Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
August 2008
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
UPPER OUACHITA AND HANDY BRAKE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
Including Farm Service Agency Tracts
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
August 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries .................................................................. 8
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Upper Ouachita NWR ......................................................................................................... 9
handy brake nwr including 44 Farm Services Agency Units ............................................. 12
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 12
Upper Ouachita NWR ....................................................................................................... 12
handy brake nwr Including 44 Farm Services Agency Tracts ........................................... 14
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 19
Louisiana’s Natural and Scenic Rivers .............................................................................. 19
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 19
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) ................................................................. 19
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Black Bear Conservation Commission (BBCC) ................................................................ 21
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative ........................................................................ 21
american Woodcock management Plan ........................................................................... 21
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan ..................................................................... 21
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan) .................. 21
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 22
Loss Of Bottomland hardwood forest and Fragmentation ................................................. 22
Encroachment of Invasives ............................................................................................... 23
Contaminants .................................................................................................................... 23
Barge Traffic and subsequent Channel Maintenance ....................................................... 25
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 26
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 26
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 26
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 26
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 29
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 30
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 32
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 34
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 43
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 52
Prehistoric background ..................................................................................................... 52
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
ii
Historical Period (European contact) ................................................................................ 52
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 55
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 55
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 55
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 55
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 60
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 63
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 64
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 64
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 64
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 65
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 66
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 67
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 69
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 70
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 70
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................... 107
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 107
Projects ................................................................................................................................... 107
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 107
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 109
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 110
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 111
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 111
Volunteers ............................................................................................................................... 111
Partnership Opportunities......................................................................................................... 112
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 112
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 112
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 115
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 125
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 129
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 145
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 165
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 173
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 175
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 197
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 197
Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ............................................................................... 197
Biological review – September 2004 ............................................................................... 197
Visitor Services Review – September 2005 .................................................................... 198
Other Contributors ........................................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 201
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex ............................................................. 10
Figure 2. Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................ 11
Figure 3. The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem with Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake
National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District ..................... 13
Figure 4. Natural gas activity on Upper Ouachita NWR ..................................................................... 24
Figure 5. Elevation of Upper Ouachita NWR ........................................................................................ 27
Figure 6. Elevation of Handy Brake NWR ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 7. Watershed map of Upper Ouachita NWR ........................................................................... 30
Figure 8. Watershed of some FSA tracts ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 9. Water levels of Upper Ouachita NWR ................................................................................. 35
Figure 10. Vegetation on Upper Ouachita NWR ................................................................................. 36
Figure 11. Vegetation and water management on Handy Brake NWR ............................................... 37
Figure 12. Farming and moist-soil management on Upper Ouachita NWR ....................................... 40
Figure 13. Invasive plant species identified on Upper Ouachita NWR ............................................... 42
Figure 14. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and occurence on Upper Ouachitat NWR ................. 49
Figure 15 Louisiana black bear priority areas of conservation and protection associated
with the FSA tracts ............................................................................................................ 50
Figure 16 Current visitor services on Upper Ouachita NWR .............................................................. 56
Figure 17. Current visitor services on Handy Brake NWR .................................................................. 59
Figure 18 Forest breeding bird priority areas of conservation associated with the FSA tracts ........... 75
Figure 19. Red-cockaded woodpecker species/habitat occurrence map ......................................... 167
Figure 20. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging analysis ................................................................. 170
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex schedule for comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental assessment development ............................................ 9
Table 2. Description for each refuge system property within the FSA tracts ...................................... 16
Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with Upper Ouachita
NWR and the FSA tracts in 2002 .......................................................................................... 33
Table 5. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for Upper Ouachita NWR at the Mollicy Unit ............ 45
Table 6. Demographics of Morehouse, Union, East Carroll, West Carroll, Richland, Grant,
and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, based on U.S. Census 2000 data. .......................... 55
Table 7. North Louisiana NWR Complex funding and staffing for Fiscal Year 2006........................... 61
Table 8. North Louisiana NWR Complex revenue payments for Morehouse, Union,
Richland, West Carroll, and East Carroll Parishes, Louisiana, for the last three years ......... 62
Table 9. LMVJV habitat objectives for Upper Ouachita NWR ............................................................. 91
Table 10. Summary of projects ......................................................................................................... 113
Table 11. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive conservation plan .................................................................................... 114
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
vi
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to guide the management of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs)
including 44 Farm Service Agency tracts (FSA) in northeastern Louisiana. The CCP outlines
programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act).
