Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              C N W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Contact Info:
Mike Chouinard, Project Leader
Central LA NWR Complex,
401 Island Road, Marksville, LA 71351
Phone: (318) 253-4238
FAX: (318) 253-7139
E-mail: lakeophelia@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
December 2006
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
USFWS Photo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Grand Cote
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Northern Pintail
Photo Credit to: Dave Menke
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
GRAND COTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
November 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................1
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................2
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................3
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .....................................................3
North American Bird Conservation Initiative .......................................................................4
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................4
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan ...........................................................................4
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................................................................4
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ....................................................................4
U.S. Woodcock Plan ...........................................................................................................5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency..........................................................................................5
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................7
Introduction..................................................................................................................................7
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................7
Special Designations ..................................................................................................................10
Wilderness Review............................................................................................................10
Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................10
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................11
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................12
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan..........................................................................12
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ..................................................................12
PartnerS in Flight ..............................................................................................................12
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ....................................................................................13
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ....................................................................................13
North American Bird Conservation Initiative .....................................................................13
U.S. Woodcock Plan .........................................................................................................13
Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................13
Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................13
Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................15
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................16
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants.............................................................................16
Physical Resources ....................................................................................................................16
Climate ..............................................................................................................................16
Geology and Topography..................................................................................................17
Soils .................................................................................................................................18
Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................18
Water Quality and Quantity ...............................................................................................19
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................20
Habitat..............................................................................................................................20
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................26
Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................30
Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................31
ii Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Early Settlement of Avoyelles Parish ................................................................................31
Land Use ..........................................................................................................................32
Demographics...................................................................................................................32
Employment.....................................................................................................................32
Recreation ........................................................................................................................32
Transportation..................................................................................................................33
Visitor Services..........................................................................................................................33
Hunting .............................................................................................................................34
Fishing ..............................................................................................................................34
Non-consumptive Uses.....................................................................................................34
Refuge Administration................................................................................................................36
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................37
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................37
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities.....................................................................37
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................38
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................39
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................40
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................40
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................41
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION........................................................................................................43
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................43
Vision ........................................................................................................................................44
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................44
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................45
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................54
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................57
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................60
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................66
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................69
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................69
Projects .....................................................................................................................................69
Fish And Wildlife Population Management .......................................................................70
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................71
Resource Protection .........................................................................................................73
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................74
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................75
Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................75
Volunteers/Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................76
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................76
Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................78
Plan Review and Revision............................................................................................................79
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................81
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................89
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ...............................................................................95
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................103
Public Involvement Process .....................................................................................................103
Draft Plan Comments and Service Response ..........................................................................103
APPENDIX V. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION ........................................................................107
APPENDIX VI. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION...................................121
APPENDIX VII. REFUGE BIOTA......................................................................................................125
APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................135
APPENDIX IX. BUDGET REQUESTS..............................................................................................137
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................139
iv Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Location of Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex in
Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. ................................................................................................8
Figure 2. Current and Approved Acquisition Boundary of Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge. .......9
Figure 3. Mississippi Alluvial Valley. .................................................................................................11
Figure 4. Forest Cover Changes in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley....................................................14
Figure 5. General Habitat Types on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................22
Figure 6. Waterfowl Impoundments in the West Farm Unit, Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge...23
Figure 7. Waterfowl Impoundments in the East Farm Unit, Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge....24
Figure 8. Current visitor facilities on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge.......................................35
Figure 9. Proposed wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and
interpretation visitor facilities on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge. .............................62
Figure 10. Current and proposed hunting and fishing visitor facilities on Grand Cote
National Wildlife Refuge.....................................................................................................63
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of existing habitat types at Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge.........................21
Table 2. Louisiana step-down and Mississippi Flyway objectives ......................................................38
Table 3. Summary of Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
projects. ...............................................................................................................................69
Table 4. Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives portion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan...............................76
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge was prepared to
guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive
first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as
long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for
which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental assessment, prepared for this refuge, described the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the
environment. The draft plan and environmental assessment was made available to state and federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity were considered in the development of this final plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to develop an action that best achieves the refuge purpose; attains the
vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the 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.
One of the greatest needs 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
2 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
A...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.@
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the 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, either 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
Atacosa (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).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix B for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems 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 final 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 final 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.
4 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government, private and academic
organizations, and private industry leaders addressing bird conservation. The initiative’s vision is to
achieve regionally based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships that deliver the full
spectrum of bird conservation across the North American continent and that support simultaneous,
on-the-ground delivery of conservation for all birds. As a result, North American bird populations will
flourish, because they are valued by society, including all levels of government and private initiative.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to the
levels of the 1970s by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed
the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a
truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state, and municipal
governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies and many individuals, all working
towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species, and people.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan was launched in 1990 in response to growing concerns
about many land bird species. It is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state,
and local governments, philanthropic foundations, conservation organizations, professional
organization, industry, the academic community, and private individuals. The central premise of
Partners in Flight has been that resources of public and private organizations in North and South
America must be combined, coordinated, and increased in order to achieve success in conserving
land bird populations in this Hemisphere.
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
This plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in
29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands,
introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries,
disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the
southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island
complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood
storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and gulf coast populations of
brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better
recommend effective conservation measures.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
U.S. WOODCOCK PLAN
The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of woodcock
in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives general
guidance for habitat population management at the national level.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
state fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species
in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (http://www.wlf.state.la.vs) is a state-partnering
agency with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and
endangered species, as well as managing the State’s natural resources. It also manages
approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas in Louisiana. The
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and
provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on
several wildlife management areas located near Grand Cote Refuge (e.g., Grassy Lake, Pomme de
Terre, Red River, Spring Bayou, and Three Rivers). The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’
participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been
valuable, and it is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing opportunities for an open
dialogue with the public to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in Louisiana. Not
only has the Department participated in biological reviews, public scoping meetings, and field reviews
as part of the planning process, it also is an active partner in annual hunt coordination planning, and
various wildlife and habitat surveys. In the past two years, Grand Cote Refuge has initiated hunting
opportunities for rabbits, deer, waterfowl, doves, wild turkey, and feral hogs in cooperation with the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
6 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge is in west-central Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, about 10 miles
west of the city of Marksville (population 6,087) and 20 miles southeast of the city of Alexandria
(population 46,000), south of Highway 1, west of Highway 115, and north and east of Highway 114.
The refuge is part of the Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Grand
Cote, Lake Ophelia, and Cat Island Refuges (Figure 1). The refuge covers 6,075 acres. An
additional 6,925 acres of land are included in the approved acquisition boundary of the refuge (Figure
2). The refuge was established in 1989 to provide wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, blue-winged
teal, and wood ducks, and production habitat for wood ducks to meet the goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
Grand Cote Refuge is a natural sump that is bordered by the higher ridge lands of the Red River on
the north and east and by the terrace uplands on the west and south. The refuge is dissected by two
water bodies, Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des Grues. Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various
habitat types, including moist-soil waterfowl impoundments, cropland “hot food” waterfowl
impoundments, remnant pieces of mature bottomland hardwood forests, reforested areas, cypress
sloughs, and upland forests. Many species of migratory birds, resident birds, mammals, fish, and
other wildlife utilize these habitats.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1989 under the authority of the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956, which calls for:
“...the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources....” [16 USC 742f(a)(4)];
Under the authority of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, which calls for:
“the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties
and conventions....” (16 USC 3901 (b), 100 Stat. 3583);
and under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act as amended in 1989, which calls for:
“...use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
(USC 715d);
With these establishing authorities, purposes for Grand Cote Refuge were further identified in the
1993 Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Land Protection Plan
prepared by the Service for the following:
• Provide wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, blue-winged teal, and wood ducks;
• Provide production habitat for wood ducks to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
8 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. The location of Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Avoyelles
Parish, Louisiana
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Current and approved acquisition boundary of Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
10 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
The following secondary purposes were further identified in the 1993 Environmental Assessment,
Finding of No Significant Impact, and Land Protection Plan prepared by the Service:
• Provide habitat for threatened and endangered species;
• Provide habitat for a natural diversity of plant and wildlife species; and
• Provide opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation and environmental education when
compatible with other refuge objectives.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Currently, there are no areas of special designation on Grand Cote Refuge. However, refuge
planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation planning
process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that
retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation,
and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which 1) generally appears to have been
influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable;
2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 3) has at
least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, or is of sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpeded condition, or is a roadless island regardless of size; 4) does not substantially
exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive development or alteration of the
landscape or its wilderness character could be restored through appropriate management at the time
of review; and 5) may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational,
scenic, or historic value.
The lands within Grand Cote Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for
wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found to meet
these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further
analyzed in this plan.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) (Figure
3). The MAV was at one time a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both
sides of the Mississippi River from the State of Illinois to the State of Louisiana. Although the refuge
was part of this very productive bottomland hardwood ecosystem, most of the forest on and around
the refuge was cleared in the late 1960s for agricultural production or developed for rural homesites.
