D Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
D’Arbonne
National Wildlife Refuge
D Arbonne
CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn PPllaann
USFWS Photo
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
Kelby Ouchley
Refuge Manager
11372 Hwy 143
Farmerville, LA 71241
phone: 318/726-4222
fax: 318/726-4667
E-mail: northlarefuges@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 2006
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2006
D’ARBONNE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
OUACHITA AND UNION PARISHES, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2006
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................3
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................3
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .....................................................5
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. ......................................................................5
North American Waterfowl Management Plan.......................................................................5
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan...........................................................................6
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. .....................................................................................6
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ...............................................................6
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency..........................................................................................6
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries..................................................................6
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ......................................................................7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................9
Introduction..................................................................................................................................9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................9
Special Designations ..................................................................................................................10
Louisiana's Natural and Scenic Rivers..............................................................................10
Public Use Natural Area....................................................................................................10
Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................13
Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................14
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem ..................................................................................14
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................15
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative ........................................................................15
american Woodcock management Plan ...........................................................................17
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.....................................................................17
Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................17
Loss Of Bottomland Hardwoods and Fragmentation ........................................................17
Encroachment of Invasives ...............................................................................................18
Contaminants ....................................................................................................................18
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................21
Climate ..............................................................................................................................21
Geology and Topography..................................................................................................21
Soils .................................................................................................................................22
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................22
Water Quality ....................................................................................................................22
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................25
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................26
Habitat..............................................................................................................................26
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................32
Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................38
Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................39
Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................39
ii Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................39
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance.........................................................................44
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................47
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................47
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.....................................................................48
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................48
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................49
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................50
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................50
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION........................................................................................................53
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................53
Vision ........................................................................................................................................53
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................54
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................54
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................64
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................77
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................80
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................85
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................91
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................91
Project Summaries.....................................................................................................................91
Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................91
Fish And Wildlife Population Management .......................................................................91
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................93
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................94
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................94
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................95
Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................95
Volunteers .................................................................................................................................97
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................97
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................98
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................98
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................99
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY................................................................................................................101
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS......................................................109
APPENDIX III. LEGAL MANDATES.................................................................................................115
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................121
Summary of Public Scoping Comments...................................................................................121
Draft Plan Comments and Service Response..........................................................................121
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge iii
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ...........................................................................133
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form..................................................................133
Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................138
APPENDIX VI. REFUGE BIOTA.......................................................................................................161
APPENDIX VII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................183
APPENDIX VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT..............................................................185
iv Comprehensive Conservation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map ..................................................................2
Figure 2. D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge proposed Public Use Natural Area designations........13
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem ....................................................................................16
Figure 4. Distribution of invasive plants on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge................................19
Figure 5. Natural gas activity on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge................................................20
Figure 6. Bayou D’Arbonne watershed...............................................................................................23
Figure 7. Area on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge covered in water as flooding increases
from permanent pool of 52’ MSL to 70’ MSL .......................................................................24
Figure 8. Elevation of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................27
Figure 9. Vegetation coverage of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................28
Figure 10. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker areas on D’arbonne National Wildlife Refuge .....................37
Figure 11. Public use amenities and special hunting areas on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge .41
Figure 12. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging analysis on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge.....65
Figure 13. Open field and water management on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge .....................70
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Objective 2:.............................................................................72
Figure 14. Mixed pine and hardwood management units on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge ....73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Proposed schedule for completion of comprehensive conservation plans and
environmental assessments for refuges in the North Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex ...................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Historical timeline of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge establishment .............................11
Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with D’Arbonne National
Wildlife Refuge in 2002 .........................................................................................................26
Table 4. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge ...................33
Table 5. Demographics of Ouachita and Union Parishes, Louisiana based on Census 2000 data .........39
Table 6. Deer gun harvest data on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge from 1991 – 2002...............42
Table 7. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Funding for Fiscal Year 2004...............44
Table 8. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex revenue payments for Ouachita and
Union Parishes, Louisiana, for the last 5 years.....................................................................45
Table 9. Baldcypress and tupelo old-growth attributes (modified from Devall 1998)..........................68
Table 10. Categorization features of public use natural areas ...........................................................87
Table 11. Cost summary of proposed projects ...................................................................................95
Table 12. Current Staff at D’Arbonne Refuge and for the Complex and new positions proposed (all
are for one FTE unless otherwise designated) ..................................................................97
Table 13. D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans and associated
completion and revision dates ...........................................................................................98
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge was prepared to
guide management actions and direction for the refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all refuges be managed in accordance with an approved
comprehensive plan. Each refuge has purposes for which it was established that are used to
develop and prioritize management goals and objectives within the realm of the Refuge System
mission, and guide which public uses occur on 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.
The planning process is a tool for the Service and the public to evaluate management goals and
objectives for the best possible fish and wildlife conservation efforts, while providing for wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities that are compatible with the establishing purposes. 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. The draft of this plan and accompanying environmental assessment
was made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general
public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development of
this comprehensive conservation plan, which is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred plan.
The D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge is part of the North Louisiana National Wildllife Refuge Complex
(Figure 1). This Complex includes D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake, and
Red River refuges, and the Louisiana Wetland Management District. Each refuge has unique issues and
will require separate planning efforts and public involvement (Table 1).
Table 1. Proposed schedule for completion of comprehensive conservation plans and
environmental assessments for refuges in the North Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
Refuge Proposed Start Proposed Finish
D’Arbonne January 2004 September 2006
Upper Ouachita October 2005 March 2008
Handy Brake October 2005 March 2008
Red River February 2006 July 2008
Louisiana Wetland Management District October 2008 March 2008
Black Bayou Lake November 2008 May 2011
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
§¤ƒI-20
§¤ƒI-49
£ 71 £ 165
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
VICINITY MAP North Louisiana Refuges Complex
0 9 18 27 36
Miles
Scale 1:1,284,000
MAP LOCATION
Louisiana
!( !(
!(
Shreveport
Monroe
Alexandria
D’Arbonne
NWR Black Bayou
Lake NWR
Upper
Ouachita
NWR
Handy
Brake
NWR
Red River NWR
Toledo Bend
Black
Lake
Clear
Lake
Saline
Lake
Catahoula Lake
Lake
Bistineau
Lake
D’Arbonne
Red River Red River
OuachitaRiver
Figure 1. D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 3
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to 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.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge was established as mitigation for a large U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers navigation project on the Ouachita River. Its legislative purpose is that the refuge “shall be
administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with cooperative
agreements… and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance,
and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon, .…” (16 U.S.C. 664) under the
authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
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, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States’ territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program, which
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.”
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 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 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
Atascosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas
River (Louisiana) B the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the
belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
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 C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 5
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 of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 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 (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation) as those uses benefit the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated, where appropriate, into this 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 comprehensive conservation plan supports, among others, the Partners-in-
Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE. The North American Bird Conservation
Initiative is a coalition of government, private, and academic organizations, and private industry
leaders addressing bird conservation. Priority lands include coastal inter-tidal habitats that provide
critical wintering areas (e.g., American oystercatcher), important wintering and spring migration areas
(e.g., short-billed dowitcher and dunlin), and important fall staging areas (e.g., red knot). Sizable
numbers of brown pelicans and various terns breed on offshore islands, including Little Dauphin
Island. Coastal areas provide important wintering, nesting, and foraging habitats for large numbers of
shorebirds, waterfowl (e.g., canvasbacks and Tundra swans), and other species. Managed
impoundments in coastal areas are important to migrating and wintering dabbling ducks, including the
American black duck (USFWS, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation).
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture, a regional
partnership composed of individuals, conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies, which
implements the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, targets the conservation of migratory birds
and their habitats along the western Gulf of Mexico from Brownsville, Texas, to Mobile Bay in Alabama.
The primary goal of the joint venture is to provide wintering and stop-over habitat for scaup, canvasbacks,
and numerous dabbling ducks. Three major waterfowl habitats have been targeted for Mobile Bay,
including coastal marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and forested wetlands.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
PARTNERS-IN-FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight
Plan, the east gulf coastal plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird
conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land
birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
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.
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 game and fish agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainability of fish and wildlife species
in the State of Louisiana.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
Cooperation among national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas provides the
foundation for protection of wildlife species and habitat, and contributes to the maintenance of biological
integrity and diversity of fish and wildlife in the State of Louisiana and throughout the United States
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is charged with enforcement responsibilities
relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing state natural
resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management
areas. It coordinates the state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities on state wildlife management areas. Russell Sage, Ouachita, Union, and Bouef
state wildlife management areas are within the ecosystem of D’Arbonne Refuge, and the state
manages the fisheries within Bayou D’Arbonne itself. The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
has also partnered with the Service on the development of this comprehensive conservation
plan through participation on the core planning team, biological review team, and through
internal reviews of the document.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 7
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The mission of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources is to preserve and enhance the
nonrenewable natural resources of the state, consisting of land, water, oil, gas, and other minerals,
through conservation, regulation, and economic benefit from its asset base. The Monroe Gas Field
underlies portions of Ouachita, Union, and Morehouse parishes. Mineral rights were not obtained
when the refuge was acquired. The refuge works with the Department of Natural Resources to
maintain current records of all active and inactive gas leases on refuge lands.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout the planning process provided for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in
Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge is in northeast Louisiana, 23 miles south of the Arkansas border
and 2.5 miles north of West Monroe, Louisiana (Figure 1). The refuge encompasses 17,421 acres,
with 9,535 acres in Union Parish and 7,886 acres in Ouachita Parish. Its southern boundary is at the
edge of suburban sprawl of the city of West Monroe and expands north approximately 8 miles,
following just west of Highway 143.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1975, is within the Lower Mississippi River
floodplain in north Louisiana. The refuge includes deep overflow swamps, bottomland hardwood
forests, and upland mixed pine/hardwoods. The refuge provides habitat for thousands of wintering
waterfowl; wading and water birds, such as white ibis, herons, egrets, and wood storks; and year-round
habitat for nesting wood ducks. Many neotropical migratory birds breed on the refuge and use
it during migration. There are also numerous species of resident game, such as squirrel and deer,
amphibians, furbearers, and reptiles.