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues
the CCP should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuges. The staff
held one public scoping meeting and solicited public reaction to the proposed alternatives. Also, a
30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) was provided.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A represents no change from
current management of the refuges. Refuge management programs would continue to be developed
and implemented with limited baseline biological information and limited monitoring, for mainly
migratory waterfowl. Upland forest management would continue focusing on red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) guidelines for minimizing hardwoods and maintaining a grassy understory in a
portion of the mixed pine and upland forests. Bottomland hardwood management would continue at
current rate of thinning to maintain a closed canopy forest and retain as much water tupelo and bald
cypress as possible. The open fields would continue with manipulating water levels for moist-soil and
cooperative cropland management. Management for invasives would continue with opportunistic
treatment and mapping. Partnerships would continue with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries for several biological programs, hunting regulations, and law enforcement issues. The
Partners program would still develop projects with interested parties for carbon sequestration projects
and invasives. Hunting and fishing would continue to be the priority focus of public use on Upper
Ouachita NWR, with no expansion of current opportunities.
Under Alternative B, biological potential of historical habitats are restored and enhanced with most
management actions emphasizing natural ecological processes to foster habitat functions and wildlife
populations. The biological program would be enhanced with inventorying and monitoring so that
adaptive management could be implemented for primarily migratory birds, but other species of wildlife
as well. Upland forest management would focus on restoring the biological integrity of a mixed
hardwood/pine forest by promoting upland hardwood species and reducing pine basal area. The
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Unit will be managed using a more historic fire regime while
providing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat as required in the recovery guidelines. A historic fire
regime will ultimately benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers by creating a more herbaceous understory.
Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed on an inventory defining current
condition that could be conducted in a logical and feasible manner. Bottomlands would have
management increased to open the canopy cover and increase understory vegetation. Water control
structures and pumping capability would be improved to enhance moist-soil and cropland
management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasives would be mapped and protocols for
control established with the addition of a forester. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for
several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
2
Public use would be similar to current management with a few improvements based on additional
staff and funding. Law enforcement would be increased to gain better compliance with refuge
regulations. Staffing would increase with four positions (biological technician, forestry technician,
maintenance worker, and law enforcement officer) to increase biological inventorying and monitoring,
enhance forest management, increase invasives control, enhance public use program, and provide
safe and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Alternative C is driven by reducing costs of funding and staff with less habitat and wildlife
management and reduced public use program. Extensive baseline inventories and monitoring
programs would be conducted with several partners to provide a solid foundation of current
conditions of refuge habitat and wildlife, while monitoring for changes in trends. Upland forest
management would focus on red-cockaded woodpecker guidelines for minimizing hardwoods and
maintaining a grassy understory in the entire mixed pine and upland forests, resulting in an extensive
prescribed burning program which would include monitoring forest conditions. Bottomland hardwood
forest management would be developed using an intensive inventory to define current conditions and
monitoring natural successional changes. Management in the bottoms would be limited to promote
natural succession, as defined in a revised Habitat Management Plan. The open field would be
allowed to go through natural succession back to bottomland hardwood forest and the moist-soil units
would not be maintained. Invasives management would become a priority to establish baseline
information of location and density, and protocols for control. Partnerships would continue to be
fostered for several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research
projects. Public use is limited, with custodial-level maintenance.
The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and it is reflected in this CCP.
Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best
achieve the refuges’ purposes and goals; emphasizes management and restoration of open
wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, and hydrology in support of migratory and resident waterfowl
and other wildlife, especially forest breeding birds, amphibians and reptiles, marsh birds, white-tailed
deer, wood duck, and woodcock; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term
achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide
balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies,
and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired
long-term conditions.
Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuges will be protected,
managed, maintained, and enhanced, and those lands within the approved acquisition boundary will
be prioritized for acquisition to best achieve national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals
and objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively
addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife
Refuges (NWRs) including 44 Farm Service Agency tracts (FSA) was prepared to guide management
actions and direction for these lands. 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 Service or the purposes for which
these lands were established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of these
lands and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This CCP describes the
Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan of action. This CCP 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 CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a plan of action that best achieves establishing purposes;
attains the vision and goals developed; 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 CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuges;
􀁹􇤠 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.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, thus, the name was changed
to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
4
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 545 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 States and several United
States’ territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services’ field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The Improvement Act 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 CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are
completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing
natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, CCPs
will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement 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 CCPs 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established
for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep
(1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s (i.e., Dust Bowl) severely depleted breeding populations
of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl
production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on
waterfowl continues today, but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic
loss of bottomland hardwood forests. By 1973, the Service began to focus on establishing refuges
for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120
per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) - the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
Federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state,
and private landowners, and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including
Service compatibility standards, policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
6
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior, and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs, the FSA tracts, and partners such as local landowners, the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Geological Service, the Nature Conservancy, Ducks
Unlimited, National Audubon Society, Louisiana Tech University, Grambling University, and the University
of Louisiana at Monroe.
Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts are
provided in Appendix C.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract
from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the 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; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public
uses in planning and management.
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan,
and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
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 Conservation Plan, North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
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 their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the
United States signed the Plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in
1994, making it a truly continental effort. The Plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and
municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals
working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species, and people. The Plan’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at
regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North
American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds,
primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This Plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The Plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This Plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the 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.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
8
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, 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.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
Cooperation among national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas provides the foundation
for protection of wildlife species and habitat, and contributes to the maintenance of biological integrity and
diversity of fish and wildlife in the State of Louisiana and throughout the United States.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is charged with enforcement responsibilities
relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources and
approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates
the state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife
management areas. Russell Sage, Ouachita, Union, and Bouef State management areas are within the
ecosystem of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. The LDWF has also
partnered with the Service on the development of this CCP through participation on the core planning
team, biological review team, and internal reviews of the document.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The mission of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) is to preserve and enhance
the nonrenewable natural resources of the state, consisting of land, water, oil, gas, and other
minerals, through conservation, regulation, and economic benefit from its asset base. The Monroe
Gas Field underlies portions of Ouachita, Union, and Morehouse Parishes, which includes some of
the Refuge System lands of the district. Mineral rights were not obtained when the refuge was
acquired. The refuge works with LDNR to maintain current records of all active and inactive gas
leases on refuge lands.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in
Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The Upper Ouachita NWR and Handy Brake NWR, which includes 44 FSA lands, are units of the North
Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Figure 1). This Complex includes D’Arbonne NWR, Upper
Ouachita NWR, Black Bayou Lake NWR, Handy Brake NWR, and Red River NWR. D’Arbonne, Red
River, and Black Bayou Lake NWRs have issues that are unique and require separate planning efforts
and public involvement (Table 1.) It was determined that the planning efforts and public involvement for
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs could be combined with one CCP covering these units. The
D’Arbonne NWR planning effort has been completed and planning effort for Red River NWR is in
development. The remaining Black Bayou Lake NWR Draft CCP/EA was initiated in October 2008.
Table 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex schedule for comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental assessment development
Refuge Proposed Start Proposed Finish
D’Arbonne NWR January 2004 September 2006
Upper Ouachita NWR October 2005 September 2008
Handy Brake NWR including FSA Units October 2005 September 2008
Red River NWR February 2006 September 2008
Black Bayou Lake NWR March 2008 September 2010
UPPER OUACHITA NWR
Upper Ouachita NWR is located in northeastern Louisiana. The northern boundary lies on the
Louisiana-Arkansas state line. The refuge borders both sides of the Ouachita River running north-south
for 13.7 miles and extends 3.3 miles to the east and 16 miles to the west. The southernmost
point on the refuge is approximately 20 miles north of Monroe, Louisiana. The current acquisition
area encompasses 61,633 acres, of which 42,594 acres have been purchased, with 26,304 acres in
Union Parish and 16,290 acres in Morehouse Parish (Figure 2).