Since this land was cleared, most of the refuge has been under intensive rice production, so there is
an extensive system of man-made levees, irrigation ditches, and water control structures. Due to this
infrastructure, the refuge is capable of providing critical shallow-water habitat for migratory waterfowl
and shorebirds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 3. Mississippi Alluvial Valley
12 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PLAN
Grand Cote Refuge is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and is considered to be in the
West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Area. As such, the refuge is a component of many
regional and ecosystem conservation planning initiatives.
Goals:
1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
2. Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
3. 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.
4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
6. Increase public awareness and support for Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem resources and
their management.
7. Enforce natural resource laws.
8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international agreement among
the United States, Canada, and Mexico to increase waterfowl populations by restoring crucial wetland
habitats across the continent. Currently, step-down objectives have been developed for the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley through the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture cooperative effort;
however, these objectives are being refined by the NAWMP Management Board and will continue to
be incorporated into regional planning for the refuge.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
Partners in Flight, a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state, and local
governments and other organizations, has formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation
Regions that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Fragmentation of
bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining small forested tracts on Grand Cote
Refuge surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Although the refuge is not considered a priority
bird conservation area, the small remnant habitat and associated bird species that are considered a
priority in the West Gulf Coastal Plain include the white-eyed vireo, yellow-billed cuckoo, and red-headed
woodpecker.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort being undertaken throughout the
country to ensure that shorebird populations are restored and protected. Primary objectives of this
plan are:
1. Develop a scientifically sound monitoring system to provide practical information to
researchers and land managers.
2. Identify principles upon which management plans can integrate shorebird habitat
conservation with multiple species strategies.
3. Design a strategy for increasing public awareness and information concerning wetlands
and shorebirds.
Grand Cote Refuge is included in the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning
Region and Bird Conservation Region. This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall
shorebird habitat as possible to meet the goal (520 hectare) of fall habitat in Louisiana. The refuge is
considered an important shorebird area, with the following species considered high priority for the
region: piping plover, American golden-plover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling,
buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats.
The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan. The combined effectiveness of these separate programs exceeds the total of
their parts.
U.S. WOODCOCK PLAN
The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of woodcock
in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives general
guidance for habitat population management at the national level.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
FOREST LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. From the 1950s to the 1990s, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of
bottomland hardwood forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 4). The greatest changes to the
landscape have been in the form of land clearing for agricultural and flood control projects.
14 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity and integrity, and environmental health of the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley. Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments,
ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have
maintained many of the original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is
known as forest fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches and
resulted in the disruption of extensive forest habitats into smaller and smaller isolated patches.
Severe forest fragmentation has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity.
Species endemic to the Mississippi Alluvial Valley that have become extinct, threatened or
endangered include the red wolf, Florida panther, ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, and
Louisiana black bear.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species population numbers. The
avian species most adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive
(i.e., dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
those that have special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source; and
those that require good water quality.
More than 70 species of breeding migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these species,
including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean
warbler, have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and
sustain their existence.
Due to fragmentation, the forest edge and the brown-headed cowbird (i.e., a seed-eating bird
common in agricultural areas) are now closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting
birds. The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other
birds, rather than building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds often out-compete host species,
because the cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive. This results in poor reproductive
success and declining populations of forest interior-nesting species.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts
surrounded by agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested corridors
along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between the
remaining forested areas hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts, and reduces the functional
values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of gene
flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is particularly
important for some wide-ranging species, such as the threatened Louisiana black bear.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of a vast acreage of bottomland hardwood forested wetlands, there have been
significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification,
flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation of aquatic systems from
excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
16 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the natural spatial and temporal
patterns of flooding throughout the entire Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In addition, these alterations
have reduced both the extent and the duration of annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual
flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent
species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult–if not impossible–to fully emulate and reconstruct
the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993),
restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of
hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies
are now filled with sediments, which greatly reduce their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the
non-point source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining
aquatic resources. In Louisiana, the Service lists one fish species as threatened and one as
endangered.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration
of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with
flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding, and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation, have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic
(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic
systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic
systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate at the refuge is humid subtropical and is primarily influenced by the refuge’s subtropical
latitude and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The climate is controlled by two principal air masses.
Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico generally dominates in the spring and summer, and cooler,
drier air from the Central Plains prevails during the winter months. Extended hot, sultry summers and
moderately cool winters are the norm.
The average annual air temperature is 65 degrees Fahrenheit. During winter, the average
temperature is 50 degrees, with an average daily minimum of 39 degrees. Average seasonal
snowfall is less than one inch. The average temperature is 81 degrees during the summer (Martin
1986), but temperatures above 90 degrees occur almost daily.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
The mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Half of this rainfall (30 inches) usually falls during April
through September. The growing season is about 235 days long and begins in mid-March and ends
during early November. Thunderstorms occur on average about 70 days each year, with most
occurring during the summer months. The average relative humidity in the mid-afternoon is about 60
percent. Humidity is higher at night, with the average at dawn being 90 percent (Martin 1986).
The sun shines 60 percent of the time during the summer, and 50 percent during winter. Prevailing
wind is from the south. Average wind speed is highest, 9 miles per hour, during the spring months.
These climatic values play an important role in influencing the area’s hydrologic regime, which
subsequently shapes ecosystem processes and functions.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
As the climate changed on the earth, marine and deltaic sediments have been deposited in
alternating cycles in Louisiana. Geologists have determined from studying these deposits that a
major river system, corresponding to the modern Mississippi River, has persisted here at least since
the Gulf of Mexico began to form (Louisiana Geologic Survey 1990).
The Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago, began with a warming trend
where the sea covered almost the entire Lower Red River Basin. In the early Eocene epoch, which
began about 54 million years ago, the land began to build up again as the continental ice sheets
advanced. However, this trend was reversed during the late Eocene when a second advancement of
the sea occurred. With the sea as far inland as Natchitoches Parish, the last cycle began in the early
Oligocene Epoch (38 to 23 million years ago). In Miocene time (23 to 5 million years ago), the sea
level dropped and sedimentation began to extend the land gulfward (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1975).
The refuge lies within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain section of the Coastal Plain Province (Beccasio et
al. 1983), to the west of the confluence of the Mississippi and Red Rivers in Avoyelles Parish. The
topography of the refuge has been greatly influenced by the aggrading Mississippi and Red Rivers,
and much of the geology is from Quaternary (1.8 million years ago to present) alluvial deposits.
Although the continental ice sheets did not reach this far south, the Lower Mississippi Valley carried
glacial meltwaters and outwash in a braided-stream pattern that concurrently widened and aggraded
the valley during periods of waning glaciation. As each glacial cycle progressed, the Red River
abandoned its braided stream configuration in favor of a single-channel meandering pattern. This
alluvium has been sorted, reworked, and deposited many times by riverine processes.
During flood periods prior to human influence, stream channels within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley,
unable to hold the complete volume of water within their banks, overtopped and spilled onto adjacent
floodplains. In doing so, the velocity of these sediment-laden waters decreased dramatically. Unable
to continue to carry their bedload, these waters dropped the coarsest particles closest to the stream
channel and the finer particles farther away. These deposits formed natural levees, which gained
elevation closer to the river channel.
Another result of this localized deposition was the creation of lowlands at the foot of these natural
levees, which received only the clay particles held in suspension in flood waters (Fisk 1940). These
lowlands paralleled the meander belt of the stream for great distances and were utilized as seasonal
backwater flood storage areas. Water within the channel would continue to erode the banks, and
often would cut through these natural levees. The stream would then change its course and occupy
the lowland channel.
18 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
The formations of alluvium described above comprise the entire Grand Cote Refuge. Relict channels
and natural levees are often referred to as ridge and swale topography. Human disturbances,
including the construction of artificial levees and channelization projects, have drastically altered
these natural alluvial processes within the Mississippi and Red River floodplains.
SOILS
The soils at the refuge demonstrate the influence that the Mississippi and Red Rivers have had on
the terrain. The refuge contains mostly hydric soils that fall into four broad series of soil groups. The
dominant soil series on the refuge are the following:
Latanier Clay - level, somewhat poorly drained soil in intermediate positions on the neutral levees of
the Red River and its tributaries.
Moreland Clay - level, somewhat poorly drained soil in low positions on the natural levees of the Red
River and its tributaries.
Moreland Clay occasionally flooded - level, somewhat poorly drained soil in low positions on the
natural levees of the Red River and its tributaries.
Solier Clay - level, somewhat poorly drained soil on low stream terraces.
HYDROLOGY
The nature of the Mississippi River in pre-modern times was one of a dynamic and changing system.
