Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
W R
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CATAHOULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
LASALLE AND CATAHOULA PARISHES, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2007
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................1
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................1
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................2
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................3
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .....................................................3
North American Bird Conservation Initiative .......................................................................4
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................4
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan...........................................................................4
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................................................................4
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ...............................................................4
U.S. Woodcock Plan ...........................................................................................................5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency..........................................................................................5
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................7
Introduction..................................................................................................................................7
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................7
Special Designations ..................................................................................................................11
Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................11
Partnerships ......................................................................................................................11
Globally Important Bird Area .............................................................................................14
Ramsar Designation of Catahoula Lake ...........................................................................14
Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................15
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................15
Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................18
Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................19
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................21
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................21
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants.............................................................................21
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................22
Climate ..............................................................................................................................22
Geology and Topography..................................................................................................22
Soils .................................................................................................................................22
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................23
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................23
Water Quality and Quantity ...............................................................................................24
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................24
Habitat..............................................................................................................................24
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................32
Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................36
Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................38
Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................39
Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................39
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................40
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance.........................................................................44
ii Comprehensive Conservation Plan
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................................45
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................45
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ......................................................................45
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................47
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................48
Resource Protection..........................................................................................................49
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................50
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................51
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION........................................................................................................53
Introduction................................................................................................................................53
Vision.........................................................................................................................................55
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................55
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................58
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................68
Resource Protection..........................................................................................................71
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................76
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................80
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................83
Introduction................................................................................................................................83
Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................83
Fish And Wildlife Population Management .......................................................................83
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................84
Resource Protection..........................................................................................................85
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................86
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................88
Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................90
Volunteers .................................................................................................................................90
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................90
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................90
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................93
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................93
SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................95
Purpose And Need .....................................................................................................................95
Decisions To Be Made ...............................................................................................................95
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatability........................................................................96
Planning Study Area...................................................................................................................96
Planning Process And Issue Identification .................................................................................96
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................97
III. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................99
Formulation of Alternatives.........................................................................................................99
Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Further Analysis................................................99
Table of Contents iii
Description of the Alternatives..................................................................................................100
Alternative A – No Action (Current Management Direction)............................................100
Alternative B – Active Management (Proposed Alternative) ...........................................101
Alternative C – Minimal Management .............................................................................102
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES......................................................................................109
Overview..................................................................................................................................109
Effects Common To All Alternatives .........................................................................................109
Compatible Uses.............................................................................................................109
Environmental Justice .....................................................................................................109
Climate Change Impacts.................................................................................................110
Other Management .........................................................................................................110
Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................110
Land Acquisition..............................................................................................................110
Refuge Revenue Sharing................................................................................................111
Visitor Services ...............................................................................................................111
Refuge Administration.....................................................................................................111
Other Effects ...................................................................................................................111
Description of Effects By Alternative ........................................................................................111
Alternative A – No Action ................................................................................................112
Alternative B – Active Management (Proposed Alternative) ...........................................112
Alternative C – Minimal Management .............................................................................113
Other NEPA Requirements ......................................................................................................123
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..............................................................123
Water Quality Impacts from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides .............................123
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................123
Vegetation Disturbance...................................................................................................124
Effects on Adjacent Landowners.....................................................................................124
Land Ownership and Site Development..........................................................................124
Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................................124
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts .............................................................................125
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity .............................................................125
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................................................................127
Introduction..............................................................................................................................127
Core Planning Team Members.................................................................................................127
Biological and Habitat Review Team........................................................................................127
Visitor Services Review Team..................................................................................................128
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ...............................................................................................................129
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .....................................................135
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES............................................................................141
iv Comprehensive Conservation Plan
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.........................................................................................149
Public Involvement Process ............................................................................................149
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.....................................................................151
APPENDIX VI. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................167
APPENDIX VII. REFUGE BIOTA.....................................................................................................171
APPENDIX VIII. LAND PROTECTION PLAN..................................................................................181
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................181
Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................182
Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Policy ....................................................................182
APPENDIX IX. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................187
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Location of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................8
Figure 2: Approved acquisition boundary for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge................................9
Figure 3. Oil and gas activity on the Headquarter's Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ........12
Figure 4. Oil and gas activity on the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge.......13
Figure 5: Mississippi Alluvial Valley ....................................................................................................16
Figure 6: Forest cover changes in the MAV........................................................................................20
Figure 7. Reforestation on Catahoula National Widilife Refuge Headquarters Unit ...........................26
Figure 8. Reforestation on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit .........................27
Figure 9. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit ........29
Figure 10. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit ....30
Figure 11. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit.......................41
Figure 12. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit.....................42
Figure 13. Proposed acquisition expansion boundary on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ..........54
Figure 14. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
Headquarters Unit.............................................................................................................56
Figure 15. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley
Bayou Unit ........................................................................................................................57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Location/Acreage of Lands within Approved Acquisition Boundary......................................11
Table 2. The Habitat Types and Associated Acreages Found on Catahoula NWR............................25
Table 3. Catahoula NWR Step-down and LMVJV Objectives ............................................................33
Table 4. Socioeconomic Statistics for Catahoula and LaSalle Parishes.............................................38
Table 5. Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Louisiana ......................................39
Table 6. Summary of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan Projects .................................................................................................89
Table 7. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Step-Down Management Plans* ..................................91
Table 8. Comparison of Alternatives for the Catahoula NWR...........................................................102
Table 9. Comparison of Effects Table...............................................................................................115
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Catahoula National
Wildlife Refuge was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and
wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will
be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of
the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This draft comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental assessment describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed
plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the environment. This draft plan
and environmental assessment will be made available to state and federal government agencies,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity
will be considered in the development of the final plan.
The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge System
mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound
principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
• Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and the public’s
participation in carrying out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies,
organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance
the mission of national wildlife refuges.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines
for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of wildlife first;
• Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Approximately 38 million people visited National Wildlife Refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in their
natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7
years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per
refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in
the 1995 study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula
(Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North
Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon
(Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana). Other findings
also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food,
lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For
each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 3
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential Executive Orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems effecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and public agency
participation in efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to
advance the mission of national wildlife refuges. This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network, the North American Waterbird Plan, and the U.S. Woodcock Plan.
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government, private and academic
organizations, and private industry leaders addressing bird conservation. The initiative’s vision is to
achieve regionally based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships that deliver the full
spectrum of bird conservation across the North American continent and that support simultaneous,
on-the-ground delivery of conservation for all birds. As a result, North American bird populations will
flourish, because they are valued by society, including all levels of government and private initiative.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. Its goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s
levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the Plan in
1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly
continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments,
non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working towards
achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species,
and people.
PARTNERS-IN-FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan was launched in 1990 in response to growing concerns
about many land bird species. It is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state,
and local governments, philanthropic foundations, conservation organizations, professional
organization, industry, the academic community, and private individuals. The central premise of
Partners-in-Flight has been that resources of public and private organizations in North and South
America must be combined, coordinated, and increased in order to achieve success in conserving
land bird populations in this Hemisphere.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
NORTHERN AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
This plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in
29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands,
introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries,
disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the
Service's Southeast Region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea
island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of
wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast
populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection
efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 5
U.S. WOODCOCK PLAN
The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of woodcock
in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives general
guidance for habitat population management at the national level.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
state fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species
in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state partnering agency with the
Service and is charged with the responsibility of managing and protecting Louisiana's abundant
natural resources (LDWF, No date). This includes enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds
and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources and approximately 1.4
million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates the state
wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive
hunting and fishing program on 47 state wildlife management areas totaling 910,352 acres. It
also manages nine refuges, totaling 540,694 acres, which are not hunted, and is responsible for
fisheries in 1.7 million acres of lakes and 50,145 miles of streams (Moreland, 2005; Tilyou, 2005).
Near the refuge, LDWF coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public
recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on the Dewey Willis
Wildlife Management Area, a 60,276-acre area that borders the south side of the headquarters unit of
the refuge. In addition, it manages the natural resources on Catahoula Lake, which is adjacent to
nine miles of the refuge headquarters unit.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in
Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1958 primarily as a wintering area for
migratory waterfowl. The refuge, in east-central LaSalle Parish and west-central Catahoula Parish,
Louisiana, about 30 miles northeast of Alexandria, and 12 miles east of Jena, now totals 25,242 acres
(Figure 1). An additional 3,012 acres of land are included in the approved acquisition boundary of the
refuge. The 6,671-acre Headquarters Unit borders nine miles of the northeast shore of Catahoula
Lake, a 26,000-acre natural wetland renowned for its large concentrations of migratory waterfowl.