Upper Ouachita NWR was established in November 1978. The refuge consists of 4,540 acres of pine
and pine/hardwood mix; 19,767 acres of bottomland hardwood forest; 9,236 acres of reforested
bottomlands; 2,000 acres of scrub-shrub; 1,182 acres of moist-soil impoundments; 2,541 acres of
agricultural fields; 682 acres of fallow agricultural fields; and 2,910 acres of open water. Habitat
management is primarily focusing on reforestation, burning and thinning of uplands and bottomlands
to promote a healthy forest, maintaining moist-soil units, and partnering for waterfowl foraging habitat.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
10
Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
12
The Ouachita River is designated as a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. The refuge provides
habitat for thousands of wintering ducks and geese and year-long habitat for wood ducks. The
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and threatened Louisiana black bear use the refuge
throughout the year. The bald eagle also uses the refuge.
Hunting and fishing opportunities are permitted on most areas of the refuge, and is open year-round
for wildlife observation, nature photography, and hiking. All-terrain vehicle trails and management
roads are provided for access.
HANDY BRAKE NWR INCLUDING 44 FARM SERVICES AGENCY UNITS
The Louisiana Wetlands Management District (LWMD) was established in 1990, in response to growing
Fish and Wildlife Service land-based responsibilities off of traditional refuges. The Wetlands Office is
responsible for the administration of wetland easements and fee title land transfers from the USDA Farm
Service Agency (FSA) and for the fall and winter leasing of privately owned wetlands in northeastern
Louisiana. It also includes the first fee title tract transfer from the FSA to the Service with the
establishment of Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge in 1988. The FSA tracts include 36 FSA
easements, 7 fee title units, and 1 lease that are concentrated in northeastern Louisiana (Figure 3) and
encompass 6 parishes (Table 2). The FSA lands range in size from 3 acres to 1,000 acres (Table 2).
Handy Brake NWR is primarily a permanent wetland of excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl,
wading birds, and many other wetland-dependent species. A free lease of 35 acres of International
Paper Company land provides an upland area overlooking the wetland. An observation deck in the
upland area provides wildlife viewing opportunities into the wetlands. Habitat management within the
FSA tracts focuses primarily on reforestation of marginal agricultural areas and development and
maintenance of moist-soil units. These varied habitats provide for a diverse array of wildlife. There is
no hunting or fishing permitted throughout the FSA tracts.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
UPPER OUACHITA NWR
Upper Ouachita NWR was established in November 1978. The federally legislated purposes are “for
use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory
Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d); and 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 U.S.C. 3901b).
In about 1977, Pennzoil Producing Company, a major landowner in the Ouachita River area,
began to sell its holdings. Morehouse and Union Parishes’ Police Juries suggested the LWFC
as a possible purchaser. Without having the funds, the commission referred the Service as a
possible purchaser and Service personnel began to work toward a purchase agreement. In
early 1978, when the Service learned that Pennzoil was willing to sell most of its 26,130 acres
in the refuge area, an environmental assessment was prepared and signed by the Service’s
Regional Director on July 20, 1978. In November, the first acquisition was completed with the
sale of 20,834 acres by Pennzoil. Only the surface rights to the land were acquired, with
Pennzoil reserving in perpetuity all oil and gas deposits found under the land. The Mollicy Unit,
which totals 16,191 acres, was purchased from one landowner in parcels from 1997-1999.
Plum Creek Timber Company sold 4,939 acres to the Service on the western edge of the refuge
(from 1999 to 2004).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 3. The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem with Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake
National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
14
The current acquisition area encompasses 61,633 acres in northeast Union Parish and northwest
Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. The current area owned in fee title totals 42,594 acres. The current
acquisition boundary includes the area to the north of the Mollicy Unit, all inholdings, and areas to the
south of the refuge, west of the river (Figure 2). These areas, mostly comprising bottomland
hardwood forests, are adjacent to the refuge and would contribute to the core area of protected
habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife.
HANDY BRAKE NWR INCLUDING 44 FARM SERVICES AGENCY TRACTS
In 1988, prior to the establishment of the FSA tracts, the maxi-lease program was implemented as an
initiative of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. With plummeting waterfowl
populations, habitat was leased primarily to provide waterfowl sanctuaries. Large tracts of agricultural
lands, especially rice, and subject to winter flooding, were leased annually at $3/acre and posted.
Monitoring and enforcement were provided to the landowner, but limited due to manpower shortages.
In 1990, the FSA tracts were established with primary objectives being evaluation and management
of the maxi-leases. The primary reason the Service acquired the leases was to provide waterfowl
habitat in an undisturbed setting. Some agreements included requirements of the landowner to
provide pumping to wetlands on the lease to ensure water availability for wintering waterfowl.