The many courses the river has taken in recent geologic history have been noted by geologists. Fisk
(1940) wrote:
The youngest pre-modern course of the Mississippi River is the most easily
interpreted; it can be traced along the Tensas River in northeastern Louisiana
southward to Black River. Black River and Tensas River, which locally reverse the
original drainage direction, unite and drain southeastward through a crevasse channel.
Red River enters this meander belt in another crevasse channel opening. South of the
Red River, the meander is occupied by Lake Long and Bayou des Glaises and
continues to the Atchafalaya River, which follow an old meander from Lower Old River,
a recent Mississippi cut-off meander, to Simmesport.
Two distinct aquifer systems underlie Avoyelles Parish: the Quaternary and the upper Tertiary. The
water levels in both of these aquifer systems are generally less than 50 feet below the surface. The
Quaternary aquifer can supply very large quantities of fresh water to parish residents. The
Quaternary aquifer is composed of poorly sorted sand and gravel. It ranges in thickness from 50 to
150 feet. This aquifer offers the greatest potential source of ground water. Water in this aquifer is
generally suitable for irrigation, but its hardness and high iron content must be treated for most other
uses (Martin 1986).
Beneath this aquifer is the upper Tertiary system, which can yield moderate to large supplies of fresh
water in the Bunkie-Hessmer and Simmesport-Odenburg areas (Marie 1971). This aquifer system is
recharged principally by rainfall. In areas where the aquifer system has been developed for public
and industrial supplies, withdrawals from wells have lowered the water level as much as 20 feet
(Marie 1971). Aquifers in this system range from 20 to 80 feet in thickness and are composed
principally of well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sand (Martin 1986).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Grand Cote Refuge is a natural sump that is bordered by the higher ridge lands of the Red River on
the north and east and by the terrace uplands on the west and south. The refuge is dissected by two
water bodies: Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des Grues. Choctaw Bayou is an outlet for the Chatlain
Lake Canal, which provides drainage for the city of Alexandria and other areas north of the refuge.
During significant rainfall events, water from the Chatlain Lake Canal causes backwater flooding onto
the refuge via Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des Grues.
Prior to its establishment, the area encompassing the refuge was intensively farmed, and a series of
man-made levees, irrigation ditches, pumps, and water control structures were constructed to
facilitate farming. Most of those structures are still present on the refuge today, and are used to
manage water levels for waterfowl and shorebirds. The natural hydrology of the area, however, has
been altered by those structures. In addition to the structures above, the refuge uses laser land
leveling on some cooperatively farmed fields, which produces uniform topography, and influences
hydrology. Removal of, or modifications to, some of those structures may reestablish more natural
hydrologic regimes onto portions of the area; however, those modifications could impact other refuge
management currently in place, such as cooperative farming for waterfowl, shorebird, and wading
bird management.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Historically, the water quality of the refuge has not been monitored. Water quality within the Red
River north of the refuge has been affected by mercury contamination from an unknown source
(Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 1998).
Recently, Grand Cote Refuge was one of 26 refuges in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley surveyed for
chemical contamination. Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and passive sampling
devices were deployed. Residues of current-use pesticides, organochlorine pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury were measured along with
limited toxicity testing (Shea et al. 2001). Grand Cote Refuge had one of the lowest levels of
chemical contamination of all refuges surveyed. Although each of the chemical contaminants
surveyed for was detected at the refuge, none were detected at levels of concern to human health or
fish/wildlife.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Index of Watershed Indicators shows that 80 to 100 percent
of the water bodies within this area of the lower Red River watershed are meeting designated uses,
and they characterize the streams in this area as having overall better water quality and a low
vulnerability to problems related to runoff. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified a
moderate loss of wetlands in this watershed. Wetlands perform many important functions, such as
improving water quality, recharging groundwater, providing natural flood control, and supporting a
wide variety of fish, wildlife, and plants. The economic importance of wetlands to commercial
fisheries and recreational use is also known to be significant. Land clearing, man-made levees,
navigation structures, stream channelization projects, and canal and ditch construction have impaired
the historic functions of forested wetlands.
Prior to the 1960s, the area that is now Grand Cote Refuge was a large, bottomland hardwood
swamp. The Choctaw Bayou, which bisects the refuge, is the main drainage system for several
areas to the north, including the city of Alexandria. The Choctaw Bayou frequently backs up after a
major rainfall event, causing backwater flooding on most of the refuge because of its slight relief and
sump-like nature. When the land was cleared, an extensive set of levees were constructed to protect
farm fields from flooding. These levees still protect farm fields during specific times of the year, but
also serve as a means to capture flood water and maximize shallow-water habitat.
20 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Flood control measures off-refuge, including the Chatlain Lake Canal and the Red River levee
system, have impacted historic hydrologic regimes. Extensive land clearing for agriculture off-refuge
has also increased sediment, nutrient, and contaminant inputs into Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des
Grues, and into other water bodies located outside of the refuge. Additionally, a cannery located
adjacent to the refuge may discharge effluent periodically.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, and the Avoyelles Parish Police Jury are
currently investigating potential solutions to water quality problems experienced in the Spring Bayou
area of the parish. This area lies east of the refuge and receives inputs from Coulee des Grues. The
Corps has developed several alternatives to address Spring Bayou’s water quality problems. The
alternative preferred by the Police Jury includes: installing an inlet structure through the Red River levee
at Choctaw Bayou along with a pump to reestablish flows from the Red River into the Spring Bayou
area; controlling structures on Bayou du Lac and Coulee des Grues to reduce sediment inputs into the
Spring Bayou area; clearing and snagging the channels in Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des Grues;
dredging portions of several water bodies located outside the refuge for flow conveyance; and
modifying an existing weir. Those actions listed above have the potential for direct and indirect impacts
on the refuge’s hydrology and water quality. Water quality would be expected to improve with
reintroduction of Red River inputs. The amount and frequency of backwater flooding on the refuge
could be altered by the proposed control structure on Coulee des Grues, and by downstream dredging.
The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement to conduct the feasibility study was signed on June 15, 2006.
The study should be completed in June 2009.
A thorough analysis of existing hydrology on the refuge is necessary in order to predict the impacts of
aquatic restoration or flood-control actions proposed by this project. The Service intends to support
this project and fully participate with the principal partners.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Grand Cote Refuge is a natural sump that is bordered by the higher ridge lands of the Red River on
the north and east and by the terrace uplands on the west and south. The refuge is dissected by two
water bodies--Choctaw Bayou and Coulee des Grues. Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various
habitat types, including small remnant pieces of mature bottomland hardwood forests, reforested
areas, upland hardwood forests, waterfowl impoundments (moist-soil areas), and waterfowl
impoundments (cropland) (Table 1 and Figure 5).
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Clearing of what is now Grand Cote Refuge began in the late 1960s. The land is now largely cleared
except a few remnant tracts of mature bottomland hardwood forests totaling 35 acres. Approximately
1,576 acres have naturally regenerated to bottomland hardwood forest species and refuge staff have
reforested 1,186 acres to bottomland hardwood forest species, totaling 2,797 acres overall. Species
planted include nuttall oak, water oak, willow oak, bitter pecan, and cypress.
Upland Forest
The refuge currently has 273 acres of upland forest located next to the Headquarters’ Office. There
has been little to no management of this upland forest and species composition consists of mainly
nonnative tree species, including Chinese tallow and long-leaf pine.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Table 1. Summary of existing habitat types at Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Type Existing Acreage
Remnant Bottomland Hardwood Forest 35
Natural Regeneration 1,576
Reforestation 1,186
Upland Forest 273
Waterfowl Impoundments - Cropland 1,945
Waterfowl Impoundments - Moist-soil 585
Bayous/Levees/Roads/Parking and Facilities 475
TOTAL 6,075
Waterfowl Imoundments
General
Currently, the refuge maintains 20 miles of levees, 25 water control structures, 7 irrigation wells, and
2 low-lift pumps, which provide the infrastructure for all water management activities on the refuge.
There are 29 waterfowl impoundments on the refuge, which encompasses 2,530 flooded acres of
habitat when completely flooded (Figures 6 and 7). The refuge is divided into two types of waterfowl
impoundment management--cropland and moist-soil. Topography of most of the western and central
impoundments is generally shallow and flat with water depth during floods ranging from several
inches to a maximum of 2 to 3 feet. Variation in topography is greater for impoundments on the
eastern end of the refuge, with water depth ranging from several inches to 3-8 feet.
A 1,893-acre block of floodable waterfowl habitat is present in an area north of Little California Road.
This area has no water-control structures and few levees. It is dependent on rainfall and/or a rising
Coulee Des Grues Bayou for flooding, and generally ebbs and flows with the bayou. Habitats within
this area consist of 353 acres of natural regeneration habitat, 1,065 acres of reforested sloughs and
bayous, and 475 acres of agricultural land. The placement of water-control structures and some
levees in this area has some good potential to create consistent and inexpensive waterfowl habitat
within the current waterfowl hunt zone.