The refuge is open year-round for wildlife-related activities, such as fishing, wildlife observation, biking,
nature photography, and hiking. Public use facilities include trails and boat ramps. Hunting and fishing
opportunities are permitted on most areas of the refuge, according to specific refuge regulations. As
required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife resources must be
given first priority, with recreational uses available to the public as long as they are compatible with the
mission of the Service and the purpose for which the refuge was established.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
In 1957, Congress authorized the Columbia Lock and Dam as part of the Ouachita and Black Rivers’
Navigation Project. The dam was intended to increase the minimum depth of the navigation channel
from 6.5 feet to 9 feet. Since this would result in the permanent flooding of some areas along lower
Bayou D’Arbonne, it was necessary for the Army Corps of Engineers to acquire the land to be
submerged. The Corps also was interested in purchasing areas adjacent to the permanent pool so
that a national wildlife refuge could be established. At the same time, the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries was interested in acquiring or leasing some of the same land along the lower
Bayou D’Arbonne for use as a greentree reservoir.
At the request of landowners, the state sponsored a public meeting in 1965, in West Monroe so that
plans for the future of the lower Bayou D’Arbonne bottomlands could be made public. Although the
state proposal was supported by local sportsmen, including the local chapter of the National Wildlife
Federation, the Corps’ plan for the area prevailed. Eventually the local chapter of the National
Wildlife Federation, other local sportsmen, and local congressmen placed their support behind the
refuge concept. Partly as a result of this local support, the Rivers and Harbors Act was passed by
Congress on December 31, 1970. This Act modified the Ouachita and Black Rivers’ Navigation
Project to provide for the establishment of national wildlife refuges in the area affected by the project.
In 1972, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a field investigation to recommend lands for the
Corps to purchase for D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge was divided into 93 tracts held
by 56 owners. Five corporations owned 80.2 percent of the land, fifty private individuals owned about
19.60 percent of land, and the State of Louisiana owned 0.2 percent. On September 6, 1972, the
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Corps sponsored a public meeting in West Monroe to acquaint property owners and other interested
parties with the boundaries of the refuge and to explain acquisition policies. The acquisition process
was initiated shortly after the date of the meeting. By 1975, most of the land was acquired, and the
refuge was established under an interim management permit with the Department of the Army.
Litigation on the last two tracts, however, was not completed until 1978.
Mineral rights were not acquired on any of the land included in the refuge, and the only improvements
on the refuge at the time of acquisition were unpaved roads, fence lines, drainage ditches, a barn, a
log storage building, two hunters’ cabins, a permanent residence, gas wells, gas pipelines, and power
lines. The Corps owned the refuge until 1981, when the Service finally acquired the fee title of
17,421 acres of deep overflow swamp, bottomland hardwood forest, and mixed pine/hardwood
uplands. The refuge legislative purpose is for the “conservation, maintenance, and management of
wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon,” (16 U.S.C. 664 Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act). An entire history of the area of the refuge can be found in Table 2.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
LOUISIANA'S NATURAL AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Louisiana Natural and Scenic River System is one of the nation's largest, oldest, most diverse and
unique state river protection initiatives. It began in the early 1970s with the passage of the Louisiana
Natural and Scenic River Act. The Act set certain requirements for a river to meet in order for it to be
included in the system. The Act also established a regulatory program and empowered the Secretary of
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to administer the system through regulation and
permits.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries designated Bayou D’Arbonne a Louisiana Natural and
Scenic River from the Lake D’Arbonne dam to its entrance into the Ouachita River. This includes the 13
miles of the bayou as it traverses through the refuge. There is strong interest at the local, state, and national
levels to ensure that the scenic rivers are conserved both as irreplaceable elements of Louisiana’s rich
natural heritage and as resources to be used and enjoyed by local residents and visitors. Therefore, certain
activities, which drastically alter the natural and scenic qualities of rivers in the system, are prohibited by the
State of Louisiana. These activities include channelization, channel realignment, clearing and snagging,
impoundments, and commercial clear-cutting of timber within 100 feet of the low water mark.
PUBLIC USE NATURAL AREA
Designation and management of natural areas is delegated to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of October 15, 1966. Research natural areas
and public use natural areas are administratively designated, modified, or abrogated by the Director. In this
comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge has proposed four public use natural areas.
Public use natural areas exemplify relatively undisturbed ecosystems that are available for public use
with certain restrictions for protecting the integrity and significance of the areas. Such an area must
possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting an element of the natural heritage of
the nation. This designation is fostered only by the National Wildlife Refuge System. There are two
objectives for public use natural areas. These are (1) to assure the preservation of a variety of
significant natural areas for public use, which, when considered together, illustrate the diversity of the
National Wildlife Refuge System’s natural environments; and (2) to preserve for the future valuable
environments that are essentially unmodified by man.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 11
Table 2. Historical timeline of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge establishment
Before 10,000 BC-1700 AD
Native Americans inhabited northeastern Louisiana. At least
three sites on or adjacent to refuge land were used as villages
or burial grounds. One of these sites, a burial ground, was
established during the period 1500-250 BC.
Late 1950s
The last areas of cultivated upland on the west side of the refuge were
abandoned.
1700-1785
The region around lower Bayou D’Arbonne was inhabited by
the Ouachita Indians, an agricultural people of the Caddo
cultural-linguistic group. French explorers, hunters, and
trappers traveled the area. One of the early explorers was a
Canadian named Jean D’Herbanne. The name of the Bayou
is presumably an alteration of his name.
1964
Construction began on the Columbia Lock and Dam.
1785-1803
A Spanish military post was established 6.5 miles southeast of
the refuge. A small settlement developed and two land grants
during this period included part of what is now refuge.
1966-1967
The baldcypress plantation plus 1,000 acres of bottomland forests
were cleared and planted in soybeans. After 2-3 years of crop failures
due to flooding, farming was abandoned.
1803-mid-1800s
The United States acquired Louisiana. American
settlers established farms in the upland areas near
Bayou D’Arbonne
1967
Part of the Bayou Choudrant in the southwestern part of the refuge
was channelized to improve drainage. This was done to facilitate
timber operations.
Mid-late 1800s
Steamboats ran Bayou D’Arbonne to transport cotton and
Union Parish farm products to market.
December 31, 1970
Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act. This authorized the
purchase of land for national wildlife refuges in the area affected by
the Ouachita Navigation Channel Project.
1883
The construction of a railroad from Monroe to Ruston,
Louisiana, began the demise of steamboats on Bayou
D’Arbonne.
April 5, 1972
Following a field investigation, the Fish and Wildlife Service
recommended to the Corp of Engineers the land to be purchased for
D’Arbonne Refuge.
1902
Congress authorized a minimum 6.5-foot slack-water channel
on the Ouachita River through a system of locks and dams.
June 1972
The level of the permanent pool behind the Columbia Lock and Dam
was increased to 51 feet above MSL by the Corps.
1912-1925
The first extensive timber harvest occurred in the D’Arbonne
bottomlands, which would include the majority of bottomland
habitat of the refuge today.
September 6, 1972
A public meeting was held in West Monroe concerning acquisition of
lands for the refuge. The attitude of those present was mixed, but
strong opposition was not evident.
1925
The system of locks and dams providing a 6.5-foot slack-water
channel on the Ouachita River was completed.
November 20, 1972
The Columbia Lock and Dam were completed.
1950
Congress authorized construction necessary to increase the
depth of the Ouachita Navigation Channel to nine feet.
May 19, 1975
D’Arbonne Refuge was established under an Interim Management
Permit with the Department of the Army.
1954-1955
Approximately 1,000 acres of bottomland on the west side of
the refuge were cleared and planted in baldcypress,
sweetgum, and water tupelo, of which the latter two did not
survive.
July, 1975
The level of the permanent pool behind the Columbia Lock and Dam
was increased to 52 feet above MSL.
1957
The Columbia Lock and Dam were authorized by Congress as
a result of a study of the Ouachita Navigation Channel Project.
December 31, 1981
The Service received fee title to D’Arbonne Refuge from the Corps of
Engineers.
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The public use natural area designation was used instead of the research natural area designation
when the area in question was relatively small, near areas of high public use, or on areas of great
public interest. Four public use natural areas, ranging in size from 14 to 66 acres, were proposed in
the following vegetation types/landforms and encompass an associated formation of geologic or
hydrologic origin (D’Arbonne Master Plan 1981; Forest Habitat Management Plan 1983; Figure 2):
• Choudrant Brake: This 66-acre proposed public use natural area is on the north side of the
Bayou Choudrant drainage channel comprised of bottomland forest types of baldcypress-water
tupelo, overcup oak-water hickory, and sweetgum-willow oak.
• Upland-Bottomland Hardwood Transition: This area is 14 acres on a steep hillside having an
Eocene-aged soil of coarse “ironstone” concretions. The slope is dissected by a deep v-shaped
gully and several smaller, intermittent gullies. This upland area supports a number of
trees, including white oak, southern red oak, post oak, blackgum, loblolly pine, sweetgum,
white ash, water oak, mockernut hickory, and black cherry, with red maple, flowering
dogwood, redbud, eastern hophornbeam, and mulberry in the midstory. Among the plants
found in the understory are American beautyberry, red buckeye, tree sparkleberry, and
poison-ivy. Toward the lower portion of the slope the grade levels off, and converts to
bottomland species, such as willow oak and American elm, with some water hickory and
baldcypress. One specimen of morel, considered to be on the extreme southern limits of its
range, was discovered in this area.
• Possaw Island: This proposed public use natural area is 40 acres encompassing a high
hummock of coarse diluvium rising to over 80 feet in elevation above the surrounding first
bottom flat at less than 60 feet in elevation. The higher ground supports upland species, such
as loblolly pine, southern red oak, blackgum, mockernut hickory, water oak, tree sparkleberry,
flowering dogwood, two-wing silverbell, mulberry, American beautyberry, and red buckeye, as
well as sweetgum, willow oak, overcup oak, water hickory, common persimmon, and
greenbrier. The surrounding flats are dominated by willow oak, sweetgum, overcup oak, and
water hickory, with some common persimmon, hawthorn, American snowbell, possumhaw,
and baldcypress. There is a small sump area on the eastern side of the island where swamp
species, such as baldcypress, planertree, waterlocust, and common buttonbush, predominate.
