302
OTHER - Lake Lugert -Altus (Middle North Fork Red
11120302)
Upper Washita 11130302
Lower Salt Fork Red 11120202
Blue-China 11130102
Cross Bayou 11140304
High
Priority
(Level 3)
7
11
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
2
3
1
1
8
13
18
3
6
1
1
1
5
3
3
3
4
5
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
9
2
4
1
3
1
3
1
5
5
4
2
6
3
4
4
5
3
3
5
5
4
2
5
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
Average
Priority
Level
3.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.80
2.73
2.67
2.60
2.60
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.50
2.44
2.40
2.38
2.38
2.33
2.33
2.25
2.25
2.20
1.00
1.00
2.20
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.14
Total
Respondents
Rating
Sub-basin
7
11
2
3
1
1
10
15
27
5
10
1
2
3
2
9
5
8
8
9
9
8
4
5
1
1
10
6
6
6
6
6
7
3.00
2.14
2.13
2.00
2.00
1
7
8
1
6
2
1
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 180
Groesbeck-Sandy 11130101
Loggy Bayou 11140203
Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 11120105
OTHER - Lake Baylor (Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red
11120105)
Lower Washita 11130304
Mckinney-Posten Bayous 11140201
Middle Red-Coushatta 11140202
Muddy Boggy 11140103
Pecan-Waterhole 11140106
Southern Beaver 11130207
Sulphur headwaters 11140301
OTHER - Cooper (11130209 OR 11140301, there are 2
Cooper lakes)
Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 11120103
Washita headwaters 11130301
White Oak Bayou 11140303
OTHER - upper Red to Ark stateline
Upper North Fork Red 11120301
Red Chute 11140204
Upper Salt Fork Red 11120201
OTHER - Lake Greenbelt (Upper Salt Fork Red 11120201)
Northern Beaver 11130208
Middle Washita 11130303
Farmers-Mud 11130201
North Wichita 11130204
South Wichita 11130205
Palo Duro 11120102
Tierra Blanca 11120101
Tule 11120104
OTHER - Lake Meredith (outside project area)
OTHER - Ute Lake New Mexico (outside project area)
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
3
4
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
4
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2.00
2.00
2.00
1
5
7
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1
8
2
2
6
1
3
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.89
1.80
1.78
2.00
1.67
1.60
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.33
1.33
1.33
2.00
2.00
1
7
6
1
1
9
5
9
1
3
5
2
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
Total Responses: 98
22. Please select the imperiled species you feel qualified to comment on. Choose all those
you know about that occur in the Neches River system. Your selections will appear in
the next screen where you can assign priority levels. The selections provided are
imperiled fish; feel free to enter any other aquatic species under “Other”.
Species (Neches River Basin)
Alligator Gar
Paddlefish
American eel
Harlequin Darter
Bigscale Logperch
Blue Sucker
Chain Pickerel
Pallid Shiner (Chub)
Western Sand Darter
Response Count
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
8
6
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
%
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Page 181
Blackspot Shiner
Brown Bullhead
Creek chubsucker
Crystal Darter
Goldstripe Darter
Lake Chubsucker
Prairie chub
Prairie Speckled Chub
Sabine shiner
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Silverband shiner
Taillight Shiner
OTHER - Louisiana pigtoe; Triangle pigtoe; Texas pigtoe.(mussels)
OTHER - Sandband pocketbook.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas heelsplitter; Southern hickorynut.(mussels)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Total Responses:
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
23. Please rate each species listed below in terms of its priority for conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents
selecting that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a
scale of 1 - 3, with 3 being the highest.
Species (Neches River Basin)
Crystal Darter
Goldstripe Darter
Shovelnose Sturgeon
OTHER - Louisiana pigtoe.(mussel)
OTHER - Triangle pigtoe.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas pigtoe.(mussel)
OTHER - Sandband pocketbook.(mussel)
OTHER - Texas heelsplitter.(mussel)
OTHER - Southern hickorynut.(mussel)
Paddlefish
American eel
Blue Sucker
Chain Pickerel
Pallid Shiner (Chub)