Waterfowl Impoundments – Cropland
The refuge currently contains about 1,945 acres of waterfowl impoundments in agricultural crops that
are managed to provide wintering waterfowl habitat. To manage the cropland program more
efficiently, the refuge is divided into two farm units. This division is along Choctaw Bayou, which
divides the refuge into East Farm and West Farm Units (Figures 6 and 7). Within these units,
cooperative farmers operate within distinct boundaries. The West Farm Unit is located west of
Choctaw Bayou while the East Farm Unit is located east of the bayou.
22 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. General habitat types on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 6. Waterfowl impoundments in the West Farm Unit, Grand Cote National Wildlife
Refuge
24 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Waterfowl impoundments in the East Farm Unit, Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Currently, cooperative farmers perform in-kind services as payment or leave a percent of the crops
unharvested in the field for wildlife. Utilizing farmer services achieves two objectives: 1) allows the
refuge to maintain moist-soil areas that otherwise would be neglected due to lack of resources, and
2) provide “hot food” for waterfowl in order to help achieve Louisiana step down objectives. More
importantly, cooperative farmers’ in-kind services 1) help maximize waterbird management overall on
non-forested lands; 2) improve water management capabilities; and 3) allow diversification of habitat
across the refuge, such as millet, soybeans, rice, milo, sunflower, moist-soil, etc. Operating an
effective and productive moist-soil program is very costly, both in terms of dollars and personnel.
Utilizing services from farmers provides a unique opportunity to achieve a diverse food base, produce
a large quantity of highly nutritious food, and make foods available for a diverse group of organisms.
The presence of the farming program also provides critical shallow-water habitat for waterfowl and
shorebirds.
West Farm Unit
The West Farm Unit consists of approximately 1,064 acres, and includes milo, soybeans, and rice.
These crop types are grown annually and farmers are restricted to planting only waterfowl food.
Services in the West Farm Unit have been targeted at improving water management efficiency and
increased rice/moist-soil production. Since 1998, about 160 acres have been laser leveled, and
deferred maintenance allocations have provided for the drilling of two irrigation wells. Future
improvements would continue enhancing rice, moist-soil production, and water management
capabilities by leveling more ground, cleaning ditches, and installing underground pipe for more
efficient water conveyance.
East Farm Unit
The East Farm Unit consists of approximately 950 acres, and includes milo and soybeans. Currently,
there is no rice production in the East Farm Unit. Services in this unit have been targeted at setting
back vegetation succession for increasing moist-soil production and planting millet. Approximately 90
acres have been cleaned up and are planted to millet annually. Future improvements include: 1)
enhancing rice and moist-soil production, and water management capability south of Little California
Road; and 2) establishing water management through delivery and drainage north of Little California
Road.
Waterfowl Impoundments - Moist-soil Units
The refuge currently contains about 585 acres of moist-soil waterfowl impoundments that are
managed to provide wintering waterfowl habitat (Figures 6 and 7). Moist-soil management
propagates natural, wetland plants that produce seeds or tubers high in protein and other nutrients
that are a seasonally important component of the diets of migrating and wintering waterfowl. These
areas also produce habitats rich in invertebrates, which are an important source of protein for
waterfowl during spring and fall migration. Cover created in most moist-soil units are also a crucial
habitat component for ducks, particularly during the pair-bonding period.
The timing of drawdowns in waterfowl impoundments on Grand Cote Refuge to propagate moist-soil
plants has ranged from mid-March, for annual smartweed production, to late-June to maximize
sprangletop and barnyard grass production. Water depth in the surrounding bayou/coulee is another
factor that determines the draw down schedules. Most drawdowns are considered slow, at
approximately three inches per week.
26 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Some common desirable moist-soil plants found in impoundments on the refuge are annual
smartweed, sprangletop, red-rooted sedge, and wild millets (e.g., barnyard grass and jungle rice).
Estimated pounds/acre of seeds for these moist-soil plants (Laubhan 1992) have ranged from 252 to
588 pounds per acre (minus red rooted sedge, with red rooted sedge = 403- 19,297 lbs/acre) in
moist-soil sites on the refuge during 2002 and 2003. Red vine, alligator weed, coffeeweed, trumpet
creeper, cocklebur, button bush, and willow trees are some common nuisance plants found in moist-soil
units on the refuge. Disking, flooding, and applying herbicides are common practices used when
nuisance plants become a problem. Generally units are disked and planted in millet at least once
every three years for nuisance plant control.
Fall flooding for wintering waterfowl, in a typical year, begins around late-November or early-
December and is usually rain-dependent. Impoundments are generally flooded at half capacity
during this time and gradually the water is raised until full capacity around late-January, making food
available to waterfowl as the water rises. The water is generally dropped gradually after this time
period to concentrate invertebrates for waterfowl. Pumping early water (in September) in
impoundments is generally conducted in a few areas each year for shorebirds and teal, but is not
common due to expense.
WILDLIFE
Winter Waterfowl Use
Wintering waterfowl species common on the area includes northern pintail, blue-winged teal, green-winged
teal, mallard, gadwall, American wigeon, northern shoveler, and wood duck (migratory and
resident). Occasional use by large numbers of divers, such as lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, and
redhead, occurs in some of the deeper, more open impoundments on the east end of the refuge.
A breakdown of total duck use by percent for the winter of 2002-03 indicates that “divers” (28 percent)
were the largest user group, followed by northern shoveler (20 percent), gadwall (18 percent), mallard
(15 percent), and green-winged teal (11 percent). Bimonthly waterfowl surveys for Grand Cote
Refuge, for a 5-year period, indicate that duck numbers are generally low in October and November,
peak during the months of December or January, and then drop off significantly in February and
March. Numbers have ranged from a high of 44,734 ducks during December 2002-03, and zero birds
counted during October and November 2000-01 and 2001-02. Limited or no water and mild weather
generally limit duck numbers during these months. A refuge record high of 1 million duck-use-days
plus were recorded on 18 different waterfowl impoundments on Grand Cote Refuge during the winter
of 2001-02. The majority of these duck-use-days occurred from December to February.
Goose use of harvested agricultural fields on the refuge has been as high as 16,000 birds, but is
usually short term. The most numerous goose species present are snow geese, white-fronted geese,
and Canada geese, respectively.
Resident Waterfowl Use
Resident wood ducks are common on the refuge with breeding/production limited by the lack of
natural and artificial cavities and quality brood habitat. The current refuge goal is to maintain
approximately 75 wood duck boxes. As staff and resources are available, the refuge captures,
bands, and releases wood ducks, participating in the Mississippi Flyway Preseason Banding Quotas.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Landbirds
Many species of songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of widespread habitat
loss, particularly, bottomland hardwood forests, riparian woodlands, and early successional habitats,
such as grasslands and scrub habitats. While the refuge has only 35 acres of mature bottomland
hardwood forests, there are more than 1,000 acres of reforested habitat (currently scrub habitat) that
will grow into a mature bottomland forest. A large variety of neotropical migratory birds are common
in the refuge’s different habitat types. Some common year-round residents include the Carolina
chickadee, tufted titmouse, northern mocking bird, and red-winged blackbird. Yellow-bellied
sapsuckers, white-eyed vireo, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler, and white-throated sparrow are
some birds common in the winter.
Raptors frequent the fallow fields and reforested areas in search of rodents. Northern harrier,
American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and Cooper’s hawk are some of the raptors observed on this
refuge.
Woodcock are showing significant long-term declines in the central and eastern United States.
Habitat loss, including the loss of nocturnal wintering habitat, is likely a factor. Although mature
bottomland hardwoods are lacking on the refuge, birds may use natural regeneration and agricultural
fields as nighttime foraging habitat. The abundance of woodcock on the refuge has not been
quantified to date, but they should be present in suitable habitat.
Mourning doves are common on the refuge and are generally found feeding in harvested agricultural
fields or roosting in reforested and fallow field habitats. Abundance of these birds is dependent on
weather, distribution, and amount of food, water, and roosting sites on the refuge and surrounding
property.
Shorebirds
Shorebirds migrate through the Mississippi Alluvial Valley from the southernmost part of South
America to the northernmost part of North America. They typically probe in soft mud (e.g., mudflats)
and shallow water for worms and small crustaceans. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, these birds
generally migrate through during spring and fall, foraging as they migrate. They may only spend 10
days in the valley. Few shorebirds overwinter or nest in the valley. Habitat is generally more limited
during their fall migration than in the spring. Quality shorebird habitat is also limited on the refuge
during this time primarily due to the best shallow-water sites being in some form of agriculture.