• Beech Seep: This 36-acre proposed public use natural area partially encompasses two upland
drainage basins supporting a botanically rich beech-sweetbay forest. The sandy “ironstone”
soil is presumed to have its origins in the Eocene epoch. The southern portion is locally
known as Hinton Hollow, and popular with squirrel hunters because of the favorable habitat
provided by the hollow beech trees. This area also supports loblolly pine, southern red oak,
sweetgum, post oak, mockernut hickory, water oak, white oak, white ash, blackgum, black
cherry, and willow oak, as well as red maple, American holly, eastern hophornbeam,
American hornbeam, flowering dogwood, and mulberry. Among the shrub species are
American beautyberry, wild azalea, tree sparkleberry, witch-hazel, and red buckeye.
Common woody vines present are poison-ivy, Virginia creeper, Alabama supplejack, grape,
and greenbrier. The northern unit, where the soil is maintained moist by a perennial spring at
the headwaters, supports an especially rich flora. In addition to all the previous species,
sweetbay is prominent along the meandering streamcourse, while eastern red cedar is
common on the higher, drier sites. Several species of ferns and numerous herbaceous plants
are also common here, such as jack-in-the-pulpit and twayblade.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 13
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NATURAL AREAS D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3
Miles
Scale 1:75,000
Legend
Public Use Natural Area
Refuge Boundary
Refuge Road
Figure 2. D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge proposed Public Use Natural Area
designations
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM
The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem includes the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River
downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River and the delta plain and associated marshes and
swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (FWS 2002). The
drainage basins and tributaries of the Ouachita River, which include D’Arbonne Refuge, are part of
the West Gulf Coastal Plain upland section of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3).
D’Arbonne Refuge is in the heart of protected bottomland hardwoods and wetlands of north
Louisiana. Five national wildlife refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy
Brake and Tensas River), and thirty-six state wildlife management areas are focused on
conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwoods; moist-soil management;
endangered species management; environmental education; and compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The ecosystem guides Fish and Wildlife
Service efforts to enhance, restore, and conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types,
while maintaining economic productivity and recreational opportunities.
The ecosystem serves as a primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as well as
breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain forests of the past are now
fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from agriculture and flood control projects.
The following eight goals were developed for the ecosystem that this comprehensive conservation
plan will consider and promote to ensure the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem
conservation and integrity.
• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered,
and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
• Increase public awareness and support for Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem resources and
their management.
• Enforce natural resource laws.
• Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem.
Immediate priorities established for the ecosystem in 2004, to which the refuge contributes and will
continue to foster include:
• Continue working closely with state fish and wildlife agencies, other conservation entities, and
private landowners to provide seasonal flooding of harvested crop lands, set-aside lands, and moist-soil
habitats to benefit waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds on federal, state and private lands.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 15
• Consider all grant programs available to the ecosystem team and Service partners and work
to improve internal coordination to assure that the contribution of these programs to the
resource is maximized.
• Support environmental education efforts underway by the Service to enhance and
expand knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources. Encourage the
development of new programs with these objectives. Support environmental
education funding initiatives throughout the ecosystem.
• Continue efforts to combat the spread of invasive species throughout the ecosystem
utilizing biological, chemical, and/or mechanical means. Partnerships with state and
local governments, as well as federal sources, will be sought.
An area encompassing D’Arbonne Refuge and its southeast border has also been delineated within
the Mississippi Alluvial Valley as a Forest Bird Conservation Region (Mueller et al., 1996). Forest
Bird Conservation Regions were delineated based on extant forest area and configuration, location of
public land holdings, historic forest distribution, political and physiographic boundaries, and “expert”
opinion regarding the likelihood of reforestation (Mueller et al., 1996). Twedt & Uihlein (1999) then
prioritized these regions for reforestation opportunities based on the benefit that the restoration would
provide to forest breeding landbirds. D’Arbonne Refuge has over 4,000 acres that ranked out with
moderate to highest restoration priority (Twedt & Uihlein 1999).
West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region
The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem is covered primarily by two bird conservation regions:
Mississippi Alluvial Valley and West Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The West Gulf Coastal Plain
includes D’Arbonne Refuge because it reaches to the northwestern most portion of the Mississippi
Alluvial Basin. This section of the region is primarily mixed pine/hardwood types with bottomland
hardwood forest species in the more mesic areas and on slopes. These forests are of high
conservation priority for conserving the natural communities and the bird populations within these
habitats. The primary threats to these forests include reservoir construction; stream modifications;
destructive timber harvesting practices; and conversion to pine plantations, pastures, and other land
uses (Neal, http://www.lmvjv.org/wgcp). This plan will define conservation strategies to foster support
for the West Gulf Coastal Plain priorities.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
NORTHERN BOBWHITE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The initiative’s goal is “to restore northern bobwhite populations range wide to an average density
equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in 1980 [58,857,000].” The population objective
for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region is to add 131,033 new coveys, 21,833 of
these in Louisiana. Habitat management is the primary vehicle for accomplishing this goal with three
specific objectives, which the refuge has considered in this comprehensive conservation plan.
These are:
• Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing,
and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season
grasses and other conservation plantings, such as shrubs and forbs.
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM D’Arbonne NWR
0 140 280 420 560
Miles
Scale 1:15,350,000
TX
OK
LA
AR
MO
IL IN
KY
TN
MS AL
West Gulf
Coastal Plain
Mississippi
Alluvial
Valley
Austin
Oklahoma City
Baton Rouge
Jackson
Montgomery
St. Louis
Chicago
Little Rock
Memphis
D’Arbonne National ^
Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 17
• Enhance the management practices on pinelands and mixed pine/hardwoods by thinning,
controlled burning, and site preparation in a fashion that benefits bobwhites and other wildlife,
and increase acreage devoted to longleaf pine where it is ecologically feasible.
• Conserve and enhance the quality of rangelands by utilizing vegetation management
practices and grazing regimes that favor the retention and improvement of native plant
communities beneficial to bobwhites and other wildlife.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
The American Woodcock Management Plan was developed by the Service in 1990 to “guide the
conservation of woodcock in the United States.” The plan gives general guidance for habitat and
population management at the national level. Though habitat for woodcock is limited on D’Arbonne
Refuge, habitat practices that benefit woodcock have been considered in this comprehensive
conservation plan.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER RECOVERY PLAN
The red-cockaded woodpecker population on D’Arbonne Refuge is considered an important
support population, but is not identified in the recovery criteria (USFWS 2003). This
comprehensive conservation plan evaluates resource and management needs for red-cockaded
woodpecker management under the guidelines for critically small populations, as defined in the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
LOSS OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS AND FRAGMENTATION
The entire 25-million-acre Lower Mississippi Valley was once a floodplain forest of primarily oak-gum-cypress
cover types with overcup, willow, Nuttall, water, swamp chestnut and cherrybark oaks, as
well as sweetgum, water tupelo, water hickory, willow, cottonwood, sycamore, sugarberry, red maple,
box elder, baldcypress, and green ash. Only about 23 percent remains in forest with the rest
primarily lost to cropland conversion and hydrological changes associated with flood control. This
unique ecosystem is important to hundreds of wildlife species and native plant communities.
Bottomland hardwoods and associated wetlands support substantial wintering populations of a
number of waterfowl species, mainly mallards, and breeding and wintering wood ducks, and are a
primary migration corridor for significant numbers of other dabbling ducks. Bottomland hardwoods
are also a high priority for nesting habitat for neotropical migratory birds, breeding habitat for area-sensitive
birds, and necessary stopover habitat for spring migratory birds upon completion of their
Gulf of Mexico crossing. The alluvial valley supports a highly productive freshwater fishery and
habitat for resident, terrestrial wildlife species endemic to southern forests. Because the remaining
bottomland forest is so fragmented, conservation often focuses on retention or restoration of blocks of
forest of sufficient size to support healthy populations of the suite of bottomland hardwood forest
birds. The refuge maintains more than 11,000 acres of bottomland forest as a critical component to
maintaining a forested corridor in the Ouachita River drainage. The refuge provides important stop-over
habitat for neotropical migratory birds following the Ouachita River during migration, as well as
area-sensitive breeding migratory birds that are dependent on bottomland hardwood forests to nest.
More than 10,000 wading birds utilize the refuge’s bottomland hardwood forests during late summer
and then post-breeding dispersal occurs.
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ENCROACHMENT OF INVASIVES
Non-native or invasive plants can alter the function of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat,
displacing of native species, changing of carrying capacity by reducing native forage production,
lowering plant diversity, and increasing soil erosion and soil sedimentation. Invasives are at a critical
junction on the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Figure 4). Until recently, invasive
species were considered a minor nuisance. Meanwhile, two new invasive plants, Japanese climbing
fern and Chinese tallow tree, moved northward into this area and threaten to disrupt the entire
ecosystem both on and off the refuge.
CONTAMINANTS
The Monroe Gas Field, one of the largest known gas fields in the United States (Figure 5), underlies
approximately 5,000 acres of the 17,420-acre refuge. Until the 1970s, economics generally restricted
wells to one per 40 acres. However, tax laws and a dramatic, though short-lived, increase in natural
gas prices combined to spur a rash of drilling, which lasted until about 1986. During this period, the
number of wells in the Monroe Gas Field more than doubled. In some instances, wells were drilled
within 600 feet of each other. This rapidly depleted the gas reserves, reduced the average gas
pressure, and caused production at many wells to cease.
Mineral rights were not obtained when the refuge was acquired. Since all the subsurface mineral
rights within the refuge are held by private interests, mineral exploration and production activities can
occur anywhere on the refuge. Natural gas exploration and production activities involve a number of
operations, including, but not restricted to, seismic testing; surveying; site clearing; well drilling; road
and pipeline construction; maintenance of wells, pipelines, and other above-ground facilities; periodic
meter reading and inspections; and well-plugging operations (USFWS 1985). These actions have
produced five main problems with refuge management:
1. Habitat/wildlife disturbance; clearings for well sites, pipelines, and access roads result
in loss of wildlife habitat and fragment the remaining forest into smaller patches.
Fragmentation has been shown to have negative effects on nesting migratory birds
from increases in nest depredation and cowbird parasitism; clearing potential nesting
and foraging trees within red-cockaded woodpecker clusters and drilling during nesting
season; potential for further damage by erosion, siltation, flooding, and contamination
by brine or other harmful substances.