The 18,571-acre Bushley Bayou Unit, located eight miles west of Jonesville, was established in May
2001. The acquisition was made possible through a partnership agreement between The
Conservation Fund, American Electric Power, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (Figure 2).
The refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. This valley
was, at one time, a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both sides of the
Mississippi River from Illinois through Louisiana. Although the refuge was part of this very productive
bottomland hardwood ecosystem, most of the forest on the refuge was cleared in the early 1970s for
agriculture production.
Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various habitat types, including remnant pieces of bottomland
hardwood forest, reforested areas, cypress sloughs, moist-soil areas, grassland habitat, and mudflats.
Since the inception of the refuge, approximately 13,868 acres have been reforested or are reverting
naturally to a bottomland hardwood community. Primary species planted in the reforested areas are: (1)
willow oak; (2) green ash; (3) baldcypress; (4) overcup oak; and (5) Nuttall oak.
The diverse habitats found on the refuge are home to numerous wildlife species. Migratory birds
such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds use the refuge during certain times of
the year, but there are also resident birds, such as the northern cardinal and wood duck that are here
all year. Other species of resident wildlife that occur include white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, river
otter, red-eared slider, and tree frog. Fish species include catfish, buffalo, garfish, largemouth bass,
and crappie.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The refuge was established in 1958 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which
calls for:
"... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16
U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act);
and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which calls for:
"... the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a) (4) ”...the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1: The Location of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 9
Figure 2: Approved acquisition boundary for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
With these establishing authorities, objectives for Headquarters Unit of Catahoula Refuge were
refined as the following:
• To provide migrating and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall
objectives of the Mississippi Flyway;
• To provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species;
• To manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for a natural wildlife diversity;
• To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental
education for 160,000 visitors annually.
Objectives for the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula Refuge were refined in the 1999 Environmental
Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Land Protection Plan, prepared by the Service as
the following:
• To provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and woodcock;
• To provide nesting habitat for wood ducks;
• To provide habitat for a natural diversity of wildlife;
• To provide habitat for non-game, neotropical migratory birds; and
• To provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation, interpretation, and environmental
education.
Prior to refuge establishment, lands that now make up the refuge were used for timber harvesting,
agriculture, and open grazing. In 1925, the timber industry began logging in this area. Logging
continued until 1936. In the early 1970s, a large portion of the land that now makes up the Bushley
Bayou Unit of the refuge was cleared for agriculture, primarily for soybeans.
Historically, local residents used the land for open grazing of cattle and hogs. Until the refuge was
established and management began fencing different portions of the refuge in 1966, open grazing in
Catahoula Lake and surrounding areas reached an estimated 2,500 head of cattle and 5,000 head of
hogs, using 5,000 acres annually. Gradual fencing of the refuge lands reduced the impacts of
grazing but has left a legacy of open fields with compacted soil that has been difficult to reforest to
historic conditions. As of 2004, open grazing is no longer permitted in either parish (USFWS, 1995a;
Hammond, 2004).
Located 30 miles northeast of Alexandria, the original refuge lands acquired now make up the
majority of the Headquarters Unit. About 745 acres of the refuge are used for administrative
purposes, including the headquarters building and area, maintenance and storage buildings, as well
as roads and trails. The headquarters and most of the maintenance and storage buildings are on the
Headquarters Unit.
The second major unit, Bushley Bayou, was established in 2001 for the benefit of migratory birds and
other wildlife in east central Louisiana. Its northern portions are about 8 miles west of Jonesville and
35 miles northeast of Alexandria. In January 2001, The Conservation Fund, American Electric
Power, and the Service signed a partnership agreement to acquire the entire Tensas Delta Land
Company Tract, totaling 18,571 acres. The Conservation Fund bought the property from Tensas
Delta and sold 10,000 acres to American Electric Power and 8,000 acres to the Service. American
Electric Power agreed to provide $300,000 to the Service to assist with startup operations and
maintenance. The Service also has an agreement to manage the 10,000 acres owned by American
Electric. The partnership brings together the federal government, a conservation organization, and
private industry to restore and protect habitat for wintering waterfowl and migratory birds and to
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 11
manage bottomland hardwood forests. The Service entered this partnership to restore biodiverse
ecosystems through the re-creation of natural forest habitat, which, in turn, will result in carbon
sequestration.
The Service purchased 14,587 acres, including 3,600 acres of USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service Wetlands Reserve Program land and 6,052 acres acquired using Wal-Mart's
Acres for America Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and North American Wildlife
Conservation Agreement grant monies, from The Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund sold
the remaining 4,205 acres to American Electric Power. Under a 10-year Memorandum of Agreement
between American Electric and the Service, the Service would manage the American Electric lands
as part of the refuge; Americana Electric would reforest the lands on the Bushley Bayou Unit for
potential future carbon credits.
Table 1. Location/acreage of lands within approved acquisition boundary
Location Acres
Headquarters Unit – Service Owned 6,671
Bushley Bayou – Service Owned 14,587
Bushley Bayou – Owned by American Electiric Power and Service Managed 3,984
Remainder of Acres Outside of Refuge Boundary, but within the current
Acquisition Boundary - Privately Owned 3,012
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES
According to the Government Accounting Office Report of 2003, the Catahoula Refuge has eight
active wells, one orphan well, and forty-nine inactive wells (Figure 3 and 4). At present only four of
the active wells are in production. The remaining four wells are not operating. There are currently
two sites that have been staked out for potential well sites on the Headquarters Unit. There are
active pipelines on the refuge (Government Accounting Office 2003). There are four tank batteries
(e.g., treatment and storage facilities) on the refuge. Previously, pipelines were used exclusively to
transport oil and gas off the refuge; currently, pipelines, as well as tanker trucks, are used to transport
oil from the refuge. The owners inspect the equipment daily to ensure proper functioning. The refuge
issues special use permits for conducting oil production activities, such as facility maintenance.
PARTNERSHIPS
The refuge works with a number of partners on conservation and management programs. A major
effort was in the acquisition and reforestation of the Bushley Bayou Unit. The Conservation Fund,
American Electric Power, and the Service worked together to acquire land from the Tensas Delta
Land Company. The Conservation Fund bought the land and sold 14,587 acres to the Service and
3,984 acres to American Electric. American Electric Power and the Service entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement to have the refuge manage the power company lands for ten years. The
agreement also included American Electric's reforestation efforts on both Service and power
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 3. Oil and gas activity on the Headquarter's Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 13
Figure 4. Oil and gas activity on the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
company land for carbon sequestration credits. The Conservation Fund has recently donated 6,273
acres to the Service on the Bushley Bayou Unit, working with North American Wildlife Conservation
Agreement and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through Wal-Mart's Acres for America Program.
Environmental Synergy, Inc., represents private sector companies, such as American Electric Power,
interested in addressing the effects of global climate change through reforestation of selected tracts
of land that will promote the sequestration of carbon and restore wetland habitat in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley. On the Bushley Bayou Unit, Environmental Synergy was contracted to reforest the
sites that were selected under the agreement. The Service cooperated with Environmental Synergy,
Inc., in coordinating the reforestation process, including the selection of species and planting sites.
The refuge works closely with the LDWF and with the Army Corps of Engineers in a tri-party
agreement under which the refuge manages the water level on Catahoula Lake.
The refuge also cooperates closely with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Portions of the
refuge, including several impoundments, are under the wetlands reserve program. These lands are
in the Bushley Bayou Unit and are owned by the Service. The Service must comply with the same
regulations that apply to private land enrolled in the wetlands reserve program.
GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
The refuge is designated as a globally important bird area for wintering waterfowl and shorebirds
under the American Bird Conservancy Important Bird Areas Program.
Since 1995, the the American Bird Conservancy has designated 500 important bird areas as the top
sites of significance on a global level for birds throughout the 50 states. Sites include national wildlife
refuges, national parks and forests, state lands, conservation lands, and private lands. For these
identifications, the American Bird Conservancy has used objective scientific information and the
recommendations of experts. In order to be included in
the American Bird Conservancy Important Bird Areas Program, a site must contain critical habitat
that supports a significantly large concentration of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, including
waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, raptors, and landbirds, during at least some part of the year. The
important bird area designation is an important step towards raising the awareness of the public and
land managers about the importance of a site and its value to bird conservation (ABC, No date).