Shorebirds observed on the refuge during 2001-2003 were killdeer, willets, least sandpipers, lesser
yellowlegs, black-necked stilts, pectoral sandpipers, solitary sandpipers, and common snipes. Black-necked
stilts have nested on the refuge. The refuge also annually provides 50 acres of shallow-water
habitat in August and September.
Wading and Marsh Birds
Wading birds are abundant in the refuge’s waterfowl impoundments, canals, and bayous throughout
the year. Species regularly observed include green herons, cattle egrets, snowy egrets, great egrets,
little blue herons, great blue herons, yellow and black-crowned night herons, anhingas, white ibis,
glossy ibis, wood storks, and tricolor herons. No wading bird rookeries have been located on the
refuge within the last 5 years.
Several sandhill crane roost sites are located west of the refuge on private land, with one of the larger
roosts being located on the Chatlin Lake acquisition site. Cranes begin appearing in small numbers
28 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
in early-November, gradually build until their numbers peak in late-February, and by mid-March they
all have completely migrated north. Peak numbers have ranged from approximately 900 to 1,500
from 2002-2004. Local landowners recall first observing a few birds (25-40) during the late 1970s,
with their numbers gradually building every year. After leaving the roost, sandhill cranes can be
found foraging in harvested rice, corn, or sugar cane fields many miles away from their roost sites.
King rail, least bittern, pied-billed grebe, American coot, and purple gallinule are all species in decline
locally and/or regionally due to the loss of freshwater emergent wetlands. It is possible that all of
these wading birds occur at Grand Cote Refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Although no bald eagles have been reported on the refuge in recent history, the potential for wintering
birds is possible due to the large concentrations of waterfowl that occur on the refuge. Black bear
habitat on the refuge is very limited and the possibility of a dispersing or wandering Louisiana black
bear visiting the refuge is remote, but possible. Eleven adult female Louisiana black bears and 26
cubs were released on Lake Ophelia Refuge (approximately 30 miles to the north) during the spring
of 2003 and 2004, as part of the Louisiana black bear repatriation project.
Species of Concern
Ospreys, wood storks, northern harriers, swallow-tail kites, and alligator snapping turtles are all
species of special concern occasionally reported in this area. Late season drawdowns of waterfowl
impoundments often attract post-breeding wood storks to the refuge.
Mammals
White-tailed deer appear to be abundant based on general observations. Limited deer population
surveys have been conducted to date; however, general observations and available habitat all point
to a healthy and abundant deer herd. A 3-month either-sex deer archery hunt was conducted for the
first time in 2003. The harvest objective is to maintain as close as possible a one-to-one buck/doe
ratio. The target harvest, per-square-mile, is a conservative 1 deer per 100 acres. This will be the
refuge’s objective until population surveys (e.g., spotlight, cameras, or browse survey) are conducted
or harvest data is analyzed to obtain baseline information on the deer herd that will justify a change.
The refuge consists of a mixture of farm fields, reforestation, moist-soil impoundments, and
bottomland hardwood forests, which create a mosaic of different habitats that provide excellent cover
and forage for deer and other wildlife.
Swamp rabbits and cottontail rabbits appear to be abundant on the refuge. Natural regeneration
habitat, reforested areas, and agricultural fields are intermingled and provide plenty of food and cover
in close proximity for these two species. Fox and gray squirrel numbers are limited due to the lack of
mature bottomland hardwood forests (35 acres).
A number of furbearers, including nutria, raccoon, mink, opossum, coyote, bobcat, beaver, river otter,
and striped-skunk, are thought to be abundant on the refuge. Beaver, muskrat, river otter, nutria, and
mink are associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and bayous. The raccoon is well
adapted to all existing habitats, and the opossum, coyote, and bobcat are mostly associated with
drier forests and brushy fields. Little or no formal data are available to provide population estimates
for these species. However, general observations indicate that the number of beaver and raccoons
has increased in recent years, likely due to a decrease in fur prices. These two species are of
concern because of their potential to significantly impact ecosystems.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Nuisance Wildlife
Some unregulated nuisance animals on the refuge include coyote, feral hog, raccoon, nutria, and
beaver. These species are thought to occur throughout the refuge in varying densities. Several
species, including hog and beaver, may destroy or change the habitat, or in the case of feral hogs,
compete with native wildlife for limited food resources and thus have a negative impact on other
wildlife species (e.g., deer, squirrels, and songbirds). Beavers manipulate hydrology both on and off
the refuge by constructing dams that inundate bottomland hardwood forests for prolonged periods.
Predation of nests and females by raccoons may adversely affect populations of breeding neotropical
migratory birds, wood ducks, turkeys, or wading birds.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Amphibian management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global amphibian
declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation appear to be the primary factors in declines.
This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for its survival and it serves as an important
indicator of overall environmental health. Although no amphibian and reptile surveys have been
conducted on the refuge to determine species occurrence or population levels, a species list was
developed for the refuge based on surveys in similar habitats (Appendix VII).
Fisheries
Permanent water is the main factor that limits the fisheries resource on Grand Cote Refuge, with
Choctaw Bayou and Coulee Des Grues being its only permanent water. Fish species that occur in
these bayous are freshwater drum, bigmouth and small mouth buffalo, channel catfish, shortnose and
spotted gar, bowfin, largemouth bass, black crappie and bluegill. Numerous species of mussels are
also thought to occur within these bayous. A limited amount of spawning by fish trapped by
backwater flooding occurs within flooded impoundments in early spring before drawdowns occur, with
fry being released into the bayous during drawdowns.
Crawfish is an important fisheries resource on the refuge with many thousands of pounds being
harvested from April through May by recreational fishermen. Although abundance of crawfish has not
been quantified, their numbers appear to be dependent on impoundment management activities,
such as timing of fall flood and spring drawdowns. Numbers are generally higher after several wet
years and lower after several dry years. Wading birds, raccoons, and mink are a few of the species
that are seasonally dependent on crawfish for food.
Surveys
Currently, shorebird, waterfowl and wading birds, and sandhill crane surveys are being conducted on
the refuge. Shorebird surveys are conducted annually during August and September to determine
yearly trends in species, numbers, and habitat. Data are forwarded to the Lower Mississippi Valley
Joint Venture for compiling and analysis. Waterfowl/wading birds are surveyed bimonthly (ground) on
predetermined dates (set to be conducted concurrently across the Region) from October to mid-
March. Species, numbers, and water gauge levels are recorded for each impoundment and compiled
to determine trends and general habitat use. An aerial, mid-winter waterfowl survey is conducted
annually for Grand Cote Refuge and surrounding private lands. Weekly sandhill crane roost surveys
are conducted from the time of their arrival in November to their departure by early March to
determine population trends and migration patterns. All survey data are entered into a GIS or
ACCESS database.
30 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Monitoring
Moist-soil management activities are monitored, recorded, and entered into a database as general
recordkeeping and as a means to determine plant responses from management activities for optimal
production. Some parameters that are monitored and recorded are drawdown schedules, soil
moisture, plant species present, percent coverage, and seed production estimations. The refuge staff
will continue to monitor duck use and maintain wood duck nest boxes.
Trapping and Banding
The refuge annually traps and bands wood ducks to help meet flyway and state banding goals.
Research
A limited amount of research has been conducted on the refuge. Currently, Grand Cote Refuge is
one of 67 sites being monitored by David G. Krementz and Robert H. Doster from the Arkansas
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, as part of a study to determine the importance of
Mississippi Alluvial Valley reforestation and wetland restoration sites to wintering birds.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The refuge has not been subjected to systematic archaeological and historic investigations.
However, a number of archaeological investigations has occurred in the vicinity; the majority being
conducted by the Works Progress Administration in association with Louisiana State University
between 1938 through 1941. The early excavations focused upon the large multiple mound sites,
such as the Marksville and the Greenhouse Sites, and were pivotal in elucidating the Marksville and
the Troyville-Coles Creek Cultures (Neuman 1984). Neitzel identified a large post-1780 historic
Tunica-Biloxi village in his 1939 survey of the parish. This site is part of the Tunica-Biloxi
Reservation. Toth (1974) synthesized the WPA-LSU excavations at the Marksville Site, basing his
refinement of Marksville Phase on ceramic analysis. Jones and Shuman (1989 and 1990) verified
the locations of 37 mound sites scattered across Avoyelles Parish, documented their current status,
and created base maps.