2. Improperly covered mud pits; prior to 1990, there were no regulations relating to pit
closure and often soil was pushed into mud pits, leaving several feet of mud under a
thin shell of soil. Such pits were quagmires and became hazardous for people,
wildlife, vehicles, or heavy equipment. Once the soil layer is broken, it’s possible to
sink to the bottom of the pit, which can be a distance of up to 7 feet.
3. Abandoned/poorly maintained wells and facilities; equipment parts, survey marking
tape, littering, and all man-made items used in or resulting from gas well operations
are supposed to be removed from the area when they are no longer functional or
needed, or when the well is vacated for reasons such as completion of the well or
following repair projects.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 19
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
INVASIVE PLANTS D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2
Miles
Scale 1:80,000
Legend
Refuge Boundary
Refuge Road
Invasive Species
Chinese privet, Chinese tallow, Chinaberry
Chinese privet
Japanese climbing fern, Chinese privet
Japanese climbing fern
Chinese tallow, crepe myrtle, wisteria,
and tree-of-heaven present in small areas
Figure 4. Distribution of invasive plants on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NATURAL GAS ACTIVITY D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6
Miles
Scale 1:79,500
Legend
Natural Gas Wells
Active--Producing
Temporarily Inactive
Abandoned and Unplugged
Dry and Unplugged
Plugged and Abandoned
Monroe Natural Gas Field
Pipeline
Miscellaneous
Refuge Boundary
Permanent Water
Highway
Refuge Road
Parish Road
Active--Injection
Unable to Locate
Figure 5. Natural gas activity on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 21
4. Mercury contamination; Until the 1970s, most meters used to measure gas production
contained mercury, which was carelessly handled and resulted in significant amounts
of mercury being found in the soil below the meter itself. Meters have been replaced
with non-mercury types and all known spill sites have been remediated. The primary
source of environmental exposure to mercury is through the consumption of fish.
There have been mercury advisories in the past for the waters of Bayou D’Arbonne. In
1997, all waters on D’Arbonne Refuge were for catch and release only due to a
mercury advisory (USFWS 1997). Earlier advisories were to limit largemouth bass
consumption to two meals per month with no limit on other species. High levels of
mercury can collect in the human body over long periods of time. These high levels
can cause health problems, especially for pregnant and breastfeeding women, children
less than 7 years of age, people with compromised immune systems, and others at
high-risk. The advisories do not mean that people should stop eating fish. Consumers
can still get the health benefits of fish and avoid harmful levels of mercury by following
the advisories for the amount consumed. The refuge must monitor for advisories and
provide the information to anglers who use refuge waters.
5. Saltwater contamination of soil and water; saltwater contamination of soil and water
was once a serious problem on the refuge. Saltwater is produced as a by-product of
natural gas production and was formerly stored in open pits that were subject to leaks
and seasonal flooding. Brine pollution has a severe and long-lasting impact on soils
and their ability to support vegetation. Concentrated brine kills all herbaceous and
woody vegetation in the contaminated area. Brine is not biodegradable and the
resulting damage is very difficult to remediate. Presently, brine from refuge wells is
pumped back into the subterranean strata through injection wells. The potential for
brine damage is still high due to poor condition of pipelines, wellheads, and other
facilities and the lack of proper maintenance in many cases.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Temperatures normally range between 20oF to 70oF during winter and 70oF to 95oF during the
summer. The average annual growing season is 237 days. Mean annual precipitation is 49.6 inches.
Thirty percent of the total occurs in the wettest months of February through April, and 15.7 percent in
the driest months of August through October. Snowfall and ice storms are uncommon occurrences.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The refuge is a convoluted system of bayous, sloughs, and lakes separated by upland mix of pine and
hardwood woodlands and bottomland hardwood forests. Bayou D’Arbonne meanders through a 2- to 4-
mile-wide floodplain characterized by alluvial soils deposited during the last 11,000 years. In the center of
the eastern side of the refuge an alluvial terrace, only slightly older than the adjacent floodplain, gradually
rises to an elevation of 90 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A bluff along the southern boundary of the
refuge marks the edge of another alluvial terrace, which rises to 130 feet above MSL. This terrace was
formed during the Pleistocene epoch, some 11,000 – 2,000,000 years ago.
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
A far older upland area is located on the western and northeastern sides of the refuge. This is the
eastern edge of the north Louisiana hill country. Its underlying structure was formed beneath and at
the shores of seas during the Eocene epoch about 50,000,000 years ago. These western hills rise to
elevations of 160 and 170 feet above MSL inside refuge boundaries. These same Eocene deposits
also underlie the alluvial section of the refuge at depths of 50-100 feet.
SOILS
Nine soil series are found on the refuge, five of which are subject to flooding. Alluvial soils of the
refuge are primarily clays and silt loams. They range from moderately acid to very acid. The upland
soils are mainly acid sandy loams with a sandy clay and sandy clay loam subsoil.
HYDROLOGY
D’Arbonne Refuge is in northeast Louisiana approximately 23 miles south of the Arkansas border, 5
miles north of West Monroe, Louisiana, and 70 miles west of the Mississippi River (Figure 6). The
central physical feature of the refuge is the Bayou D’Arbonne and includes an extensive system of
bayous, sloughs, and lakes separated by woodlands and cleared bottomlands. At the point where
the bayou flows into the refuge on its northern boundary, the bottom of the main channel is 38.5 feet
above MSL. The bayou travels a 13.2-mile course through the refuge and the channel bottom
gradually decreases in elevation until it is 35.5 feet above MSL at a point one mile below the southern
boundary. The permanent water pool is at 52 feet above MSL, but may rise as high as 82 feet above
MSL during flooding.
The Corp of Engineers manipulates the water level to minimize flooding while maintaining navigable river
stages. Permanent pool level is 52 feet MSL and results from backwater flooding from Columbia Lock
and Dam No.19 on the Ouachita River (about 30 miles below the refuge) with a possible 30-foot rise/fall
per year depending on annual rains. The permanent pool is comprised of Bayou D’Arbonne, Eagle Lake
Impoundment, Jones Lake, Wolf Brake Beaver Pond, Lake Drain Slough, Long Slough, Bayou
Choudrant, and Cross Bayou, for a total of 2,532 acres of permanent open water on the refuge (Figure 7).
The Corps has the right to permanently flood those lands lying below 65 feet above MSL and to flood on a
seasonal basis any land lying between 65 feet above MSL and 70 feet above MSL. Average seasonal
flooding is at 65-70 feet MSL in the growing season (March to November). Duration of growing season
flooding varies from one to five months. Flooding may begin as early as November but in some years
may not occur until January or February. Floodwaters may persist until July, but usually recede in June.
Thus the flood season is basically January through June. The maximum recorded water level is 82 feet
MSL. Water levels of Bayou D’Arbonne are measured indirectly through the Monroe Gauge reading of
the Ouachita River collected by the Corps of Engineers.
WATER QUALITY
The affected environment of the refuge with respect to water quality includes the entire Bayou D’Arbonne
watershed above the southern boundary of the refuge. It also includes that portion of the channel and
floodplain of Bayou D’Arbonne below the refuge and that portion of the Ouachita River from its confluence
with the Bayou D’Arbonne to the Columbia Lock and Dam. Any part of this stretch of the Ouachita River
floodplain, which is not protected by levees, is also in the affected environment.
The Bayou D’Arbonne watershed extends into Union, Ouachita, Claiborne, Lincoln, Jackson, and
Bienville Parishes in Louisiana, and into Union and Columbia Counties in Arkansas. Approximately
two miles below the southern boundary of the refuge, Bayou D’Arbonne joins the Ouachita River.
The latter flows into the Black River, which flows into the Red River, and which flows into the
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 23
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
BAYOU D’ARBONNE WATERSHED D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 8 16 24 32
Miles
Scale 1:705,800
Legend
Refuge Boundary
Bayou D’Arbonne Watershed
Parish / County Boundary
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
Lake
D’Arbonne
Bayou D’Arbonne
Oua
Lake
Corney
Lake
Claiborne
Little D’Arbonne
Figure 6. Bayou D’Arbonne watershed
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
WATER LEVELS D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3
Miles
Scale 1:72,600
Legend
Water Levels (above MSL)
Pool Stage (53 ft)
60 ft
65 ft
70 ft
Refuge Boundary
Jones
Lake
Wolf
Brake
Little
Johnson
Brake
Duco
Slough
Beanfield
Pool
Bayou D’Arbonne
Saline Creek
Long
Slough
Eagle
Lake
Figure 7. Area on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge covered in water as flooding increases
from permanent pool of 52’ MSL to 70’ MSL
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 25
Atchafalaya River. This system eventually empties into Atchafalaya Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. For
all practical purposes, however, refuge management will not have a serious effect on downstream
water quality below the Columbia Lock and Dam. There are two reasons for this: 1) The only major
pollutants which originate on the refuge are brine from gas wells and silt and clay particles in surface
runoff, which tend to settle on the bottom behind dams; and 2) by the time water from Bayou
D’Arbonne reaches the dam, it is diluted by inflow from other streams.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality created watershed surveys to collect a range of
biological, physical, and chemical data to assess the impaired waterbodies of Louisiana. Bayou
D’Arbonne and the section of the confluence with the Ouachita River were listed for an intensive survey
based on initial findings of lead, mercury, and suspended solids (http://www.deq.state.la.us). These areas
were sampled in 1974. The samplings indicated that the streams were calcium bicarbonate and sodium
chloride type waters with periods of high chloride and dissolved solids concentrations (U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers 1974). The quality of surface water in the Ouachita River Basin is influenced by agricultural,
primary metals, petroleum, and paper manufacturing activities in the area. Reduced water quality is also
due to increased chemical content resulting from the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in
agricultural activities and from chemical concentrations released by the manufacturing interests of the
area. Ouachita Parish was ranked number 7 from 12 facilities for 461,108 pounds and Union Parish was
ranked number 4 from 2 facilities for 861,474 pounds released into the waters (Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality 2004).