RAMSAR DESIGNATION OF CATAHOULA LAKE
The most prominent international treatment of wetlands is the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, often referred to as the Ramsar Convention, for a treaty that was signed in
Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. The Ramsar Convention provides the framework for national action and
international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. It was
the first of the modern global intergovernmental treaties on wise use of natural resources.
Participating countries must designate at least one wetland for inclusion on the List of Wetlands of
International Importance. There are 146 Contracting Parties to the Convention, including the United
States, which ratified the treaty in 1986. Currently there are 1,436 wetland sites, totaling 125.1 million
hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 15
The Ramsar Convention designated Catahoula Lake, which borders nine miles of Catahoula Refuge,
as a Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar site) in 1991. The lake is one of 18 wetland sites
(one of six southern wetlands) in the United States recognized as a Wetlands of Importance globally.
Under the Ramsar Convention, there is an obligation for parties to include wetland conservation
considerations in their land use planning. Under the Ramsar Convention, planning is to promote the
wise use of wetlands, which has been interpreted as being synonymous with “sustainable use”
(Ramsar, No date; Messina and Conner, 1998).
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Catahoula Refuge lies within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Figure 5). The MAV was once a 25-
million-acre complex of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River
from Illinois to Louisiana. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the
Mississippi River fluctuated annually, with floods recharging the MAV’s aquatic systems and creating
a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources.
The declines in the MAV’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife
resources have prompted the Service to designate this forest system as an area of special concern.
A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to
employ a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the MAV. The goal is to
prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological
diversity in the MAV. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that most of the 20+ million acres of forested wetlands that have
been cleared and converted to other uses in the MAV will not be reforested. Some areas would have
low value for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-dependent
species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning resources, and
the focusing of available programs, the MAV’s biological diversity can be improved.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Catahoula Refuge is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and is considered to be in the
MAV. As such, the refuge is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning
initiatives, which are described in the following paragraphs.
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) Plan. The purpose of this plan is to guide Fish and
Wildlife Service efforts to conserve, restore, and enhance the natural functional processes and habitat
types of the LMRE unit while maintaining the economic productivity and recreational opportunities of
the region. The LMRE Plan has eight major goals, consisting of the following:
1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats.
2. Protect, restore, and manage wetlands.
3. Protect and/or restore imperiled wetlands and viable populations of endangered species of
concern.
4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the ecosystem.
5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
6. Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
7. Enforce natural resource laws.
8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the ecosystem.
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 5: Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 17
The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV). The LMVJV is a private, state, and federal bird
conservation partnership conceived in 1988 in response to the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan described previously in Chapter I. The LMVJV was established as a voluntary,
non-regulatory partnership focused on increasing coordination of waterfowl and wetland habitat
conservation in the MAV. Since its inception, the self-directed partnership has broadened its
biological scope to include strategic planning and implementation for "all birds in all habitats,” and its
geographic extent to include the West Gulf Coastal Plain. In response to challenges inherent in
landscape scale integrated bird conservation, LMVJV partners have organized their institutional
capabilities and personnel expertise to (1) define a science-based biological foundation, (2) develop
a spatially explicit conservation blueprint, and (3) orchestrate habitat delivery and management.
Specifically, private, state, and federal LMVJV partners have invested over $650 million to develop:
• Habitat objectives expressed at multiple scales linked to regional and continental bird
populations based on testable assumptions regarding limiting factors.
• Geographic Information System (GIS) decision support models and conservation planning
tools.
• Habitat and population tracking and monitoring programs.
• Focused research applying the principles of adaptive resource management.
• Habitat delivery programs that have helped to restore, enhance, or protect over one million
acres of important wildlife habitat.
Partners in Flight (PIF). Partners in Flight have formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation
Regions that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Catahoula Refuge is
part of the Saline Bird Conservation Area (Twedt et al., 1999). Habitats found on the refuge and
associated bird species that are considered a priority in the MAV include:
• bottomland hardwood forest;
• Swainson’s warbler, cerulean warbler, northern parula, painted bunting, prothonotary warbler,
and Bell’s vireo.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP). As mentioned previously in Chapter I, the USSCP is a
partnership effort being undertaken throughout the country to ensure that shorebird populations are
restored and protected.
Catahoula NWR is included in the Lower Mississippi Shorebird Planning Region and Bird
Conservation Region. This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall shorebird habitat
as possible to meet the goal (520 hectare) of fall habitat in Louisiana. Catahoula Refuge is
considered a Globally Important Bird Area for species such as: piping plover, American golden-plover,
marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American
woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). NABCI is a broad coalition of governmental,
nongovernmental, and academic organizations interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird
populations and the landscapes upon which they depend. NABCI evolved in 1998 out of recognition
among conservationists of the value of coordinating and integrating planning, implementation, and
evaluation efforts of NAWMP, PIF, USSCP, and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. The goal
is to cause the combined effectiveness of these separate programs to exceed the total of their parts.
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Woodcock Plan. The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the
conservation of woodcock in the United States.” Its objective is to protect and enhance wintering and
migration habitat on public lands to increase woodcock carrying capacity. The plan also sets
objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management demonstration areas;
however, objectives have not been stepped down to states or individual refuges. Although no step-down
plans have been written, the plan gives general guidance for habitat population management at
the national level.
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan). The Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries' Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy was defined in
2005 (Lester et al., 2005). The mission statement follows:
The mission of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is to manage, conserve,
and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and wildlife resources and their
supporting habitats through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development,
and education for the social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to
provide opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to
promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of the resources.
The State developed the following goals with associated objectives that this comprehensive
conservation plan will consider and promote when establishing refuge goals and objectives to ensure
the refuge and wetland management district continue their contribution to Louisiana wildlife
conservation and habitat integrity.
• Provide the habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all
species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act.
• Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for
the continued survival of species of conservation concern.
• Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and
conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and related habitats.
• Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships with state and federal natural
resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups, private
industry, and academia.
The primary focus of the Louisiana comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy is species of
conservation concern and the habitats they depend upon. Information relative to these species and
those habitats found on Refuge System lands will be evaluated for opportunities to foster
conservation efforts.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the MAV serve as part of the last safety net to support biological
diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. The greatest threats to biological diversity
within the MAV include:
• The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
• The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (i.e., forest fragmentation);
• The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 19
• The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
• The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
FOREST LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
The MAV has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread throughout the area.
From the 1950s to the 1990s, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottomland hardwood
forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 6). The greatest changes to the landscape have been in
the form of land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the
MAV. Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments ranging in
size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained many
of the original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest
fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches and resulted in the
disruption of extensive forest habitats into smaller and smaller isolated patches. Severe forest
fragmentation has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species
endemic to the MAV that have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf,
Florida panther, ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, and Louisiana black bear.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (i.e.,
dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
those that have special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source; and
those that require good water quality.
More than 70 species of breeding migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these species,
including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean
warbler, have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and
sustain their existence.
Fragmentation has also brought forest edge along with the brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird
common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds.
The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than
building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive and they out-compete
the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and
declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts
surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested
corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between
the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the
functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of
gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is particularly
important for some wide-ranging species, such as the threatened Louisiana black bear.
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 6: Forest cover changes in the MAV
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 21
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant
alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood
control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic systems from
excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
The large-scale man-made hydrological alterations replacing the natural hydrology have changed the
spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire MAV. In addition, these alterations
have reduced both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual
flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent
species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult–if not impossible– to fully emulate and reconstruct
the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993),
restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of
hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies
are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point
source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic
resources. The Service lists 39 species of fish as threatened, 67 species as endangered, and 16
species as either species of concern or proposed for listing in the MAV.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration
of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with
flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic
(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic
systems. These invasive species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic
systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Central Louisiana has mild winters and hot, humid summers. Temperatures range from 52° F in
January to 82° F in July, with an average annual temperature of 67° F. Spring and summer are often
wet, with an average annual rainfall of 71.21 inches.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Louisiana has a relatively young geologic history. Most surface deposits are marine and deltaic
sediments that have been deposited in alternating cycles over the past 1.8 million years.
During the Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago (mya), the refuge was
covered with a sea. In the early Eocene epoch (54 mya), the sea receded as the continental ice
sheets advanced, resulting in alluvial deposits from rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. This trend
was reversed in the late Eocene, as sea level rose again. At this time, the sea again covered the
refuge. Finally, in the Miocene epoch (25 to 5 mya), the sea level dropped and sedimentation began
to accumulate, extending land gulfward (LGS 1990).