Alligator Gar
Brown Bullhead
Creek chubsucker
Harlequin Darter
Prairie chub
Prairie Speckled Chub
Sabine shiner
Silverband shiner
Taillight Shiner
Western Sand Darter
Bigscale Logperch
Blackspot Shiner
High
Priority
(Level 3)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
3
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
2
1
1
Average
Priority
Level
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.67
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.13
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Total
Respondents
Rating
Species
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
4
2
2
2
8
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Page 182
Lake Chubsucker
Saltmarsh Topminnow
1
1
1.00
1.00
1
1
Total Responses: 94
24. Please select the Neches River system sub-basins you are qualified to comment on.
Note that the HUC codes are provided here as well as on the project area map.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Lower Neches 12020003
Middle Neches 12020002
Upper Neches 12020001
Upper Angelina 12020004
Lower Angelina 12020005
Village 12020006
Pine Island Bayou 12020007
OTHER - Nacodoches Reservoir (Upper Angelina 12020004)
OTHER - Naconiche Reservoir (Lower Angelina 12020005)
OTHER - Sam Rayburn Reservoir (Lower Angelina 12020005)
Response Count
9
8
6
5
4
2
1
1
1
1
12
Total Responses:
%
75.0%
66.7%
50.0%
41.7%
33.3%
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
25. Please rate each sub-basin you selected from the Neches River system in terms of its
priority for conservation.
The first 3 columns represent the number of respondents selecting
that priority. The 4th shows the average rating on a scale of 1 - 3,
with 3 being the highest.
Sub-Basin ("Other" = lake or stream typed by respondent)
Lower Neches 12020003
Village 12020006
Middle Neches 12020002
Lower Angelina 12020005
Other - Naconiche Reservoir (Lower Angelina 12020005)
Other - Sam Rayburn Reservoir (Lower Angelina 12020005)
Upper Neches 12020001
Upper Angelina 12020004
Other - Nacodoches Reservoir (Upper Angelina 12020004)
Pine Island Bayou 12020007
High
Priority
(Level 3)
9
2
6
3
1
4
3
Medium
Priority
(Level 2)
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Low
Priority
(Level 1)
Average
Priority
Level
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
3.00
2.00
2.67
2.60
2.00
2.00
Total
Respondents
Rating
Sub-basin
9
2
8
4
1
1
6
5
1
1
Total Responses: 97
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 183
26. Please indicate your highest
level of Education
completed.
Education Level
Post Graduate Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Associate’s Degree
High School
Technical School
Total Responses:
Count
61
46
2
2
1
%
54.5%
41.1%
1.8%
1.8%
0.9%
112
27. Your age, please.
Age
50 – 60
42 – 49
26 – 33
61 – 70
34 – 41
18 – 25
71 and older
Total
Responses:
Count
40
25
18
13
12
2
2
28. Sex.
%
35.7%
22.3%
16.1%
11.6%
10.7%
1.8%
1.8%
Sex
Count
Male
95
Female
15
Total
Responses: 110
%
86.4%
13.6%
112
Acknowledgement of contributors to imperiled species list as shown on final page of survey:
We would like to thank the USGS National Wetlands Research Center and the colleagues listed below for their
excellent work in compiling information that was vital to creating this survey.
USGS
Oklahoma
Jill A. Jenkins, LA
Greg Summers, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Stephen B. Hartley, LA
James Kyle, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Rachel Muir, VA
James Vincent, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Janet Cushing, VA
Jay Wright, OK Dept. of Environmental Quality
Andrea Ostroff, VA
Pam Fuller, FL
New Mexico
Colleen Caldwell, NM
David Propst, NM Dept. of Game and Fish
Gary Schiffmiller, NM Environment Dept.
USFWS
Chris Davidson, AR
Texas
Deb Fuller, LA
Dave Terre, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Emily Watson, TN
John B. Taylor, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Jason Duke, TN
Gary Garrett, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Roy Kleinsasser, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Arkansas
Michael Tennant, TX Dept. of State Health Services
Steve Filipek, AR Game and Fish Commission
Doyle Mosier, , TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Brian K. Wagner, AR Game and Fish Commission
Timothy Birdsong, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Jeffrey W. Quinn, AR Game and Fish Commission
Todd Engeling, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Rhonda Rawlings, Arkansas NRCS
Ken Kurzawski, TX Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Carrie Poston, AR Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.
University of Texas at Austin, Texas Natural History
Collections Fishes of Texas Project
Melanie Treat, AR Dept. of Environmental Quality
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 184
Louisiana
Joey Shepard, LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries
Brian Alford, LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries
Gary Tilyou, LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries
Chris Piehler, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Stephanie Braden, LA Dept. of Environmental Qual.
Will Tucker, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Dugin Sabins, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Michael Kaller, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge
Wes Wyche, Dept. of Operational Services, City of
Shreveport
Shannon B. Soileau, LA Dept. of Health and Hospitals
Emiliese Cormier, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Kimberly Corts, LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Tasha Theall, University of Louisiana, Lafayette
Digital Library Database (CD attached)
This database and library includes the following documents.
Wildlife Action Plans
Fishery Management Plans
Species Management Plans
Other reports and documents
Sabine and Red River Basins: A Regional Watershed Approach to Identifying Habitat Conservation Needs
Page 185