It is the policy of the State of Louisiana that all state waters should be protected for recreational uses and
for the preservation and propagation of desirable species of aquatic biota and indigenous species of
wildlife. There are seven water uses designated for surface waters in Louisiana: primary contact
recreation, secondary contact recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, drinking water supply, oyster
propagation, agriculture, and outstanding natural resource waters. The subsegment of the Ouachita
River Basin that includes Bayou D’Arbonne meets the state standards and designated for primary contact
recreation, secondary contact recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and drinking water supply
(Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Standards 2002).
AIR QUALITY
Air quality receives protection under several provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the national ambient
air quality standards and the prevention of significant deterioration program. Particulate matter (PM10) is
a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that is respirable in the lungs. In the area of the refuge,
dust associated with dirt from roadways, fields and construction sites, paper industry, utilities, other
combustion sources, and soot from open burning may all contribute to particulate matter. Other air
pollutants are lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide.
Since initially setting standards in the early 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
changed the standards in 1979, 1987, and most recently in 1997. Under the most recent review, the
EPA concluded that the current primary standards for ozone and particulate matter were not
adequate to protect the public from adverse health effects. Therefore, the EPA proposed a new
revision of the ozone and particulate matter standards. These new standards became effective
September 16, 1997. The EPA is requiring states to continue implementation of current standards
while working toward achieving the old standards (http://www.deq.state.la.us).
Louisiana operates a statewide air monitoring network of 44 monitoring sites. Monitoring sites are
selected based on minimum federal requirements, usually driven by historical conditions in the area.
Monitoring data are used to demonstrate that a geographical subdivision's (e.g., parish, city, or
town) ambient air is within the criteria pollutant standards (i.e., in attainment), or if it exceeds one of
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
these standards (i.e., in nonattainment). Louisiana’s ambient air quality standards are more
stringent and comprehensive than 47 other states. Air quality in Louisiana has improved over the
last 20 years. There was only one 5-parish non-attainment area in 2004, as opposed to 20 in 1984.
Ouachita and Union Parishes have always achieved attainment.
The annual burn program for the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex does not affect
air quality on a regional scale. At this time, Louisiana has no legal mandates restricting the volume
of smoke produced within a given area; however, voluntary smoke management guidelines issued
by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry are closely followed. The primary concern
related to air quality and smoke management is visual impairment from smoke drifting onto public
roads, and is handled with safety devices and traffic control personnel.
Industries are also monitored for toxic emissions and air pollutants throughout the state. Industries
report chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold limits.
Industries report estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground
injection wells, and land environments. Table 3 illustrates the amount of total releases and air
releases alone for both parishes of the refuge and their associated rank in the state to other
parishes (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2004).
Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with D’Arbonne
National Wildlife Refuge in 2002
Total Releases1 Air Releases
Parish # Facilities Pounds Rank Pounds Rank
Ouachita 12 8,991,1112 6 1,334,4863 13
Union 2 959,497 21 98,023 29
1 Estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground injection wells and land
environments.
27,398,978 pounds all from one chemical facility in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 4 among the
top 25 facilities for total pounds released.
31,001,922 pounds all from one paper industry in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 16 among the
top 25 facilities for pounds released into the air.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The refuge is situated on the western edge of the Mississippi River Delta. In this region, hydrology
plays a very important role in determining the composition and character of floodplain plant
communities because each species has a different level of tolerance to flooding. D’Arbonne Refuge
is predominately mature bottomland hardwood forest. The typical gradient of forest species relative
to flooding in response to elevation is seen in Figures 8 and 9. As one moves from permanent water
up and out of the terraces to uplands, it turns to a baldcypress/tupelo, to overcup oak-water hickory,
to willow oak, to upland pines mixed with hardwoods. Management and restoration of these
communities require an understanding of how long species can be inundated and whether flooding
should occur during the growing season or dormant season.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 27
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
ELEVATION MAP D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4
Miles
Scale 1:75,500
Legend
Refuge Boundary
Permanent Water
Elevation (feet)
250
100
40
Figure 8. Elevation of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 9. Vegetation coverage of D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
VEGETATION MAP D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8
Miles
Scale 1:72,000
Legend
Wetland Associated Upland Associated
Other
Moist Soil
Taxodium distichum / Nyssa aquatica
Taxodium distichum / Lemna minor
Open Water
Open Field
Quercus lyatra - Carya aquatica
Quercus phellos [Provisional]
Refuge Boundary
Herbaceous
Pinus taeda - Quercus falcate -
Carya texana / Vaccinium arboreum
Pinus taeda - Pinus echinata /
Vaccinium arboreum
Quercus alba - Carya alba /
Vaccinium elliottii
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 29
Bottomland Hardwoods
Bottomland hardwoods account for the majority of refuge land cover and can be classified into four
primary habitat types: 1) Baldcypress-Water Tupelo; 2) Overcup Oak-Water Hickory; 3) Sweetgum-
Willow Oak; and 4) Swamp Chestnut Oak-Cherrybark Oak.
Baldcypress-Water Tupelo
Baldcypress and water tupelo together make up the majority of stocking in this forest type, which
occurs in swamps, deep sloughs, and very low, poorly drained flats. The sites are always very wet,
and surface water stands well into or throughout the growing season. Soils are generally mucks,
clays, or fine sand. Common trees associated with this type are black willow, water locust, overcup
oak, green ash, and persimmon. Among the shrub species are swamp privet, buttonbush, and
planertree. Woody vines include red vine. A variety of herbaceous plants will be commonly seen and
take the form of flotants, emergents, and submergents. Frequently, a variety of mosses and lichens
adorn the exposed tree trunks, and the crowns may be draped with Spanish moss.
Overcup Oak- Water Hickory
This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight clay or silty clay soils.
These sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring inundations. Overcup
oak and water hickory together constitute the majority. Associates include willow oak, Nuttall oak,
cedar elm, green ash, and water locust. Minor associates include black willow, persimmon, and
sweetgum. Common shrub species include swamp privet, hawthorn, buttonbush, planertree, and
possumhaw. Woody vine species often associated include redvine, peppervine, trumpet-creeper,
dewberry, and possibly greenbrier. Panicums, asters, annual grasses, and cocklebur may occur in
openings within the stand.
Sweetgum-Willow Oak
The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically occupied by this forest type.
Willow oak and sweetgum comprise the largest proportion of the stocking in stands of this type. There
are extensive areas of this type on the poorly drained willow oak flats on the refuge. These stands are
strongly dominated by willow oak because of the heavy clay soils. Sweetgum often forms only a minor
proportion of the stocking. A major associate on higher clay ridges and flats is nuttall oak, which may
represent 30 - 50 percent of the composition. Other trees associated with this forest type are sugarberry,
green ash, overcup oak, water oak, water hickory, cedar elm, persimmon, and sometimes baldcypress.
Common shrubs include swamp privet, American snowbell, possumhaw, hawthorn, and dull-leaf indigo.
Woody vines occasionally present are greenbrier, peppervine, and redvine.
Swamp Chestnut Oak- Cherrybark Oak
This forest type occurs on the best, most mature, fine sandy loam soils on the highest of the first bottom ridges
and hammocks, and on the second bottoms or terraces down from the ridges. These well-drained sites are
seldom covered with standing water and only rarely overflow. Species composition of this habitat type varies
widely, though cherrybark oak will most likely be much more common than swamp chestnut oak. Many other
species contribute to a well-stocked stand: white oak, post oak, sweetgum, blackgum, hickory, willow oak,
water oak, southern red oak, winged elm, sassafras, delta post oak, slippery elm, shumard oak, black oak,
black cherry, white ash, green ash, red maple, and loblolly and shortleaf pines. Common midstory plants
include: eastern redbud, flowering dogwood, American holly, red mulberry, American hornbeam, eastern
hophornbeam, and witch-hazel. Shrub species usually include red buckeye, devil’s walkingstick, sweetleaf,
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Virburnum spp. Often included in this habitat type are grape vines, Alabama supplejack, Carolina
jessamine, trumpet creeper, and greenbrier.
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Uplands
Loblolly Pine
Loblolly pine forest type can be found on almost all soil types above 70 feet in elevation in the general
locale of the refuge. It is found mostly on sites with abundant soil moisture, which also promotes the
development of rich undergrowth. This forest type is dominated by loblolly pine as the overstory with
sweetgum associated, as well as shortleaf pine, southern red oak, and post oak. On moderately to
poorly drained sites, common associates include red maple, blackgum, and water oak. Midstory
trees include flowering dogwood, American holly, black cherry, hawthorn, eastern hophornbeam,
sassafras, and red mulberry. Common woody vines include Carolina jessamine, Alabama
supplejack, greenbrier, grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Among the shrubs associated
with this type are American beautyberry and Viburnum spp.
Loblolly Pine/Hardwood
Hardwoods are predominant in this type with loblolly pine making up at least 20 percent of the
stocking. On wet sites, loblolly pine is associated with sweetbay, blackgum, sweetgum, water oak,
willow oak, red maple, and American elm. Species associated on drier sites are southern red oak,
white oak, post oak, hickory, shortleaf pine, and persimmon. Generally, many of the same shrub,
vine, and herb species found with the loblolly pine type are also common associates in stands of the
loblolly pine/hardwood type.
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine together comprise a majority of the stocking. This type is usually
found on sites higher and drier than those where loblolly pine alone prevails, because shortleaf pine
does not tolerate very wet soils and loblolly pine is less thrifty on dry, thin soil. Common overstory
associates are sweetgum, blackgum, southern red oak, post oak, white oak, and mockernut hickory.
Tree species in the midstory include flowering dogwood, persimmon, eastern redcedar, and
hawthorn. Shrub species commonly associated with this type are American beautyberry, red
buckeye, rusty blackhaw, and sumac. Among the common species of woody vines are greenbrier,
Carolina jessamine, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy.
Open Field (moist-soil, mowed, and reverting to forest)
Prior to refuge acquisition, 1,026 acres of bottomland hardwoods were cleared for agriculture. This area is an
open field, known locally as the “beanfield” (Figure 9), and is composed of three areas: 1) 374-acre moist-soil
impoundment; 2) 420 acres of mowed fields; and 3) 240 acres that are being restored to forest. The entire
area provides a short window of exceptional waterfowl habitat and then flooding occurs making it too deep for
waterfowl foraging. The moist-soil impoundment is at 55 feet above MSL and is flooded naturally from
rainwater and when Bayou D’Arbonne overflows its banks. Three structures are in place to draw water off
during the spring after the bayou is at pool stage. Water can be pumped from permanent water south of the
impoundment. Pumping equipment has failed recently restricting management options. The mowed fields are
the herbaceous lands surrounding the impoundment up to the tree line. These fields, as well as the
impoundment, are mowed every 2 to 3 years to maintain vigorous herbaceous habitat for waterfowl foraging.