The alluvial soils that accrued since the Miocene have formed what topography exists in the refuge.
The refuge is in the far western edge of the MAP ecosystem province, adjacent to the Gulf Coastal
Plain ecosystem province. The province consists of flat to gently sloping broad floodplain and low
terraces made up of mostly clay alluvium. The average elevation (above mean sea level) is 30 feet.
The only noticeable slopes are sharp terrace scarps and natural levees that rise sharply to several
meters above adjacent bottom lands or stream channels (Bailey 1995; LGS 1990).
SOILS
The dominant soil series on the refuge consist of the following:
Alligator-Sharkey-Tensas - The broad backswamps, depressions, and sloughs are located on the low
terraces of streams and tributaries, with slopes less than one percent. Some slopes range to five
percent on short escarpments bordering channels. Soils in these areas (Alligator-Sharkey-Tensas)
are poorly drained, with ponding in the depression areas. Areas along the lower courses of tributary
streams to the Mississippi River are subject to backwater flooding.
Dundee Sharkey - Natural levees and low terraces along former channels of the Mississippi River
contain soils formed in thinly stratified beds of loamy alluvium (Dundee-Water-Sharkey). These
hydric soils are very deep and somewhat poorly drained, with slopes of zero to one percent.
Guyton Smithdale - In the northwestern portion of the refuge, soils are formed on local stream
floodplains and in depressional areas (Guyton Smithdale), rather than derived from alluvium from the
Mississippi River. Slopes range from zero to one percent, and soils are poorly drained, with year-round
ponding in places. A seasonal high water table is at 0 to 1.5 feet below the surface from
December through May (NRCS 2004; STATSGO 1998).
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 23
HYDROLOGY
The refuge lies 30 miles west of the Mississippi River in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The area is
subject to extensive annual backwater flooding that affects both the refuge and the adjacent
Catahoula Lake (USFWS 1989).
Catahoula Lake is 26,000-acre ephemeral lake that borders the west boundary of the refuge’s
Headquarters Unit. This shallow lake basin is subject to drastic seasonal fluctuations. In addition,
the hydrology of Catahoula Lake and surrounding rivers, streams, and bayous has been substantially
altered by the Ouachita and Black River Navigation Project (1972). Before project construction, water
flowed into the lake primarily through the Little River and drained through the French Fork of the Little
River to the Ouachita River. Water still drains out through the French Fork of the Little River today;
however, most of it flows out of the Catahoula Lake Diversion Canal to the Black and Red Rivers
(USFWS 1989).
The Catahoula Lake water levels are managed by refuge personnel under a tri-party cooperative
agreement with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Army Corps of Engineers,
and Fish and Wildlife Service. Water management activities are specified in a Water Management
Agreement and are primarily designed to emulate former natural conditions. The specifications
promote desirable waterfowl habitat, which provides public waterfowl and migratory bird hunting
opportunities. It also allows for commercial fishing and oil rig maintenance during high water levels,
and it addresses lead shot issues.
Backwater flooding from the Mississippi River has a major hydrological impact on the refuge.
Backwater moves from the Red River to the Black River, and then through the diversion canal to the
lake. Backwater can also enter the lake from the Ouachita River through the French Fork of the Little
River or through Bushley Creek.
In some years backwater flooding can be substantial, flooding refuge roads, and in some cases, it
raises the level of the lake so high that no water management is possible.
There are several impoundments on both the Headquarters and the Bushley Bayou Units. There are
also a number of small shallow lakes on the Bushley Bayou Unit, which are fed by perennial creeks,
such as Greens Creek, Coons Creek, Rhinehart Creek, Dry Bayou, and Flat Creek, which flow out of
the hills easterly to the refuge (USFWS 1999a).
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, required the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants
considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of
NAAQS. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive"
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect
public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation,
and buildings (EPA 1993).
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants,
which are called "criteria pollutants" including carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), lead (Pb),
particulate < 10 micrometers (PM-10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) (EPA, 1993). Areas that do not meet
the primary standard for a pollutant are non-attainment areas for that pollutant.
Catahoula and La Salle Parishes are in attainment areas for these NAAQS. Louisiana violates the
standard for ozone in five parishes - Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West
Baton Rouge. Collectively, these parishes are called the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area (Tullier
2005; LDEQ 1997).
The Clean Air Act also established Class I, II, and III “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” areas
with limits on the concentration of a criteria air pollutant that can exist in certain geographic areas.
Class I areas allow for very little deterioration of air quality. An example of such an area is a
designated Wilderness Area. A Class II designation allows for more deterioration than Class I. Class
III areas allow even more deterioration than Class II (USFWS 2002a).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that fail to meet one or
more applicable water quality standards and need total maximum daily levels (TMDLs). Louisiana's
Section 303(d) List of Water Bodies identifies impaired water bodies and establishes a priority ranking
for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water
bodies. The Section 303(d) listing requirement applies to water bodies impaired by point and non-point
sources.
There are no 303(d) listed waters on the refuge; however, Catahoula Lake is listed by EPA as a
303(d) impaired water body for oil and grease, salinity, chlorides, and sulfates. The lake floods the
refuge at certain high-water levels, potentially impacting all water bodies. Suspected sources are
rangelands, petroleum activities, flow regulations/modifications, and municipal sources (LDEQ 1999).
Catahoula Lake also has a fish consumption advisory due to high mercury levels.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The refuge lies within the MAV. The MAV was, at one time, a 25-million-acre forested wetland
complex that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Although
the refuge was part of this very productive bottomland hardwood ecosystem, most of the forests on
nearby lands were cleared for agricultural production. No forests have been cleared within the
Headquarters Unit while it has been part of the Refuge System. Most of the Willow Lake Unit of the
Headquarters Unit was cleared in the late 1960s and early 1970s as was most of the forest on the
Bushley Bayou Unit. In both cases this clearing occurred before the Service acquired these lands.
Catahoula Refuge is low-lying bottomland subject to extensive flooding on the western edge of the
Mississippi River alluvium. Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various habitat types, including
remnant pieces of bottomland hardwood forest, reforested areas, lakes, bayous, cypress sloughs,
moist-soil areas, and open grassland on one field in the Willow Lake area (Table 2).
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 25
Table 2. The habitat types and associated acreages found on Catahoula National Wildlife
Refuge
Habitat
Type Acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 8,599
Reforested open fields 13,868
Moist-soil units 580
Lakes/streams/bayous/open water 1,275
Grassland 95
Admin/oil and gas/roads/pipelines, etc. 745
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Since the inception of the refuge, approximately 13,868 acres have been reforested or are reverting
naturally to a bottomland hardwood community. Primary species planted in the reforested areas are:
(1) willow oak; (2) green ash; (3) bald cypress; (4) Nuttall oak; and (5) overcup oak.
On the Headquarters Unit, over 464 acres have been reforested with Nuttall oak, willow oak, water
oak, Shumard oak, persimmon, baldcypress, and green ash. In 1976, a 40-acre agricultural field in
the French Fork area of the Headquarters Unit was taken out of production and reforested with Nuttall
oak seedlings by Boy Scouts. About five acres near the headquarters office were reforested in 1980-
81 with Nuttall oak, water oak, willow oak, sweet pecan, and baldcypress. The Willow Lake area was
reforested in 1998 (187 acres) and 1999 (232 acres), totaling 419 acres, and replanted due to failures
in 2000 (190 acres) and 2002 (43 acres) (Figure 7).
On the Bushley Bayou Unit, a total of 13,404 acres have been reforested. Appoximately, 9,784 acres
have been reforested for future potential carbon sequestration credits under the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Global Climate Change Program. This program aims to reduce greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, partly by the sequestration of carbon in biomass. In return, the program creates a
record of emissions’ reductions that could possibly be used by the funding clients (in this case
American Electric Power) for “credit” against future mandatory requirements. In addition, prior to The
Conservation Fund’s purchase of the Bushley Bayou lands, Tensas Delta Land Company reforested
3,620 acres through the Wetlands Reserve Program, bringing the total of reforested areas to 13,404
acres (Figure 8).
The acreage on the Bayou Bushley Unit was planted with native oaks, including willow oak, Nuttall
oak, overcup oak, and Shumard oak, baldcypress, green ash, and pecan trees. Within these
reforested areas, many native “volunteer” species, including swamp privet, button bush, water elm,
bitter pecan, green ash, sweet gum, sycamore, and river birch, have grown.