The landscape has been heavily influenced by evolution of the Red and Mississippi Rivers over the
past 300,000 years (Jones and Shuman 1989; Saucier 1994). Jones and Shuman (1989) noted that
the Rivers’ floodplains, which cover about 750 of the parish’s 850 square miles, contain lakes, old
stream beds, natural levees, and crevasses in the levees. The Pleistocene-era Prairie Terraces span
eastern Rapides and western Avoyelles Parishes. The Avoyelles Prairie Terrace represents the first
upland area on the Red River above the Red-Mississippi Rivers’ confluence that is not subject to
periodic inundation. A number of older and modern stream courses, like Bayou Des Grues, Choctaw
Bayou, and Bayou Rouge, flow through the land form. Many of these occupy former channels of the
Red or Mississippi Rivers. The Prairie Terrace, as well as the natural levees of the stream courses,
provided living surfaces for pre-columbian and historic occupations. The refuge is described as a
giant natural sump south and west of the Red River. The bottomland hardwood forest that covered
this area was cleared for agricultural purposes in the 1970s. To facilitate drainage, a system of
levees was subsequently constructed. The archaeological potential, which was low due to the
topography, the hydrological regime, and the presence of poorly drained clayey soils, was further
reduced.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Grand Cote Refuge lies in the west central portion of Avoyelles Parish. Avoyelles Parish is near the
center of Louisiana and is bounded by Rapides Parish on the west; LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes
on the north; Concordia Parish on the northwest; Pointe Coupee Parish to the southeast; St. Landry
Parish to the south; and Evangeline Parish to the southwest. The Old River and Atchafalaya River
form the southeastern boundary of Avoyelles Parish. The Red River flows through the northern
portion of the parish.
Traditionally, Avoyelles Parish has not been in the forefront of economic growth or development in
the State of Louisiana, and historically, unemployment figures in the double digits have been
common. Instead, much of the economic and social life of the area centers on neighboring Rapides
Parish and the city of Alexandria.
Avoyelles Parish is predominantly rural, with the largest town and parish seat being Marksville
(6,087). As in other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular and
necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes, and farming, commercial fishing,
and forestry are important elements of the economy.
EARLY SETTLEMENT OF AVOYELLES PARISH
Avoyelles Parish received its name from the tribe of Avoyelles Indians that resided there when the
first European settlers arrived. Native Americans play an important role in Avoyelles Parish, as the
Tunica-Biloxi Indians are the largest employer, employing 1,100 employees out of an estimated labor
force of 15,860 in 1997 (Louisiana Department of Economic Development 1998).
The first European settlers in Avoyelles Parish were the French. In Avoyelles Parish, the prairie land
was settled first. The early settlers were primarily self-sufficient. Game and fish were plentiful. Cattle
and pigs were allowed to roam the woods freely, and along with poultry, could be raised at little
expense. Corn, rice, and fruit were grown for personal consumption, while indigo was the primary
cash crop, with some tobacco cultivation.
Around 1780, the area became known as Avoyelles Post. The post became an important center for
trade, first between European settlers and Indians, then later as a merchandising center for the area
(Avoyelles Parish Planning Board 1947). Later settlers settled along the streams, where the land was
very fertile and the streams could serve as sources of transportation. Canoes and flatboats were
used to carry merchandise and were the primary methods of transportation.
In the early 1800s, cotton began to replace indigo as the main money crop, and in 1804 a cotton gin
was built in Avoyelles Parish (Saucier 1943). The cotton farms were primarily small farms in the
highlands. Although these higher lands were safe from floods, transporting the cotton to the river
landings was sometimes a problem.
In 1815, the first steamboat went up the Red River, and by 1875, when navigation on the river began
to decline, there were 52 boats traveling the Red River (Saucier 1943). The Old River, the Bayou des
Glaises, Lake Long, and Bayou Rouge were other navigable streams that were also used to transport
cotton bales.
32 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
LAND USE
Avoyelles Parish is predominantly rural. In 1990, 66.4 percent of the population lived in rural areas,
with 6 percent living on farms (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990). In 1992,
48 percent of the total land area was utilized by farms (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census 1996). There were 953 farms, with an average size of 269 acres. This was slightly smaller
than the average size of a farm in Louisiana, which was 306 acres (U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census 1992).
The number of farms, along with the total acreage in farmland, has declined over the past 10 years.
At the same time, the average size of a farm has increased, mirroring a trend that is occurring across
the nation.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Avoyelles Parish is primarily rural, with a total estimated population of 41,981 in 2004 (Louisiana
Department of Economic Development 2004). The parish actually lost population between 1980 and
1990. The 1980 population of Avoyelles Parish was 41,393, but by 1990 the population had declined
to 38,159 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980, 1990). Marksville, the parish seat, is the largest
town.
In 2000, the majority of the population was Caucasian, 29 percent were African-American, 1.0
percent was Hispanic; and 1.0 percent was Native American. In 2000, the median family income was
$23,851, with 24 percent of the population falling below the poverty level (Louisiana Department of
Economic Development 2000).
EMPLOYMENT
The service industry is the largest employer in Avoyelles Parish, employing 46.7 percent of
employees, due in large part to the Paragon Casino (the largest single employer), which employs
more than 1,000 employees (Louisiana Department of Economic Development 1998).
Employment in the parish in other economic sectors generally has been stable. The sectors
employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: the service industry,
retail trade, public administration, manufacturing, construction, finance, transportation, and agriculture
(Louisiana Department of Economic Development 2000).
RECREATION
Avoyelles Parish has always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and
waters. As early as 1939, a sportsmen's club was created for the purpose of protecting game and
wildlife (Saucier 1943).
Refuge Recreational Use. Grand Cote Refuge contains moderate populations of fish and wildlife,
including a number of game species. Indeed, these provide the primary recreational activities
occurring on the refuge, namely public hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are provided in
accordance with federal, state, and refuge regulations.
Crawfishing is the most popular activity on the refuge, with 1,000-2,000 participants during 2004.
The refuge opened to hunting for the first time during the fall hunting season of 2003, with 1,000
participants. Deer (archery only) and waterfowl may be taken on the refuge during the appropriate
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
seasons. Beaver, feral hogs, nutria, raccoon, and coyote may be taken during game seasons. Large
portions of the refuge are accessible for hunting only by all-terrain vehicle trails, which are open only
during the hunting season.
Outdoor Recreation Economics. In addition to those on the refuge, the fish and game of Avoyelles
Parish are economically important in two ways. First, a considerable commercial fishery is present in
both the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers, along with local aquaculture operations. Crawfish and catfish
are the major species harvested, and the buffalo fish is also important. Second, hunting and fishing
are economically important to local businesses, both directly, as the local population spends money,
and indirectly, as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the parish.
Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources combined
with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and to
the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In an attempt to restore and protect some of these
resources, the refuge serves an important role of providing habitat for plant and wildlife species and a
place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either through observation or, more directly,
through hunting or fishing.
When improved access, facilities, and staffing are added, the refuge can serve as an important
commodity in the economic life of the community. Ecotourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable
industry. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the
refuge may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community
directly by providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting
tourists from outside the parish to generate additional dollars to the local economy.
TRANSPORTATION
In its early days, Avoyelles Parish relied on water transportation. The rivers and bayous that
crisscross the parish served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication for almost
every community within the parish (Avoyelles Parish Planning Board 1947). Some of the important
waterways within the parish were the Red, Old, and Atchafalaya Rivers, and the Rouge, Des Glaises,
Choctaw, and Boef Bayous. While today these waterways are no longer necessary for most of the
transportation needs within the parish, they are still important as sources of income and for
recreation.
Interstate Highway 49 and U.S. Highway 71 run through the southwestern portion of the parish, while
Louisiana State Highway 1 runs through the center. A number of smaller roads connect the various
communities within the parish.
Grand Cote Refuge is in the west central part of Avoyelles Parish and can be reached via Louisiana
Highway 1194, a mostly paved road from Highway 1. All roads within the refuge are unpaved and
are unsuitable for some vehicles. This is one of the primary factors limiting recreational use on the
refuge.
VISITOR SERVICES
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 allows six priority public uses on
national wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
34 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
environmental education and interpretation. With the establishment of a hunting program, the refuge
now provides hunting, fishing, and limited wildlife observation (Figure 8).
HUNTING
Grand Cote Refuge is strategically located in central Louisiana and is influenced by both the
Mississippi and Central Flyways. Catahoula Lake (30 miles north) and Lacassine and Sabine
National Wildlife Refuges (120 miles south) have historically held a large number of wintering
waterfowl, especially northern pintails. Grand Cote Refuge is positioned between Catahoula Lake
and the coastal refuges and provides an important sanctuary area between these two historic
wintering areas. Due to the strategic location, the refuge was established to provide critical habitat
for migratory waterfowl. Currently, approximately 3,675 acres are maintained as sanctuary where all
public entry is prohibited from November 1 to February 28 each year.