The areas of regeneration have had mowing and burning discontinued to allow woody vegetation to establish.
Regeneration in this area consists of persimmon, willow oak, overcup oak, buttonbush, and baldcypress.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 31
Invasives
Until recently, invasive plants have not been a large problem on the refuge. As a routine part of general
forest management, foresters eliminated scattered clumps of Chinese privet, mimosa, tree-of-heaven, etc.
Two species that have moved northward into this area and are of primary concern are Chinese tallow and
Japanese climbing fern. Japanese climbing fern is well established on the refuge and may be beyond the
point of control, much less eradication. This invasive fern can increase in cover to form mats, smothering
shrubs and trees (Miller 2003). The second problem species, Chinese tallow tree, is increasing
exponentially and is an imminent threat to wetland and upland habitats. This species causes large-scale
ecosystem disruption by replacing native vegetation, which reduces native species diversity, which in turn
has a negative impact on wildlife. Tallow can quickly become the dominant plant in disturbed areas and
invade bottomland forests, such that it earned a spot on the “America’s Least Wanted-The Dirty Dozen” list
of The Nature Conservancy (Flack and Furlow 1996). Other invasive plants that have been found on the
refuge include princess tree and chinaberry. Chemicals such as Garlon and Roundup have been used in
the past to kill invasives on an opportunistic basis. No formal monitoring program has been established.
Fire Regime
Fire is a natural phenomenon that has played a critical role in the ecosystem dynamics of the natural
communities within north Louisiana. Before wildfire suppression strategies were implemented, naturally
caused and anthropogenic fires likely burned thousands of acres of mostly upland habitat across northern
Louisiana each year. Low intensity fires occurred on average in 3- to 5-year intervals. With differences in
elevation and moisture gradients, these frequent fires maintained a mosaic of vigorous and diverse plant
communities in various stages of post-fire succession and provided a wide variety of habitat types and
conditions for wildlife. Higher elevations of the bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge have
experienced some low-intensity fire events during extended drought conditions. These occurrences were
probably rare and played little, if any, long-term role in affecting plant species composition. In general, fire
is viewed as detrimental to hardwood forest communities.
Prior to refuge establishment, wildfires occurred on refuge lands every 7-12 months based on
Louisiana Office of Forestry records (USFWS 2001). After refuge establishment, wildfires
occurred on refuge lands every 22 to 74 months. Most wildfires occurred in October-December
and averaged 5 to 17 acres.
Prescribed fire has been used as a cost-effective method of controlling mid-story hardwoods in the
pine and mixed pine/hardwood habitat types beginning in 1987. There have been 112 management-ignited
burns for a total of 6,435 acres with an average size of 58 acres. These burns were
conducted to comply with management guidelines for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Prescribed fire
interrupts succession of pine stands toward more hardwoods and increased mid-story. Management
for the red-cockaded woodpecker has driven the prescribed fire program on the refuge. Moderate- to
high-intensity spring burns on a 3- to 5-year cycle were used to control small diameter hardwoods,
increase the amount of grasses, and promote other vegetative growth by increasing the amount of
sunlight that reaches the forest floor. The annual growing season burns significantly reduced or
eliminated hardwoods over time and promoted production of grasses.
Fire management is administrated by the refuge forester as collateral duties, with ultimate
responsibility placed on the project leader. Wildfire suppression is handled by the Louisiana Office of
Forestry. Refuge resources are not used for initial attack, but will pre-position equipment to shorten
response time should fire threaten refuge lands.
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
WILDLIFE
Migratory Birds
Waterfowl
The refuge provides important wintering habitat for at least 14 species of migratory waterfowl:
mallard, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern
pintail, wood duck, hooded merganser, ring-necked duck, canvasback, and lesser scaup. Other
species that utilize the refuge less frequently include: bufflehead, redhead, common merganser, red-breasted
merganser, greater scaup, ruddy duck, common goldeneye, and American black duck.
Mid-winter waterfowl surveys are flown annually (Table 4). Though mallards and ring-necks are
abundant, wood ducks probably are the most abundant wintering duck on the refuge. Wood duck
numbers, as well as hooded merganser, are under-represented when using traditional survey
methods (aerial) because ducks are not detected well in the flooded timber.
The presence and distribution of wintering waterfowl on the refuge depends primarily on water levels
and mast crops. Low-water levels favor dabblers, not only because low water is attractive for feeding,
but also because off-refuge areas are usually dry during the period, causing the birds to seek the
permanently flooded areas and low, flooded fields on the refuge. As water levels increase and the
backwater floods the uplands, mallards and other dabblers begin using the flooded timber. When
open water in the open field and moist-soil unit areas become more deeply flooded, diving ducks are
attracted to the invertebrate food source on the submergent vegetation.
Waterfowl use of the refuge during the breeding season is limited due to the southern latitude. Wood
ducks nest using the many natural cavities available in bottomland hardwood forests and in the dead
pine trees on the refuge quite regularly. In addition, wood duck nest boxes are located throughout
the refuge to provide additional nesting habitat. In the past, hooded mergansers have nested in wood
duck boxes on the refuge on rare occasions. Mergansers probably nest in natural cavities within the
refuge, but they are rarely seen.
Water and Marsh Birds
Great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, cattle egret, little blue heron, white ibis, green heron, yellow
and black-crowned night-herons, and American bitterns use the refuge’s sloughs, bayous, flooded timber,
scrub/shrub, and the open field at different times of the year, depending upon the water levels. When
water is coming off the refuge in late spring, wading bird concentrations are high as they capitalize on
trapped fish and crayfish. Glossy ibis, roseate spoonbills, wood storks, and tri-colored herons are seen
irregularly, usually during post-breeding dispersal in late summer. Least bitterns most likely migrate
through the refuge. No major rookeries are known to occur on the refuge.
Large concentrations of double-crested cormorants utilize the refuge during winter, and anhingas are
found along the bayou during the summer. American white pelicans are sometimes seen in the open
field in late summer and during migration.
Marsh bird habitat of emergent vegetation, such as cattails or bulrush, is not available on the refuge,
but Virginia rails, clapper rails, and sora rails probably migrate through the refuge. King rails may
breed irregularly in the open field if water levels are suitable. Coots are present year-round and are
especially abundant in winter. Although common moorhens and purple gallinules are supposed to
breed in this area, there are no records of them nesting on the refuge, and they are rarely seen.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 33
Table 4. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
Year Mallard G-w Teal Pintail Wood Duck Canvasback Ring-neck
Other
Spp.1
Total
Ducks
1990 7550 0 0 100 22 1900 34 9606
1991 1400 0 0 400 100 1200 10 3110
1992 500 0 0 0 400 600 500 2000
1993 1200 700 300 400 0 0 0 2600
1994** 1100 200 600 270 0 800 180 3150
1997 200 0 0 0 50 150 0 400
1998 1000 0 0 50 200 400 0 1650
1999 325 125 0 0 0 0 50 500
2000 1000 700 0 0 0 0 700 2400
20012 800 0 30 750 50 150 120 1900
2002 305 0 0 20 70 2000 200 2595
2003 889 0 0 20 50 700 0 1659
20042 4500 0 250 200 0 0 250 5200
2005 1020 0 0 80 100 5 455 1660
* Surveys conducted first week of January from airplane
**Mid-winter waterfowl surveys were not conducted in 1995 and 1996.
1 Other species may include unidentified ducks, scaup, shoveler, and gadwall.
2 Ground survey.
Shorebirds
Mudflats for shorebird habitat are scarce on the refuge. The open field is too quickly vegetated when water
levels drop making mudflats largely unavailable. Occasionally, pectoral sandpipers, yellowlegs, and peeps
will use the area during spring migration if water levels drop early. Common snipe use the open field in
winter when the fields are shallowly flooded. Spotted and solitary sandpipers are often seen on the edges of
bayous during migration. Killdeer is the most numerous species of shorebird.
Killdeer are common all over the country in all kinds of habitat. They often nest on the levees, gravel
roads, and parking lots.
Neotropical Migratory Songbirds
Breeding landbird surveys conducted on the refuge detect the red-eyed vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher,
prothonotary warbler, summer tanager, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Acadian flycatcher as among the ten
most abundant. Red-eyed vireos, blue-gray gnatcatchers, and tanagers occur throughout the refuge,
while the cuckoo and flycatcher will be seen usually in the bottomland hardwoods and yellow-breasted
chat in the upland underbrush and scrub/shrub. Hooded and Kentucky warblers nest in the upland pine
areas where dense undergrowth often occurs. Bachman’s sparrows, species of management concern,
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
winter on the refuge in small numbers in the upland pine habitat. Bachman’s sparrows have not been
detected during the breeding landbird surveys, but there may be a few individuals that nest on the refuge.
Swainson’s warbler and worm-eating warbler, also species of management concern, are detected only
very irregularly on the refuge in the bottomland hardwoods. Louisiana waterthrush is more common but
not detected with any consistency. These three species can also be found in upland areas, too, because
the flooding on the refuge forces them into the thick understory on higher ground.
Eastern bluebirds, Carolina wrens, brown-headed nuthatches, and tufted titmice are cavity nesters
that utilize natural cavities and 23 bluebird nest boxes on the refuge.
Resident Landbirds
Resident landbirds nesting on the refuge include: northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, tufted
titmouse, blue jays, eastern bluebirds, Carolina wren, American crow, and pine warbler. Brown-headed
cowbirds are also numerous on the refuge.
Woodcock are found in damp, brushy woods and courtship displays are in grassy areas nearby
(Sibley 2000). Although most woodcock are present on the refuge only during the winter, a brood of
woodcock was seen on the refuge in April 2001. Wintering woodcock arrive in the area usually when
the open field and bottomland hardwoods are already completely flooded. Consequently, they are
pushed into the upland pine/hardwood habitat. There are no data of how abundant woodcock are on
the refuge with the limited habitat. This game species provides limited hunting opportunities, but
hunting is allowed on the refuge.