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 7. Reforestation on Catahoula National Widilife Refuge Headquarters Unit
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 27
Figure 8. Reforestation on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Moist-soil and Water Management
Refuge staff manages water on the refuge to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, and
wading birds on several impoundments (Figures 9 and 10). In managing the impoundments, the staff
creates moist-soil units that produce natural, desirable vegetation for waterfowl to consume during the
fall and winter months. These moist-soil units also benefit shorebirds and wading birds. There are 16
water control structures on the refuge.
The largest impoundment is Duck Lake, which is roughly 1,200 acres, on the Headquarters Unit.
Water control became functional on this impoundment in 1980 with the installation of a water control
structure within the levee at the outflow end of the impoundment. In 2001, a new water control
structure was constructed to replace the old structure in conjunction with a federal highways road
project whereby the Duck Lake levee was raised and widened. The new structure has two
screwgates and a concrete weir within the structure with an 8-foot square box culvert through which
the water flows, connecting Duck Lake to Duck Lake Slough.
The refuge manages water levels on the Duck Lake Impoundment in coordination with Catahoula
Lake management by raising levels before the state duck hunting season in mid-November. When
the refuge staff closes the water control structure on Catahoula Lake, they also close the Duck Lake
structure to hold rain and runoff in the impoundment. To draw down water on the impoundment, the
refuge opens the water control structure to allow water to drain out of the impoundment to the outlet
waters (Duck Lake Slough) and into the Big Bay portion of Catahoula Lake and eventually to the
Catahoula Lake diversion canal. (Water is not drawn out of Catahoula Lake into Duck Lake. Only
when there is a flood event does water from Catahoula Lake backflow into the Duck Lake
Impoundment.)
Several other impoundments on the Headquarters Unit have stop-log water control structures,
including a small seven-acre impoundment on the Willow Lake area.
The water within Cowpen Bayou on the Headquarters Unit is also managed, not for moist-soil but for
fisheries resources. The water control structure is used to move water between Cowpen Bayou and
Duck Lake. Cowpen Bayou and the Highway 28 borrow pits are the only water bodies on the
Headquarters Unit open to fishing year-round.
There are several impoundments managed for moist-soil on the Bushley Bayou Unit. Some of these
have stop-log water control structures, including Long Lake, a 60-acre impoundment along the east
boundary of the Bushley Bayou Unit, as well as one of the five impoundments north of Rhinehart
Lake that were constructed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Wetlands Reserve
Program. The other four Wetlands Reserve Program impoundments are passive in that they do not
have control structures. These permanent water areas depend on rain, backwater, or runoff to fill the
impoundments.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 29
Figure 9. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 10. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou
Unit
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 31
In addition to managing water on Catahoula Refuge, the refuge staff also manages water levels on
Catahoula Lake. Historically, Catahoula Lake was a natural moist-soil wetland that was subject to
major seasonal fluctuations in water level. Under natural conditions the lake typically flooded in the
winter and spring, and dried out progressively during the summer. It was fed primarily by Little River
on the northwestern shore of the lake, as well as numerous smaller watercourses, entering from the
north. It was also subject to backwater-flooding from the Red, Black, Ouachita, and Mississippi
Rivers. In 1972, the Army Corps of Engineers constructed a diversion canal on the southeast shore
of the lake to improve the ecological conditions resulting from the Corps’ navigation project on the
Ouachita and Black Rivers, in particular the Jonesville Lock Improvement. For this improvement, the
Corps constructed a water control structure between the diversion canal and the lake that is
manipulated to simulate natural conditions on the lake. The water control structure is essentially a
pair of gates that can be raised or lowered to varying degrees to retain or raise the water level.
The State of Louisiana owns the lake bed and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
manages the resources of the lake. The Corps maintains the water control structures. Catahoula
Refuge is responsible for water level management under a 1963 Memorandum of Understanding with
the Corps, with two subsequent Amendments, and under a 1969 tri-party agreement among the
Corps, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Service. Water management activities are
specified in a Water Management Plan and are for the benefit of migratory waterfowl as well as for
wildlife-dependent recreation, including duck hunting and fishing (USCOE et al, 1969).
Under this Plan, on July 1 the refuge begins to gradually dewater the lake by allowing more water to
flow out of the diversion structure on the lake and through the diversion canal to the Black River.
This drawdown encourages production for the fall migration of shorebirds and waterfowl. When the
drawdown is complete, approximately 5,000 acres of shallow water is left in roughly the center of the
lakebed. Production for waterfowl includes sedges, herbs, and grasses such as chufa (Cyperus
esculentus), spikerush (Eleocharis obtuse), smartweed (Polygonum), pondweed (Potamogeton),
sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis), Paspalum sp., teal grass (Eragrostis hypnoides), barnyard
grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Walter’s millet (Echinochloa walteri), and duck potato or arrowhead
(Sagittaria latifolia).
Two weeks before the state duck hunting season, which generally runs from mid-November through
January, the refuge begins to raise the level of the lake by two feet to provide habitat for migratory
waterfowl and for hunting opportunities including boat access. The refuge holds water in the lake by
closing the water control structure.
After the waterfowl hunting season, the refuge raises the water level another 4.5 feet to enhance
commercial fishing resources. Raising water levels after duck hunting season also helps minimize
lead poisoning of ducks due to lead shot, which was used in the past for duck hunting. The water
levels in late winter are managed towards late winter natural conditions, as much as possible. This
includes allowing the free passage of fish through the diversion canal gates.
Invasive Plants
Annual control of numerous invasive species, including Chinese tallow tree, American lotus, black
willow, and Japanese climbing fern, is necessary on the refuge. Managing for moist-soil preferred
plant species requires using a combination of approved herbicides, water control, and mechanical
control, including discing and mowing, to control these invader species.
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
WILDLIFE
Catahoula Refuge was established on October 28, 1958, to provide extensive wintering habitat for
migratory birds and waterfowl. It is one of the earliest such areas in central Louisiana acquired by the
Government for conservation purposes, and today is home to 219 species of birds. There are 42 bird
species nesting on the refuge.
The list in Appendix VII contains wildlife species that have been observed by refuge personnel,
visiting ornithologists, and local birders, or are thought to occur on the refuge. Waterfowl, wading
birds, raptors, and songbirds abound at various times of the year and one can observe them by
driving the Wildlife Drive or hiking along levees, fields, or wooded roads.
Waterfowl
The MAV is a critical ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America
(Reinecke et al., 1989). The MAV was selected as one of the wintering habitat focus areas. One of
the first tasks faced by the LMVJV was to create a model or decision tool for determining how much
habitat was needed and a way to relate this objective to the population goals of NAWMP. The
solution was to view wintering areas as responsible for contributing to the spring breeding population
goals of NAWMP proportional to the percentage of ducks historically counted in wintering areas
(Loesch et al., 1994; Reinecke and Loesch 1996). To contribute ducks to spring populations,
wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to ensure adequate winter survival. To quantify
winter habitat requirements, the LMVJV had to identify limiting factors and it assumed foraging habitat
was most likely to limit waterfowl populations in the MAV (Reinecke et al., 1989).
In simple terms, the objective of the LMVJV is to provide enough foraging habitat (in duck-use-days)
for: (1) the continental duck population goal of NAWMP; (2) multiplied times the proportion of ducks
typically wintering in the MAV area; (3) adjusted for ducks that die during winter but require habitat
before they die; (4) multiplied by the average number of days ducks are present; and (5) multiplied by
the amount of food required per duck per day. These calculations generate the need for millions of
duck-days of foraging habitat value. Research indicates that foods used by mallards, pintails, wood
ducks, and other species emphasized by NAWMP generally are obtained in three primary habitats:
moist-soil areas, croplands, and forested wetlands. The ability of these habitats to provide duck-use-days
of foraging habitat has been summarized (Reinecke et al., 1989; Loesch et al., 1994; Reinecke
and Loesch 1996); this information is used by the LMVJV to calculate the acres of various
combinations of habitat needed to satisfy population goals.