The refuge opened to hunting for the first time during the fall hunting season of 2003. The refuge
was opened for waterfowl, deer, mourning dove, woodcock, and rabbit hunting. Also, beaver, feral
hogs, nutria, raccoon, and coyote may be taken incidental to any refuge hunt with weapons legal for
that hunt. Hunting is permitted in designated areas only. Retrieving dogs are permitted for waterfowl
hunts and rabbit dogs are permitted after the close of the Louisiana deer gun season. The refuge
requires an annual hunting permit for all hunters 16 years of age or older. A youth waterfowl hunt is
offered under a lottery system. There are three blinds available for this hunt. The refuge participates
in the state Youth Waterfowl Weekend. Special arrangements can be made to accommodate
persons with bona fide disabilities. The refuge also offers space blind waterfowl lottery hunts.
Hunters under the age of 16 must possess proof of completion of an approved Hunter Safety Course
and be accompanied at all times by an adult 21 years of age or older. Archery hunters (regardless of
age) must possess proof of completion of the International Bow Hunter Education Course. Refuge
staff participates in the annual Louisiana State Hunt Coordination meeting hosted by the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
FISHING
Sport fishing is permitted year-round in the Coulee Des Grues along Little California Road. Anglers
may harvest any fish species on the refuge that is permitted by state regulations. State fish size and
bag limits apply. Creel limits, boating safety, and license requirements are in accordance with state
regulations unless otherwise specified in the fishing brochure. Recreational crawfishing is permitted
in designated areas of the refuge with pyramid nets from April 1 through May 31. The harvest is
limited to 100 pounds per permit holder per day. No commercial crawfishing is permitted. All
crawfishing gear, including nets, boats, bait, and trash, must be removed from refuge property after
each visit. Crawfishing has been the primary public use on the refuge with approximately 1,000 –
2,000 people utilizing the refuge annually.
NON-CONSUMPTIVE USES
Grand Cote Refuge has one hiking trail, as well as designated levees accessible for hiking during
certain times of the year. This trail and levees provide the public an opportunity for wildlife
observation and wildlife photography.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 8. Current visitor facilities on Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
36 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Grand Cote Refuge is administered from an office located at Central Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex headquarters. This office is responsible for managing the Grand Cote, Lake
Ophelia, and Cat Island Refuges, three Farm Service Agency fee title tracts covering a total of 1,990
acres (one each in Avoyelles, Rapides, and St. Landry Parishes), and 13 Farm Service Agency
conservation easements (190 and 74 total acres in Avoyelles and Rapides Parishes, respectively)
(Figure 2). Although seven staff members report for duty at Grand Cote Refuge and two at Lake
Ophelia Refuge, the work responsibilities for each member include duties at all three complex refuges
and Farm Service Agency tracts. The complex’s current staff includes a Project Leader (GS-0485-
13), a Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-11/12), an Office Assistant (GS-0303-08), a Park Ranger
(GS-0025-09), a Wildlife Biologist (GS-0486-11), a Natural Resource Planner (GS-0404-12), a
Maintenance Worker (WG-7/8), and two Engineering Equipment Operators (WG-5716-10).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations,
public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of this Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input
and assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state
agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting
the management direction for Grand Cote Refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in
particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the
planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many
individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge.
A planning team (Appendix VIII) was formed to prepare the both the draft plan and environmental
assessment and the final plan. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns
pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions from February 2004 to April
2006.
In preparation for developing the Draft Plan and Environmental Assessment, a Biological Review was
conducted during the week of October 20-22, 2003, by a team of Service biologists, managers,
foresters, and non-service managers/biologists (see Chapter V). The Biological Review was
completed in February 2004. A Visitor Services Review was completed in November 2003. To
expand the range of issues and generate potential alternatives, public input to the development of the
Draft Plan was initiated through two public scoping meetings held on March 9 and 11, 2004, at
Marksville and Bunkie High Schools, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. At the meetings, interested
stakeholders were able to register their concerns to ensure that they would be considered in the
development of the Draft Plan. The meeting dates were publicized in local papers in the cities of
Alexandria, Marksville, Ville Platte, Jena, Bunkie, and Lafayette, Louisiana, and were broadcasted on
two local radio stations. There were 19 attendees at the meetings, and several meeting attendees
provided public comment. One citizen sent a comment letter to the refuge.
The issues and alternatives generated from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning
team, are summarized below. A draft plan was developed for the refuge, which, when approved by
the Fish and Wildlife Service, will direct management of the refuge over a 15-year period.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife populations, habitat restoration and management, hunting, fishing, and community outreach
and education. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings, comment packets, and personal comments. All public
and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues important to the public fall
outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team considered all
issues raised throughout this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance
the competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the
team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A detailed summary of the
significant issues follows.
38 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Waterfowl
The refuge’s waterfowl purpose guides most operation and management actions. A portion of the
refuge is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil, and forested wetlands to
meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. A 2003 Biological
Review of the refuge identified objectives needed to provide sufficient water, food, sanctuary,
resting/loafing, and wintering areas to meet the habitat and population goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, as stepped down through the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
(Table 2).
Table 2. Louisiana step-down and Mississippi Flyway objectives
Current Waterfowl and Habitat Objectives*
Moist Soil Bottomland
Hardwoods
Unharvested
Cropland Harvested Crop Duck Use Days
900 acres 500 acres 200 acres 500 acres 7,548,700
* Waterfowl and habitat objectives are being revised as part of an NAWMP update.
The Review Team concluded that additional waterfowl habitat would need to be protected and
managed in non-sanctuary areas of the refuge to support wintering waterfowl and provide public
waterfowl hunting opportunities.
Improving the wood duck nest box program was also identified in the public scoping process. The
refuge is looking to expand and improve the wood duck nest box program and increase quality brood
habitat for breeding waterfowl.
Surveys and Monitoring
Currently, few surveys and monitoring programs are implemented on the refuge. Moist-soil
productivity monitoring, winter waterfowl counts, wood duck box monitoring, and shorebird surveys
are conducted annually. A limited number of deer spotlighting surveys has been conducted.
Inventorying bobcats to determine which subspecies occurs on the refuge, testing turtles for methyl-mercury
levels to determine if consumption notices should be posted, working with the Service’s
Ecological Services Field Office to list alligator snapping turtles, and studying the potential to release
hatchling alligator snapping turtles on the refuge are all wishes identified during the public scoping
process. The refuge is proposing to expand its monitoring and surveying programs to include
resident wildlife, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and many other species.
Invasive Plants and Animals
Currently, the refuge does not have a concise inventory and quantitative analysis of the invasive
plants and animals that occur. Increasing coyote harvest and not opening a bobcat season on the
refuge were wishes identified during the public scoping process. The refuge plans on inventorying
and monitoring invasive plant and animal species and developing a management plan to best
address these concerns.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The refuge currently consists of 1,576 acres of naturally regenerated bottomland hardwoods, 1,186
acres of reforested bottomland hardwoods, 35 acres of remnant bottomland hardwood forest, and
273 acres of upland forest.
Reforesting the entire refuge, to reforesting only the bottom areas in crop fields, to reforesting areas
north of Little California Road were suggestions identified during the public scoping process. The
idea of providing a diversity of habitats on the refuge and not reforesting the entire area was also
expressed. Also, management practices of bottomland hardwood forests, especially those adjacent
to inholdings, are a concern to some adjoining landowners.
The refuge is not included in the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan to support key populations
of neotropical migratory birds. Large blocks of contiguous forest (i.e., core forest area at least 1
kilometer [0.62 mile] from forest edge] are needed to support healthy populations of neotropical
migratory birds. The area surrounding the refuge has been mostly cleared for agriculture. The small
amount of bottomland hardwood forest that exists in and around the refuge is not large enough to
support source populations of neotropical migratory birds and instead could potentially act as an
ecological trap or habitat sink. The Biological Review Team determined that even if completely
reforested, the refuge would not meet minimum criteria to support most priority forest-associated bird
species.
Waterfowl Impoundment Management
A common agricultural practice in rice culture operations is a process of mechanically precision
leveling farm fields to maximize water efficiency and thereby rice production. The primary purpose of
this practice, as promoted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Louisiana State
University Agricultural Extension Service, is to conserve groundwater and reduce the pumping cost
by at least 10-15 percent over fairly flat fields, facilitate management of water depths resulting in more
uniform performance and maturation of the crop, and reduce the cost of pulling fewer linear feet of
interior levees in cropped fields.
At Grand Cote Refuge, the concept of precision leveling agricultural fields for rice and waterfowl was
first established in a 1998 Biological Review. At that time, the refuge did not have the ability to grow
rice and precision leveling agricultural ground was a means to promote a rice culture highly attractive
to waterfowl, the purpose of the refuge. The refuge was historically bottomland hardwoods until it
was cleared in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The lowland/sump nature of the refuge, particularly
1,000 of the remaining 2,000 acres of farmland, is generally flat and conducive to this common
agricultural practice.