Wild turkey declined from over-hunting in the early 1900s in this area. In the mid-1980s, biologists
stocked turkeys captured from Tensas River Refuge onto this refuge. Today, turkeys utilize the
mixed upland pine/hardwood areas of the refuge, though that type of habitat is limited (i.e., 1,250
acres). No hunting is allowed on the refuge due to the low estimate of turkeys that result from limited
habitat and variable reproductive success due to fluctuating water levels during the spring.
Only a few northern bobwhite quail are found on the refuge, again, because of limited upland habitat.
Reproduction does occur on the east side of the refuge where coveys have been seen.
Resident Wildlife
Mammals
Forty-four species of mammals are known likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix VI), although an
inventory has not been conducted. White-tailed deer are the only big game on the refuge.
Furbearers found on the refuge include Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, river otter, beaver,
mink, nutria, and muskrat. Coyotes and bobcats are present also. Both eastern cottontail and
swamp rabbits inhabit the refuge. Fox and gray squirrels are found on the refuge, with fox squirrels in
the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the dense forests.
Gooding and Langford (2000) reported bats utilizing bottomland hardwoods on the refuge from mist-net
capture of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, southeastern myotis, big brown bat, eastern red bat,
Seminole bat, and evening bat. Other bats that most likely use the refuge, but were not seen or
captured during the study, are free-tailed bat, eastern pipistrelle, and during migration, the hoary bat.
Two bat houses are on the refuge, but no bats have been seen using them.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 35
No inventories have been conducted on small mammals, such as mice, voles, or moles.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Over seventy species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix VI). Frog
and toad surveys have confirmed eleven species on the refuge: Northern cricket frog, upland chorus
frog, spring peeper, common gray treefrog, cope’s gray treefrog, green treefrog, leopard frog, bronze
frog, bullfrog, narrow-mouthed toad, and Fowler’s toad. Pickeral frogs have not been recorded during
the call surveys, but have been heard calling on the refuge during the middle of the day.
Amphibian malformations have been occurring across the country. The U.S. Geological Survey and the
Service have been conducting studies to try to determine the extent and cause of these malformations.
Surveys conducted on the refuge did not find any evidence of malformations (Carr 2002).
Alligator surveys are not conducted on the refuge currently, but alligators are often seen in Bayou
D’Arbonne and its tributaries.
Three-toed box turtles utilize the upland areas on the refuge. Often, red-eared sliders, musk, and
map turtles are found basking on logs along the bayou.
Fisheries
Bayou D’Arbonne provides habitat for many species of freshwater fish (Appendix VI). Important
game species found in refuge waters include: bluegill; redear sunfish; longear sunfish; white and
black crappie; and largemouth, yellow, and white bass. Other species include blue, flathead, and
channel catfish; smallmouth, bigmouth, and black buffalo; freshwater drum; longnose, shortnose,
alligator, and spotted gar; bowfin; and carp. Paddlefish are common in Bayou D’Arbonne and utilize
shallow areas on the refuge for spawning.
Species of Concern
One threatened species, the bald eagle, and one endangered species, the red-cockaded
woodpecker, frequently occur on the refuge. Alligator snapping turtles, Rafinesque’s big-eared bats,
and southeastern myotis bats are species of concern that also occur on the refuge.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a cooperatively breeding species typically found in family groups
that, in addition to the nesting pair, include 0-2 male offspring from previous nesting seasons, and at times
may include a female. RCWs are confined to old pine stands in the southeastern United States. This
species evolved in a fire-maintained ecosystem and consequently prefer open, park-like pine stands with
little or no hardwood midstory and herbaceous groundcover (RCW Recovery Plan). These woodpeckers
excavate only live pine trees that are 75 years or older and usually have been infected with heartwood
fungus. Habitat loss from development and fire suppression are the primary cause of their endangerment
(RCW Recovery Plan). Another common problem is demographic isolation. For example, when different
populations are widely separated by non-pine forests (e.g., bottoms, agriculture, and cities), the isolation
leads to inbreeding, which eventually destroys a population. Also, because juvenile females disperse or
leave from their birth cluster to search for a male, they find themselves “lost” in a sea of hostile
environments. Isolated populations also suffer from not having any immigration or new birds moving into
the population to replace older birds that die.
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Currently, there are three active groups of RCWs on the refuge, with a goal of five (Figure 10). When
populations are this small and this isolated, any mortality of adults affects the population greatly. Any
population under 10 groups is not considered viable, and preferably, a population should consist of
30 groups or more to be able to sustain itself. Management efforts on D’Arbonne Refuge are
conducted to foster the RCW population; however, with only a small amount of pine habitat available,
this population will most likely never be viable.
Bald Eagle
Bald eagles breed throughout the United States, and winter throughout the southern portion of its
breeding range. Bald eagles have always used the refuge during the winter, and are usually seen in
the open field every year. Bald eagles feed on fish, waterfowl, coots, muskrats, and nutria. For
decades, bald eagles did not nest in northeast Louisiana, however, in the past 3 years nests were
found near the refuge. They nest primarily in cypress snags in swamps near open water and feed in
open lakes. In 2003, the first active nest ever recorded on the refuge was found near Choudrant
Ditch. It successfully raised and fledged one chick. In 2004, this nest was not used again, but in
2005 the pair fledged two young.
Alligator Snapping Turtle
Alligator snapping turtles are the largest freshwater turtles in the United States. They are protected from
commercial harvest in every state. Louisiana protected them from commercial harvest starting in 2004.
Commercial harvest of these turtles threatens their population because alligator snapping turtles do not
breed until they are approximately 15 years old, and the harvest targets adults. Nest depredation by
raccoons, skunks, opossums, and fire ants also harm the population significantly. The refuge has no
good estimate of the alligator snapping population, though individual turtles have been seen.
Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is the least studied bat in the eastern United States (Harvey et al., 1999)
and is federally designated a species of special management concern (USFWS 1999). This bat is
associated with bottomland hardwoods, and since this habitat has decreased, many biologists are
concerned about the status of the Rafinesque’s big eared bat. Many states consider them to be
either threatened or endangered; however, Louisiana has no official designation for them.
Forty-four roost trees of Rafinesque’s big-eared bats were found on the refuge inside hollow water
tupelo trees during the summer of 2000, as part of a larger study on bats. The roost trees are all
within the same, unique tupelo stand. This unique stand is comprised of a high density of very large,
old, hollow water tupelo trees mixed with large baldcypress and some water elm on the outer edges.
Roosts varied from one bat one day to 50 bats the next (Gooding and Langford 2004). There also
appeared to be a maternity colony that moved among roost trees (Gooding and Langford 2004). This
bat roost on the refuge is an important resource that will need special management attention. Since
these bats are sensitive to disturbance (Clark 1990), they have been considered in forest
management decisions and habitat objectives.
Southeastern Myotis
Southeastern myotis is also associated with riparian areas or bottomland hardwoods and is listed as a federal
species of special management concern. They are often captured in mist-nets more than big-eared bats, but
their populations are thought to be declining as well. Southeastern myotis roost in caves (Harvey 1992) in the
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 37
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER AREAS D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8
Miles
Scale 1:87,500
Parish Road
Refuge Road
Highway
Roads
Permanent Water
Refuge Boundary
Legend
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Cluster
Figure 10. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker areas on D’arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
northern part of their range, but little is known about their roosting habits in areas where there are no caves,
such as Louisiana. Several of these species, both male and female, were captured using mist-nets on the
refuge during the summer of 2000, but only one maternity roost was found in a water tupelo tree.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In 1982, a cultural resources reconnaissance of the refuge was conducted by the Research Institute
of Northeast Louisiana University (Heartfield and Price 1982). It was primarily a survey of planned
construction sites on the refuge. As a result of the survey, six prehistoric sites were identified. Two
of the sites were largely destroyed; four sites needed further investigation to determine eligibility for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. It is very likely that more prehistoric sites exist
on the refuge especially on deposits of Pleistocene age. Since the survey was conducted, artifacts
have been found by members of the refuge staff on four additional sites on or adjacent to the refuge.
The National Register of Historic Places, established by Congress in 1966, is the nation’s official list of
significant historic properties. The National Register recognizes five basic types of historic properties:
historic buildings, such as plantation houses, courthouses or log cabins; historic structures, such as old
bridges, lighthouses or forts; historic districts, such as old residential or commercial neighborhoods; historic
sites, such as battlefields or Indian mounds; and, historic objects, such as old steamboats or fire engines. It
is important to note that not every historic site or old building or neighborhood is eligible for the National
Register. Properties must have some type of significance: properties that are closely associated with an
important person, event or development; buildings that are architecturally significant because they are
important examples of a particular style or type, or a method of construction; and, properties that are
archaeologically significant because the remains yield information about the nation’s history or prehistory.
Generally, properties are not placed on the Register if they are less than 50 years old; if the period of their
historical significance is less than 50 years old; or if they have been significantly altered.
Each state has a historic preservation office, which is responsible for nominating buildings, sites,
districts, etc., to the National Register. In Louisiana, this program is administered by the Division of
Historic Preservation, which is part of the Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture,
Recreation and Tourism. None of the D’Arbonne Refuge sites are known to be eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places at this time and they will not be designated as scientific
sites. Official designation as scientific sites, as part of the planning process, also carries the risk of
alerting illegal artifact collectors to the location of these sites. The Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 specifically prohibits making available to the general public the location of any
archaeological site, if such notification may create a risk of harm to the site.