The process of relating habitat objectives for individual management areas to overall habitat
objectives for the MAV involved several steps. First, habitat objectives were allocated among states
relative to historic abundance of waterfowl. Then, knowledgeable managers within states determined
strategies for meeting state habitat objectives by allocating percentages of the objectives to habitats
with managed or naturally flooded water regimes and habitats on public or private lands. One result
of this step-down process was to clearly define the collective habitat objectives of state and federal
wildlife areas in the MAV relative to objectives of the LMVJV, which, in turn, were related to the
NAWMP. The collective objectives of state and federal wildlife areas then were assigned to individual
management areas based on waterfowl management capabilities.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 33
Catahoula Refuge goals are to provide important foraging and resting habitats within the MAV for
waterfowl and serve an integral role in NAWMP. The step-down objectives, originally expressed in
acres that were established for Catahoula Refuge, are provided in Table 3. Duck-use-day objectives
were calculated by multiplying the acreage objective by the assumed duck-use-day standard
developed by the LMVJV for that habitat type. The acreage objective is more reflective of the
originally established objective, but is not as descriptive as a duck-use-day objective. Complicating
the reliability of the duck-use-day objective is the failure to include geese in the objective and the
need for a review of the step-down process to further refine objectives based on more up-to-date
information, a process that started in spring 2006 and should finish in 2007.
Table 3. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Step-down and LMVJV Objectives
Objective
(ac) DUDs Current Capabilities (ac) DUDs
Bottomland forest 204 22,848 0 0
Moist-soil 425 589,050 293 405,634
Total 629 611,898 16,458 405,634
The LDWF conducts midwinter and monthly waterfowl population surveys of the Catahoula Lake area
each year and the refuge assists the state in these surveys. Limited amounts of data are available for
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. A breakdown of overall duck use by percent for December 2003,
indicates that ring-necked duck (50 percent) was the largest user group, followed by green-winged
teal (20 percent), wigeon (10 percent), mallard (10 percent), and pintail (10 percent).
Catahoula Refuge is designated as a Globally Important Bird Area for wintering and migrating
waterfowl. Peak numbers of waterfowl occur in the area around December and January. The
adjacent Catahoula Lake is also considered a Globally Important Bird Area with waterfowl population
estimates ranging from 26,000 to 273,000 (2001-2002), which include, mallards, pintail, ring-necked
duck, canvasback, wigeon, gadwall, green-winged teal, scaup, and northern shoveler.
Wood ducks reside all year and prefer the secluded forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, and
tree-lined bayous on the refuge. They reach their greatest population level on the refuge in the fall. In the
Bushley Bayou Unit, the bottomland hardwood forest around Dempsey Lake provide excellent wood duck
production habitat. Important wood duck habitat is also found around the many other shallow lakes within
this unit, including Round Lake, Rhinehart Lake, Long Lake, and Black Lake.
Woodcock
American Woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the
eastern United States. Woodcock populations in this region have declined 19 percent from 1968 to
1990. Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with land
conversion and the maturing of forest habitats.
Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush and understory, especially
those in close association with agricultural fields and old field succession. These sites are typically
wet thickets with a high density of plant stems with the ground open and clear. Typical cover includes
privet, cane, and briars that result from openings in the canopy. The scrub/shrub and dense habitats
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
found in certain portions of the refuge provide good daytime cover for woodcock. These habitats
result from reforestation, old field succession, ice storms, and forest management practices, which
also benefit priority forest interior nesting land birds (e.g., Swainson’s warbler, Cerulean warbler,
etc.), and other wildlife.
Woodcock have been observed around the edges of the refuge boundary and Catahoula Lake, as
well as within the reforested areas of the Bushley Bayou Unit, especially at dusk.
Shorebirds and Wading Birds
Shorebirds migrate through the MAV from the southernmost parts of South America to the
northernmost part of North America. They typically probe in soft mud (mudflats) and shallow water
for worms and small crustaceans. In the MAV these birds generally move through during spring and
fall, foraging as they migrate. They may spend only ten days in the MAV. Few shorebirds overwinter
or nest in the summer in the MAV. Habitat is generally more limited during their fall migration in the
MAV than the spring.
Shorebirds can be found using the mudflats and shallow water areas of Duck Lake and its tailwaters
and the impoundments within the Willow Lake Unit of the Headquarters Unit and the Minnow Ponds,
Ducks Unlimited-Wetlands Reserve Program Ponds, Rhinehart Lake, Round Lake, and Long Lake
located within the Bushley Bayou Unit. Shorebirds have been observed from spring to fall in these
areas, but the highest use occurs as the lakes and impoundments are drawn down from July 1
through October 31.
Marsh birds, such as the Virginia and sora rails, use the moist-soil areas on the refuge during the fall
and spring. Wading birds, such as great blue herons, snowy and cattle egrets, great egrets, tri-colored
herons, glossy ibis, green herons, and white ibis, are abundant. They use the shoreline of
Catahoula Lake and the nearby sloughs and flooded depressions.
Landbirds
Many species of songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of widespread habitat loss,
particularly loss of bottomland hardwood forests and riparian woodlands, as well as early
successional habitats such as grasslands and scrub habitats. The refuge has over 8,599 acres of
mature bottomland hardwood forests and there are more than 13,868 acres of reforested habitat
(currently scrub habitat) that will grow into a mature bottomland forest. A large variety of neotropical
migratory birds are common in the refuge’s different habitat types. Some common year-round
residents include the Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, northern mocking bird, and red-winged
blackbird. Yellow-bellied sapsuckers, white-eyed vireo, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler and
white-throated sparrow are some birds common in the winter. A bird list is available for Catahoula
Refuge in Appendix VII.
The refuge has set aside about 95 acres on the Willow Lake Unit for grassland species that are
declining in abundance in the MAV. This area, which is kept open by mowing, provides habitat for the
dickcissel, LeConte’s sparrow, and Henslow’s sparrow.
Raptors frequent the fallow fields and reforested areas in search of rodents. Northern harrier,
American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and Cooper’s hawk are some raptors observed on the refuge.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 35
Threatened and Endangered Species
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been seen wintering on the refuge for many years,
although there are no known nesting sites. They visit the refuge during their migration through the
area and are classified as transient. Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) habitat exists
on the refuge and it is conceivable that a transient black bear may occur. With the recent discovery
of an ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) at the Central Arkansas Refuge Complex,
there is a possibility; however slight, that this refuge could provide some form of habitat now and in
the future.
Species of Concern
Ospreys, woodstorks, northern harriers, swallow-tail kites, and alligator snapping turtles are species
of special concern occasionally reported in this area.
Mammals
Mammals that are thought to occur on the refuge and are associated with bottomland hardwood
forests include white-tailed deer, fox and gray squirrels, swamp and cottontail rabbits, armadillos,
beaver, bobcat, coyote, opossum, and raccoon. Nutria, muskrat, mink, raccoon, opossum, beaver,
and otter are the primary furbearers. Of these, the beaver, muskrat, river otter, nutria, and mink are
associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and riverine systems.
Problem Wildlife
Beavers, raccoons, and feral hogs cause damage on the refuge. Beaver interfere with water
management activities by clogging water control structures with debris. They can also cause flooding
in reforested areas. Refuge staff controls beaver by trapping and shooting. USDA Wildlife Services
has been contracted to remove beavers by trapping for the past three years on the Bushley Bayou
Unit. Excessive numbers of raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest
breeding birds and wild turkeys.
Feral hogs have been a problem on the Headquarters Unit for a number of years and are becoming
an increasing problem on the Bushley Bayou Unit. There is a large amount of scientific evidence on
the adverse effects of feral hogs on habitat productivity and on reproduction of native wildlife. They
are omnivores, use virtually every component of the habitat, and are in direct competition with native
wildlife, including deer. They root in the reforested areas, killing and eating seedlings, and can
diminish regeneration in established hardwood forests because of their appetite for acorns. The
feeding habit of hogs can disturb small, ground-dwelling mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. They
also damage levees and roads. The refuge allows hunting of feral hogs as incidental to other
regulated hunting.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Amphibian management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global amphibian
declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation appear to be the primary factors in declines.
This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for their survival and they also serve as
important indicators of environmental health. Although no amphibian and reptile surveys have been
conducted on Catahoula Refuge to determine species occurrence or population levels, lists of
potential species, including frogs, turtles, and snakes, from some surveys in similar habitats are found
in Appendix VII.
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Fish
Impoundments and streams on the refuge are restocked during backwater flooding. Seasonal
flooding of wooded areas provides a vast quantity of spawning and feeding habitat for numerous
sport, commercial, and forage fishes. These species include largemouth bass, spotted bass, black
crappie, white crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish, white bass, channel catfish, blue catfish, flathead
catfish, alligator gar, largemouth and smallmouth buffalo, freshwater drum, and shad.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Background
This region of Louisiana has long been settled and used by humans, in good part because of its mild
winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Local and regional archaeological resources have
been identified from the Paleo-Indian and Meso-Indian era (2000 B.C. – 1600 A.D.). Although the
first people entered what is now Mississippi about 12,000 years ago, the earliest major phase of
earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until some 2,100 years ago. Mounds continued
to be built sporadically for another 1,800 years. Of the mounds that remain today, some of the
earliest were built to bury important members of local tribal groups. These mounds were usually
rounded dome shapes. Later mounds were rectangular, flat-topped earthen platforms upon which
temples or residences of chiefs were erected.