The 2003 Biological Review recommended that approximately 480 acres be considered for precision
leveling; however, lack of leveling may preclude management of some units. On a 6,000-acre refuge,
this represents less than 8 percent of the current land base of the refuge and will produce a potential
of 3.6 million duck-use-days of foraging habitat or more than 40 percent of the potential duck-use-days
of waterfowl foraging habitat provided on the refuge. This will produce nearly one-half the duck-use-
day objectives set by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture.
The process of precision leveling fields moves soil and may result in a field that is less diverse and
supports fewer wildlife species than a field of varying topography. The loss of such dynamics may
40 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
reduce overall productivity; however, diversity among precision-leveled fields may offset individual
unit diversity concerns. Because questions remain unanswered, the Biological Review recommended
that monitoring and/or research should be conducted to document the overall productivity and wildlife
use of precision-leveled versus non-leveled fields.
The Biological Review also recommended exploring the option of force-account farming, which would
rely on refuge staff to conduct farming operations for waterfowl. Currently, most of the farming on the
refuge is done cooperatively with individuals from the community.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Land Protection
There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by
the Service. Several of these compromise management due to conflicting management purposes
and disturbance to wildlife. Acquisition/exchange of these parcels would eliminate access issues,
improve management options, and tighten some unclear and confusing boundary issues.
As a result of the Biological Review, it is evident that Grand Cote Refuge is not meeting its waterfowl
objectives. In order to account for periodic rehabilitation of wetland units, changes in personnel, and
management strategies, it is only realistic to assume the existing fee ownership could provide 80
percent of refuge objectives. As such, the existing fee lands could not, under optimal conditions,
meet objectives; therefore, a renewed emphasis should be placed on the Chatlain Lake acquisition
area, with land purchases in large enough blocks to realistically and practically make management of
the units possible.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological investigations within the refuge have been limited and with the exception of Gibson
(1989), have occurred prior to its establishment. The Tunica-Biloxi Native American tribe is located in
the local community (tribal lands and Paragon Casino). The Tunica-Biloxi tribe is a strong supporter
of natural resource issues and could be a valuable partner.
VISITOR SERVICES
Visitor Services and Education
Currently, little public use occurs besides hunting and fishing. The complex does not have the staff or
facilities to provide on- or off-refuge environmental education, interpretive, or non-consumptive
wildlife-dependent recreational programs. A boardwalk and observation tower constructed in 2006
provides the public wildlife observation and photography opportunities.
The refuge is in Avoyelles Parish (population 41,860), within 15 miles of the city of Marksville,
Louisiana (population 6,087). The Tunica-Biloxi Paragon Casino is a major tourist attraction in the
parish, attracting more than 200,000 overnight visitors annually. Many of the casino’s overnight hotel
and recreational vehicle resort guests are interested in half-day tourist destinations. Visitor facilities
in association with a refuge visitor center annex could provide wildlife-dependent environmental
education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities currently not available in Avoyelles Parish.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Hunting
Hunting and fishing are integral parts of Louisiana culture. It is not surprising that there is a
considerable state and local interest in expanding hunting opportunities. Any additional hunting
opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge
purposes.
Expanding waterfowl hunting opportunities, developing better water control to help facilitate quality
hunting and distribution of waterfowl, and decreasing the sanctuary areas are wishes identified during
the scoping process. Additional waterfowl hunting opportunities can be provided as the refuge
improves water delivery systems and acquires additional land, but the core waterfowl sanctuary
needs to remain intact to meet the undisturbed resting and feeding needs of waterfowl. Expanding
deer hunting opportunities on the south side of the refuge and having a buck-only archery season
were expressed by the public.
Fishing
Under current conditions, sport fishing is permitted year-round in the Coulee Des Grues along Little
California Road. Anglers may harvest any fish species on the refuge that is permitted by state
regulations. State fish size and bag limits apply. Creel limits, boating safety, and license
requirements are in accordance with state regulations, unless otherwise specified in the fishing
brochure. Recreational crawfishing is permitted in designated areas of the refuge from April 1
through May 31. Improving the crawfishery and extending the crawfishing season for the enjoyment
of the public were issues identified during the public scoping period and are identified in this plan.
Roads and Trails, Interior and Exterior
In general, lack of access, both interior and exterior, limits all public use on the refuge. No all-weather
roads or trails exist.
The refuge has two exterior access routes, Louisiana Highway 1194 and Little California Road.
Avoyelles Parish is responsible for maintaining Little California Road, the most direct route from
Marksville, Louisiana. Seasonal weather limits access on Little California Road and other interior
roads and trails (including that by refuge staff) to 4-wheel-drive and high-clearance vehicles. Access
will remain limited until all-weather roads are provided and maintained.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Funding and Staffing
Currently, the refuge is not meeting its waterfowl and shorebird habitat objectives; has few public use
facilities; provides few wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, or wildlife viewing
opportunities; and has facilities in need of repair (e.g., water control infrastructure, roads, and public
access).
42 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in the decision-making
process. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge
management. A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for
the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are
allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. Hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
priority public uses and therefore emphasized in this plan.
Described below is the comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the next 15
years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative 1, the no-action alternative;
Alternative 2 (active management); and Alternative 3 (restoration of endemic ecosystem). Each of
these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment (USFWS
2006). The Service chose Alternative 2 as the management action.
Implementing Alternative 2 will result in refuge lands being protected, maintained, restored, and
enhanced for waterfowl, migratory game birds, resident wildlife, shorebirds, wading and marsh birds,
and threatened and endangered species. Extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory activities
will be initiated to develop the baseline biological information needed to implement active
management programs on the refuge.
Refuge management actions will be directed towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes: (1)
provide wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, blue-winged teal, and wood ducks; and (2) provide
production habitat for wood ducks to meet the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan. In addition, the refuge will be managed to contribute to other national, regional, and state goals
for protecting and restoring populations of shorebirds, woodcock, and threatened and endangered
species.
Active habitat management will be implemented through water-level manipulations, moist-soil and
cropland management, reforestation, and forest management designed to provide a historically
diverse complex of habitats that meets the foraging, resting, and breeding requirements of a variety
of species. An extensive system of levees, water control structures, and pumps will be updated and
used in an effort to provide approximately 2,500 acres of seasonally flooded habitats and 2,700 acres
of floodable bottomland hardwood forests for a variety of wetland-dependent species.
Under this alternative, the refuge will continue to seek acquisition of all inholdings from willing sellers
within the present refuge boundary. The refuge will seek acquisition of an additional 2,500 to 3,000
acres in the Chatlain Lake Unit within the current acquisition boundary to help meet Louisiana
waterfowl step-down objectives. Also, the refuge will use outreach programs and seek partnerships
with state, federal, and private landowners. In seeking partnerships with adjacent landowners and
hunting clubs, the refuge will use conservation easements and cooperative agreements, and work to
promote other federal programs, such as the Wetland Reserve Program, to provide wildlife and soil
and water conservation benefits for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife species. Land acquired as
part of the refuge will be available for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
44 Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
During the 15-year life of this plan, 125 acres of existing refuge cropland will be reforested to achieve
wildlife habitat objectives. A forest management plan, designed to create spatially and specifically
diverse bottomland hardwood forests (with little negative effect to waterfowl objectives), will be
developed and implemented. The upland forest will be converted and managed in native upland
forested species.
Cooperative farming will be used to manage and maintain approximately 2,500 acres of waterfowl
habitat, including cropland and moist-soil. As much as 370 acres of unharvested crop and a
minimum of 600-800 acres of moist-soil habitat will be provided to meet refuge North American
Waterfowl Management Plan wintering waterfowl foraging habitat objectives.
Opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will be provided.
Improvements will be made to the refuge’s interior and exterior access roads to provide all-weather
vehicular access to a broad segment of the public. Opportunities for hiking and all-terrain vehicle use
will be provided to support wildlife-dependent recreation to the extent that these activities do not
significantly interfere with or detract from the achievement of wildlife conservation. A wildlife
observation site and platform, interpretive trails, boardwalk, kiosks, and a demonstration area at the
Headquarters’ Office area and an exhibit site in the Headquarters’ Office will be provided to allow for
fully accessible environmental education and interpretation programs. Quality fishing and hunting
programs will be provided, consistent with sound biological principles with sufficient focus on
waterfowl/waterbird sanctuary, loafing, feeding, and courting requirements. Fishing and crawfishing
will be permitted on the refuge. A visitor services plan, incorporating an aggressive and proactive
promotion of both on- and off-site programs, will be developed and implemented.
VISION
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge will provide critical migration habitat in the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley for wintering pintail, mallard, blue-winged teal, wood duck, and
other waterfowl species through intensive management of agricultural, moist-soil, and
forested wetland habitats. Grand Cote Refuge will provide optimal production habitat for
wood ducks. Grand Cote Refuge will manage fish and wildlife resources to meet local,
state, and national goals while promoting compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns,
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are
presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated
with the various strategies.
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife
R