Socioeconomic Environment
The refuge is split between Union Parish and Ouachita Parish just north of the twin cities of Monroe and
West Monroe in north Louisiana (Table 5). Historically, the area of the refuge was farmed on the uplands
by small farmers growing cotton and corn. By the 1950s, all farming operations had been abandoned on
the upland areas. The bottomlands were cleared of most merchantable timber by the 1920s. Union
Parish is still rural in character with an economy based on forest products, natural gas production,
agriculture, and light industry. Agriculture is dominated by cattle and chicken production, with a little row
crop agriculture scattered throughout. Ouachita Parish is dominated by the urban complex of Monroe and
West Monroe, often referred to as the twin cities of northeast Louisiana. The parish economy is primarily
based on natural gas production, furniture, lumber, paper, the retail trade, and higher education. Yet,
agriculture is also important in Ouachita Parish as well. Monroe is the home of the University of
Louisiana, and houses the headquarters of CenturyTel Communications, the fifth largest
telecommunications provider in the nation.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 39
Table 5. Demographics of Ouachita and Union Parishes, Louisiana based on Census 2000 data
Parish Population Households Families
Population
Density
(indiv/sq.mi)
Housing
Units
Housing Density
(units/sq.mi)
Ouachita 147,250 55,216 38,319 241 60,154 98
Union 22,803 8,857 6,412 26 10,873 12
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
All lands within the established acquisition boundary for D’Arbonne Refuge have been acquired. No
in-holdings exist and there are no immediate plans to expand the acquisition boundary. Three
Partners for Wildlife Projects near the refuge have been completed and opportunities for others are
monitored.
VISITOR SERVICES
D’Arbonne Refuge recognizes and provides the six priority wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation (Figure 11).
The uses that primarily occur on the refuge are fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation, mostly
birding. The remaining three priority public uses, environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife
photography are allowed but participation is light. Environmental education and interpretation
interests are encouraged to use Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Black Bayou Lake
Refuge is part of the same Complex as D’Arbonne, is more accessible, and has an extensive
environmental program and a staff person stationed there to administer the public use program. A
few visitors participate in wildlife photography, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, firewood cutting,
and trapping.
Loose estimates of numbers of visitors to the refuge in the last 5 years are between 20,000 and
30,000 per year. There are no good tools in place to estimate the number of visitors to the refuge
each year. Public use figures for fishing are abstract because boats can be launched at several sites
on the refuge and can enter the refuge on Bayou D’Arbonne from nearby launches both north and
south of the refuge. Vehicle counts in parking areas during hunting seasons give an approximation
for hunting visits, but multiple access points make it difficult. Currently, no record of contacts at the
Complex headquarters is being kept.
Orienting Visitors
The office at D’Arbonne Refuge is the headquarters for the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. It is located at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 143 and Holland’s Bluff Road (Figure
11). It is open weekdays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Refuge brochures, state hunting and fishing
regulation pamphlets and other Service brochures are available in the foyer.
D’Arbonne Refuge is open year-round for permitted activities.
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Fishing
Fishing is the most popular public use activity on the refuge. Thirteen miles of Bayou D’Arbonne and
the many sloughs, creeks, and oxbow lakes provide a great diversity of aquatic habitat. Annual flooding
greatly contributes to the productivity of the refuge waters. Largemouth bass, crappie, bluegill and
other sunfish, and catfish are the most sought-after species. Gear used on the refuge includes rod and
reel, cane pole, and trotlines. Commercial fishing is not allowed. However, a recreational fisherman
can use certain types of hoop nets and slat traps for recreational fishing with a special use permit
issued by the refuge. Forty-five of these permits were issued in 2003 and 72 in 2004.
Fishermen access the bayou from two concrete boat launches and one graveled boat launch on the
refuge (Figure 11). Boats also routinely enter the refuge on Bayou D’Arbonne from nearby launches
upstream and downstream, including those on the Ouachita River. The variety of access points makes it
difficult to monitor the amount of use actually occurring on the refuge. Bank fishing occurs at easily
accessible areas on the bayou and in the borrow pond just south of the Cross Bayou parking lot.
Outfitters and fishing tournaments or derbies are not allowed to originate on the refuge.
Hunting
D’Arbonne Refuge is open to hunting for deer, rabbit, squirrel, duck, goose, coot, quail, dove, woodcock,
raccoon, opossum, feral hog, coyote, and beaver. The entire refuge is open to hunting, with some hunts
limited to specific areas (Figure 11). Deer is the most pursued game species on the refuge. Archery deer
season is open from October 1 through January 31, and many bowhunters utilize the refuge. The entire
refuge is open to either-sex archery hunting, except during gun hunts. Bowhunters cannot hunt in the
open field area (Figure 11). Most years the refuge offers three either-sex deer gun hunt weekends and a
special either-sex gun hunt weekend for hunters with a Class I (wheelchair bound) permit that is issued by
the state. Six hunters with disabilities participated in the special hunt in 2003 with no deer harvested. See
Table 6 for data gathered from check stations since 1991. Full data sets, rather than only summary data,
are available only from 1996 to present.
Squirrels are the second most popular game with hunting occurring over the entire refuge during the
season. Waterfowl hunting is permitted on the refuge during the state season until noon each day.
Most hunting occurs in the flooded bottomlands. The open field area is a sanctuary and closed to
waterfowl hunting (Figure 11). The most commonly harvested species are wood duck, mallard, and
gadwall. Hunter success varies from year-to-year as a result of many factors. Local influences
include refuge water levels, acorn production, and weather.
Occasionally hunters pursue rabbit, quail, or woodcock. However, quail and woodcock habitat is
limited. Quail habitat, primarily limited to upland pine ridges, may improve in the future since the
refuge has switched to growing-season prescribed burns. Although the public has expressed an
interest in turkey hunting, turkey habitat is limited on the refuge and currently not allowed. It is being
re-evaluated in this comprehensive conservation plan.
Raccoon hunting is allowed on the refuge and is not restricted to roads and trails. With a special use
permit, one can also hunt on horseback at night for raccoons. Seven nighttime permits were issued in
2003, and nineteen were issued in 2004. Raccoon hunting at night is limited to December and January.
Outfitters are not allowed.
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 41
!y
!y
!y
!y
![
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!@
Wolf
Brake
Saline Creek
Bayou D ’Ar bo nne
Beanfield
Pool
Little
Johnson
Break
Jones
Lake
Duco
Slough
Long
Eagle Slough
Lake
143
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
PUBLIC USE D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6
Miles
Scale 1:78,400
Legend
Public Use
!@ Refuge Headquarters
!= Maintenance Shop
!i drb_parking
!] Information Kiosk
![ Observation Tower
!y Boat Ramp
No gun hunting after Oct 31
No waterfowl hunting
Horseback Trail
Valley View Trail
Miscellaneous
Highway
Refuge Road
Parish Road
Refuge Boundary
Permanent Water
Figure 11. Public use amenities and special hunting areas on D’Arbonne National Wildlife
Refuge
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table 6. Deer gun harvest data on D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge from 1991 – 2002
Year
Total
Harvested
Bucks
Harvested
Does
Harvested
Avg. Live Weight of
Yearling Bucks1
Lactation
Rate2
Yearling
Spike
Rate3
1991 64 38 26 116 lbs. 73% 53%
1992 74 34 40 131 lbs 64% 18%
1993 53 32 21 105 lbs 50% 41%
1994 69 38 31 116 lbs 39% 50%
1995 69 36 33 107 lbs 74% 82%
1996 51 27 24 130 lbs 67% 55%
1997 100 61 39 116 lbs 63% 47%
1998 105 62 43 113 lbs 78% 59%
1999 72 46 26 114 lbs 71% 38%
2000 75 48 27 113 lbs 80% 56%
2001a 29 17 12 110 lbs 33% 89%
2002 72 45 27 107 lbs 67% 36%
2003 68 53 15 110 lbs 50% 56%
1 total live weight of all yearling bucks divided by total number of yearling bucks
2 number of adult does lactating divided by total number of does
3 number of yearling bucks with two antler points or less
a check stations were only held three out of the seven hunt days, therefore, fewer samples than other years
Wildlife Observation
D’Arbonne Refuge is open to self-guided field trips. An observation platform and Valley View Nature Trail
are available. The Andy Anders Memorial Observation deck for the disabled overlooks the open field
area (Figure 11). It is visited year-round, but is most popular in the winter when water is held in the moist-soil
unit attracting hundreds of waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds.
Approximately 150 birders frequent the refuge each year, with the majority of these being locals.
Each year, a few birders from other areas come to the refuge to see the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker. The annual Audubon Christmas Bird Count centered on D’Arbonne Refuge usually
attracts 20 or more birders who collectively sight over 100 species.
Roads and three footpaths are open to hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding for observing wildlife. The
footpath, Valley View Nature Trail, is the only area formally designated as a “trail” for wildlife observation.
Horseback riders must obtain a special use permit, with 19 issued in 2003 and 18 in 2004.
Access to the refuge can occur from Highway 143, Point/Rocky Branch Road, Lake Drain Road, and Wes
Wilhite Road. There are 14 designated parking areas, four boat ramps, and one observation tower (Figure 11).
D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 43
Wildlife Photography
Although there are no photography blinds on the refuge, visitors can photograph wildlife anywhere on
the refuge. Several local wildlife photographers have provided pictures taken on the refuge for use in
brochures, exhibits, and presentations. The refuge has never received requests for commercial
photography or filming.
Wildlife Interpretation
Currently, D’Arbonne Refuge has one interpretive kiosk at its headquarters, and other kiosks providing
refuge brochures and pamphlets (Figure 11) at a few of the parking lots and boat launch areas. One
reason for the lack of interpretive signage is that locations that would best serve visitors (e.g., boat
launches and trails in the bottoms) are flooded annually. The flooding normally inundates over 83 percent
of the refuge. Signs that go under water become very unattractive and are hard to maintain. Interpretive
signs or a brochure could be developed for the upland area along Valley View Nature Trail off of Holland’s
Bluff Road. These constraints for signage will be evaluated for solutions. Wildlife interpretation is
provided to the public at Black Bayou Lake Refuge, another unit of the Complex. Facilities are available
there and they have interpretive materials on bottomland hardwoods, invasive species, neotropical
migratory birds, disappearing upland hardwoods, Rafinesque’s big-eared bats, and red-cockaded
woodpeckers, which are all issues at D’Arbonne Refuge as well.
Wildlife Education
D’Arbonne Refuge is located in both Union Parish and Ouachita Parish school districts. Prior to the
development of the Black Bayou Lake Environmental Education Center, school groups occasionally came
to the refuge. Logistical constraints for this activity include no public restrooms, no education exhibits, and
no facilities on or near the refuge to shelter students in case of unexpected bad weather or for eating
lunch. Access is limited. The refuge ranger for the Complex is housed at Black Bayou Lake Refuge,
where the majority of wildlife education and interpretation duties occur for the Complex. Other staff
members are not available to conduct education programs because of other work priorities. At least on