The Ancient Anilco, a state-recognized historic site, is an 80-foot tall Great Mound located in
Jonesville, in Catahoula Parish. It was visited by Hernando De Soto in 1542 and was the site of a
later battle between Spanish explorers and local Native Americans.
European settlement in LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes started with the Spanish in the 1760s.
American settlement in the two parishes began in earnest in the earliest years of the 19th century
when they were both part of Louisiana Territory’s Rapides Parish.
The immediate vicinity of the present-day Catahoula Refuge was the location of numerous settler
activities. Harrisonburg and Alexandria to the west were joined by a trail begun in 1800 as an
overland trade route. The bluffs above Catahoula Lake (along its western shoreline) and the area
along the north bank of the Little River were the location of several communities. A store developed
at Rhinehart, just east of the Catahoula Lake as early as 1807. Eventually a trail from Natchez,
Mississippi, into east Texas would cut through LaSalle Parish. By the 1820s and 1830s, much of the
hill country of LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes was settled. By 1833, the White Sulphur Springs
resort was offering healing waters, fishing on Trout Creek and the Little River, hiking, gambling, and a
dance hall.
During the Civil War, Confederate soldiers built four forts to guard the Ouachita River. One of these,
Fort Beauregard, located in Harrisonburg, survives and is a state historic site.
During the late 19th century, Urania became a center of the newly developing timber industry, which
sought to exploit the stands of hardwoods such as cypress. By the early part of the 20th century,
LaSalle Parish (created in 1910) and Catahoula Parish had experienced industrial expansion as the
Louisiana and Arkansas Railroad cut through the region. Oil was discovered near Tullos in the
1920s. Currently, there is a federally recognized tribe, the Jena Band of Choctaws, located in LaSalle
Parish. They do not currently own or live on a reservation (Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, No date;
Online Highways, No Date; Encyclopedia Louisiana Online, No Date).
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 37
Cultural Resource Protection
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access
To "Indian Sacred Sites," to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are
related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious
and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as
a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe.
Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old,
and that is of archaeological interest.
Section 106 of the NHPA provides the framework for federal review and consideration of cultural
resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing regulations for the
Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP). The Secretary of the Interior maintains the NRHP and sets forth significance
criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be considered “historic
properties” for the purpose of consideration by a federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The
implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or
program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency,
including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial
assistance; those requiring a federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to state or local
regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency.” Historic properties
are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those that meet
the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion.
Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources
management in the Service is the responsibility of the regional director and is not delegated for the
Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing
archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The regional historic preservation officer
(RHPO) advises the regional director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of the
several cultural resources laws. The refuge manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO early
about Service undertakings, by protecting archaeological sites and historic properties on lands
managed and administered by the Service, by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors
and permittees, and by reporting violations.
The refuge follows these procedures to protect any cultural/historic legacy that may potentially occur
on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy
earth-moving equipment like tractors, graders, and bulldozers, such as for the development of moist-soil
units, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an
archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to the RHPO
as well as the state historic preservation officer (SHPO), which in Louisiana is an archaeologist within
the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development
(Williams 2005; Bush 2005).
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is,
whether any properties listed in or eligible or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural
resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO
immediately.
To date, there have been two comprehensive archaeological surveys on the refuge; however, no
properties have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. Cultural resource surveys within the
refuge have focused on the eastern shore area of Catahoula Lake (Wiseman et al., 1978; Boggess
1991). Given the region’s settlement during both the prehistoric and historic periods, the likelihood of
cultural resources is considered relatively high (Wiseman et al., 1978).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Seventy-three percent of the land area of the 25,000-acre refuge is located in Catahoula Parish; the
remainder is in LaSalle Parish. These parishes are strategically situated in central Louisiana, in a
region known as the crossroads of the state because of its location, which is convenient to all the
major cities of Louisiana. The nearest major city is Alexandria (population 46,342), roughly 30 miles
southeast of the refuge (USCB 2000).
The total population of Catahoula Parish was estimated at 10,615 in 2003 (USCB 2004). This estimate
reflects a slight decline from the 10,920 people counted during the 2000 Census (USCB 2000).
Neighboring LaSalle Parish, which contains only 30 percent of the refuge, has a slightly larger population
of 14,179. Catahoula Parish has a median household income of $22,528, as shown in Table 4. The
percent of families below the poverty level, 22.6 percent, is higher than the state’s average of 15.8
percent. Educational attainment measured by percentage of persons over 25 with high school diplomas
or higher, is 62 percent in Catahoula Parish and 69 percent in LaSalle Parish, lower than the state’s
average of 74.8 percent. LaSalle Parish has a slightly higher median household income of $28,189 and a
lower poverty level (14.9 percent) than Catahoula Parish and the state.
Table 4. Socioeconomic statistics for Catahoula and LaSalle Parishes
Population
(2003
Estimate)
Median
household
income
Percent
below
poverty
level
Educational
attainment (%
with high
school
education)
Unemployment
(March 2004)
Catahoula 10,615 $22,528 22.6% 62% 10.5%
LaSalle 14,179 $28,189 14.9% 69% 7.4%
Louisiana 3.4 million $32,566 15.8% 74.8% 5.9%
Source: BLS 2004; USCB 2000; USCB 2004
Unemployment rates for both parishes tend to be higher than the state or national averages. In 2004,
Catahoula Parish had 10.5 percent unemployment rate and LaSalle had 7.4 percent unemployment,
compared to a state average of 5.9 percent and a national average of 5.7 percent (BLS 2004).
Forestry dominates the local economic base and International Paper Company is a major employer.
Other major industries for the parishes and the surrounding region include oil and gas services,
apparel manufacturing, and agriculture. The leading field crops consist of sorghum (grain), soybeans,
wheat, corn, and oats (NASS 2004).
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 39
Wildlife-dependent recreation includes fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. Wildlife-watching
includes observing, photographing, and feeding fish and wildlife. The 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USCB 2003) quantifies the economic
impacts of these activities on a state level (Table 5).
Table 5. Fishing, hunting, and wildlife-dependent recreation in Louisiana
Source: USCB. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
The survey estimates 970,000 people participated in fishing in the state, resulting in total
expenditures of over $700 million dollars. Wildlife watching attracted nearly as many participants,
with 935,000 participants, but resulted in considerably less expenditure. Hunting resulted in $446
million in total expenditures from its 333,000 participants. The total from all these activities, including
trip-related expenses, equipment purchases, and licenses and services amounted to over $1.3 billion
in 2001 (USCB 2003).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge now totals 25,242 acres, with a current approved acquisition boundary of 28,254 acres.
The 6,671-acre Headquarters Unit borders nine miles of the northeast shore of Catahoula Lake, a
26,000-acre natural wetland renowned for its large concentrations of migratory waterfowl. The
18,571 acre Bushley Bayou Unit, located eight miles west of Jonesville in Catahoula Parish, was
established in May 2001. The acquisition was made possible through a partnership agreement
between The Conservation Fund, American Electric Power, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by
the Service, totaling 3,012 acres. Several of these parcels compromise refuge management due to
conflicting management purposes and disturbance to wildlife. Acquisition or exchange of these
parcels would eliminate access issues, improve management options, and tighten some unclear and
confusing boundary issues.
Refuge access by the public and staff members is also difficult on the Bushley Bayou Unit of the
refuge. Expansion of the refuge boundary would greatly increase access by staff and the public and
would further the refuge’s mission to conserve, restore, and protect migratory birds and threatened
and endangered species, especially migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, and possibly the
threatened Louisiana black bear.
Activity # of partici-pants
Activity Days Avg. days/
partici-pant
Total expendi-tures
($1,000)
Trip-related
expendi-tures
($1,000)
Equipment and
other
($1,000)
Average
$/ partici-pant
Average trip
expendi-ture/
day
Fishing 970,000 12,637,000 13 $703,373 $398,751 $304,622 $743 $32
Hunting 333,000 6,442,000 19 $446,204 $120,668 $325,536 $1,120 $19
Wildlife
Watching 935,000 N/A N/A $168,420 $55,424 $112,996 $180 NA
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
VISITOR SERVICES
Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. In fiscal year
2002, people visited refuges (in the lower 48 states) more than 35.5 million times for recreation and
environmental education. Their spending generated $809.2 million of sales in regional economies.
As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 19,000 people were employed and $315.2
million in employment income was generated (Laughland and Caudill 2003).
The six priority uses of the refuge are fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
The majority of public use occurs on the Headquarters Unit with some uses on the Bushley Bayou
Unit (Figures 11 and 12). Facilities on the refuge include an auto tour route, boat ramps, foot trails,
all-terrain vehicle trails, and an observation tower. There are three Service-owned boat ramps on the
refuge on Duck Lake and Cowpen Bayou. The state also maintains a boat ramp on the French Fork
of Little River at Catahoula Lake.
Fishing
Fishing opportunities are offered year-round on Cowpen Bayou and the Highway 28 borrow pits of the
Headquarters Unit. However, Muddy Bayou, Duck Lake, Willow Lake, the Highway 84 borrow pits,
and all other refuge waters on the Headquarters Unit are opened to fishing from March 1 through
October 31.
At the Bushley Bayou Unit, Dempsey Lake (30 acres) is a quality sportfishing lake. Bushley Bayou,
which runs the entire length of the unit, offers additional sportfishing opportunities, especially during
spring high water. Typical game species sought are bluegill, crappie, bass, and catfish. Several
other lakes, such as Round Lake, Long Lake, and Rhinehart Lake, are too shallow to provide a year-round
quality sport fishery; however, during periods of high water these lakes support good
populations of catfish, carp, and buffalo. Crawfishing is also extremely popular in these lakes and
other shallow water areas. Recreational fishing and crawfishing are allowed year-round on this unit.
Motors of 10 horsepower or less are allowed on interior lakes within the Bushley Bayou Unit and on
all Headquarters Unit waters. There is no horsepower limit on motors used on Bushley Creek, Big
Bushley Creek, and Little Bushley Creek.
At the Bushley Bayou Unit, recreational gear (i.e., slat traps, wire nets, and hoop nets) is allowed only
by refuge special use permits and only in Bushley Creek, Big Bushley Creek, and Little Bushley
Creek.
Trotlines and yo-yos are only allowed on the Bushley Bayou Unit and have the following regulations.
Trotlines must be tended at least once every 24 hours and reset when exposed by receding water
levels, and must be attached with the length of cotton line that extends into the water. Trotlines must
be removed when not in use. Yo-yos must be attended, and may be used during daylight hours only.
Commercial fishing and commercial crawfishing are not allowed on refuge waters.
All fishing and hunting are in accordance with state regulations and require a valid state hunting or
fishing license. In addition hunters and fishermen must comply with refuge regulations.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 41
Figure 11. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 12. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 43
All-terrain vehicles are allowed on designated refuge trails at the Bushley Bayou Unit. Some of these
trails are open year-round for fishing and hunting access. The remainder, which does not lead to any
fishing areas, is closed from March 1 through August 31.
Hunting
Hunting is the next most popular recreational activity. Over 18,000 acres are open to hunting on the
Bushley Bayou Unit and over 6,000 acres on the Headquarters Unit. On the Headquarters Unit the
refuge holds a short small game season in October for rabbit and squirrel. Hunters are allowed to
access the refuge two hours before official sunrise and are required to exit the refuge no later than
two hours after official sunset. Hunters are allowed access to the Headquarters Unit for deer,
squirrel, and rabbit hunting. The Bushley Bayou Unit is open to deer, squirrel, rabbit, rails, gallinule,
snipe, woodcock, and waterfowl hunting. Archery hunting is open the entire state season. On the
Bushley Unit, there are three big game hunts for deer, including 5 days of gun hunting, 7 days of
muzzleloader hunting, and 100+ days of archery hunting. These hunts are non-quota and require
only a signed refuge hunt regulation brochure, which is available at the refuge office, at sign-in
stations located at most major entrances, and at some local hunting/fishing stores. Deer hunters are
allowed to take only one deer per day and are not required to check them in. However, they must
sign in and out for each hunt. Squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, and feral hogs may be taken during the
archery hunt. Hogs and raccoons may be taken during all refuge hunts.
The state permits duck hunting on Catahoula Lake. The refuge allows duck hunting four days a week
on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays until noon, during the state season only on the
Bushley Bayou Unit, except in the 160-acre no-hunting zone in the minnow pond area. Other
migratory bird hunting for woodcock, snipe, and rails is open during state seasons only on the
Bushley Bayou Unit. Boats, decoys, and portable blinds must be removed at the end of each day.
No permanent blinds are allowed. A youth waterfowl hunt in the East Zone is allowed until noon of
the state youth waterfowl season. No waterfowl or migratory bird hunting is permitted on the
Headquarters Unit. Hunters under the age of 16 must have completed a hunter education course and
be accompanied by an adult 21 years of age or older. Hunting is in accordance with state regulations
and requires a valid state hunting license.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
There are many opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography on the refuge, which currently has
two designated hiking trails, an observation tower, and a 9-mile wildlife auto drive on the
Headquarters Unit. Other units provide more trails, roads, and diverse habitats.
The most popular facility on the refuge for wildlife observation is the observation tower, which
overlooks a lake that draws a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors. The wildlife
drive parallels Cowpen Bayou that provides a chance to see varied bird species, alligators, turtles,
otters, and other wildlife. Much of the wildlife drive takes visitors through a bottomland hardwood
forest where bobcat, white-tailed deer, and feral hogs can be seen. There is also some bird watching
along the dirt roads on the Bushley Bayou Unit.
Although no photo blind is provided, visitors may use various haul roads to get into the woods or
close to Duck Lake, which provides a close-up view of the birds using the refuge.
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Along the auto tour road on the Headquarters Unit, there are many opportunities to stop at the
observation tower or to take a half-mile walk along the nature trail. There is an open-air kiosk with an
interpretive display, which needs to be updated, on the Headquarters Unit. Most of the entrances to
the refuge have hunter sign-in/sign-out boxes that include a kiosk with refuge information.
Environmental education programs are not available on-site because facilities do not allow for such
programs. However, the refuge provides environmental programs for schools and community
organizations when requested.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Catahoula Refuge includes four full-time staff members: the refuge manager, GS-0485-13; assistant
refuge manager, GS-0485-11; office assistant, GS-0303-07; and engineering equipment operator,
WG-5710-10.
The refuge has earth-moving, vegetation control, and water management machinery and equipment
that is vital to pursuing its purpose. The equipment is kept at the maintenance compound, which is
located on the Headquarters Unit. However, much of this equipment is outdated and in need of
replacement.
The annual budget of the refuge varies, but has averaged $271,000 over the past 5 years.
Access to the Bushley Bayou Unit is from State Highway 126, which runs through the northern portion
of the refuge, from State Highway 8 on the western side of the refuge, and U.S. Highway 84 to the
south. The only public access to the refuge lands that does not require crossing private land is by
State Highway 126. Access to the Headquarters Unit is from Highway 28 and Highway 84.
There are 13.68 miles of gravel roads and 4.4 miles of dirt roads on the Headquarters Unit. There
are roughly 7 miles of gravel roads, 5.65 miles of dirt roads, and 21.6 miles of all-terrain vehicle trails
on the Bushley Bayou Unit.
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 45
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations,
public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input and
assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state
agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting
the management direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular,
are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process.
The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and
waters administered by the refuge.
Initial planning began in October 2004, with a pre-planning meeting of Service personnel. Early in the
process of developing the draft plan the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that
were likely to be associated with the conservation and management of the refuge. Also, in
preparation for developing the draft plan, a wildlife and habitat (biological) review was conducted on
the refuge during the week of October 20-22, 2004, by a team of Service biologists, managers,
foresters, and non-Service managers and biologists. A draft report for the biological review was
completed in February 2005. A Visitor Services Review was completed in December 2004.
Public input to the development of the draft plan was initiated through a notice of intent published in
the Federal Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10109), and a public scoping meeting held on
March 22, 2005. At the meeting interested stakeholders were able to register their concerns to
ensure that they would be considered during the development of the draft plan.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and
refuge administration. Key issues include invasive plants and nuisance animals, wintering waterfowl
distribution and use of the refuge, breeding waterfowl, forest breeding birds, all-terrain vehicle use
and access, and hunt programs. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state
mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the
process of obtaining public input through a public scoping meeting, which was held on March 22,
2005, at the Jena Elementary School in Jena, Louisiana. The meeting was publicized by a press
release in the local papers in Jena, Jonesville, and Alexandria (Chouinard 2005a).
There