Currently, the Service only manages one property under the maxi-lease program (Table 2).
The FSA tracts were established in response to growing Service land-based responsibilities off of
traditional refuges. The Wetlands Office is responsible for the administration of wetland easements
and fee title land transfers from the FSA. The Wetland Office manages these properties under the
purpose of “… for conservation purposes…” (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7
U.S.C. § 2002), and for the benefit of endangered species, resident and migratory waterfowl,
neotropical migratory birds, and other wildlife.
Land that could be conveyed under the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 (i.e., Farm Bill)
was signed, allowing the Service to request lands in fee title or easement once the FSA foreclosed on
a piece of property. Fee title transfers from the FSA to the Service through the Secretary of the
Interior, by authority of Section 354 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
2002) transfer, without reimbursement, of fee title or other interest therein of inventory lands to any
federal or state agency for conservation purposes. They go through a process and determine that
the “rights of all prior owners and operators of the lands described below have expired, that the land
is determined to be suitable or surplus, and that it has marginal value for agricultural production, is
environmentally sensitive, or has special management importance, and that this transfer and
conveyance comports with and is in furtherance of said authority.”
Handy Brake NWR was the first fee title transfer of a FSA tract to the Service in 1988, with an
establishing purpose of “… for conservation purposes…” (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2002). The language of the establishing legislation is relevant only to those lands
owned in fee title by the Government (Table 2).
Changes in the 1990 Farm Bill all but eliminated the opportunity to acquire significant new parcels
from FSA inventory. Easement administration was then assigned to the Service pursuant to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). “This easement is
under the authority and in furtherance of the provisions of Federal law, including sections 331 and
335 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985), Executive Order
11990 providing for the protection of wetlands, and Executive Order 11988 providing for the
management of floodplains. The restrictions and covenants contained in this easement constitute a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
perpetual servitude on and run with the property.” Thirty-six easement tracts were established and
are regulated by the associated refuge easement (Table 2). The easement reservation does not
authorize public entry upon or use of the land.
For this CCP, the fee title wetland management tracts, easement tracts, and lease are combined to
evaluate them as a group and a program. The purposes and management capabilities and
challenges are similar for all 44 Refuge System properties. However, Handy Brake NWR, though
having the same purpose, has a slightly different management capability to merit developing a
separate programmatic direction. All goals, objectives, and strategies are intended to support the
individual purposes for which each Refuge System property was established.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Landowner Rights with Easement Properties
The conservation and wetland easements of the FSA tracts are primarily based on the same type of
agreement between the Service and landowner. Since the program was established, some have
questioned what rights the Federal Government purchased from the landowners relative to the
property. According to agreements and historical records, it appears the intent was not to control the
uses that occur on the uplands or naturally occurring wetlands. Generally, the agreements have the
following language:
Covenants by the Landowner
􀁹􇤠 No dwellings, barns, outbuildings, or other structures will be built within easement area.
􀁹􇤠 Vegetation or hydrology of easement area will not be altered in any way or by any means or
activity, including cutting or mowing; cultivation; grazing; harvesting wood products; burning;
placing of refuse, waste, sewage, or other debris; draining, dredging, channeling, filling,
disking, pumping, diking, impounding and related activities; or diverting or affecting the natural
flow of surface or underground waters into, within, and out of the easement.
􀁹􇤠 Will be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local laws for control of noxious
or other undesirable plants on easement area.
􀁹􇤠 Cattle or other stock shall not be permitted on the easement area, except easement manager
shall permit access to and use of waters within the area necessary for stock watering under
terms as easement manager deems necessary to protect purposes of the easement.
Rights to Fish and Wildlife Service
􀁹􇤠 Right of ingress and agrees to conduct wetlands management, monitoring, and easement
enforcement activities.
􀁹􇤠 Right to install, operate, and maintain structures for purpose of reestablishing, protecting, and
enhancing wetlands’ functional values.
􀁹􇤠 Right to establish or reestablish vegetation through seedings, planting, or natural succession.
􀁹􇤠 Right to manipulate vegetation, topography, and hydrology on easement areas through diking,
pumping, water management, excavating, island construction, burning, cutting, pesticide
application, fertilizing, and other appropriate practices.
􀁹􇤠 Right to conduct predator management activities.
􀁹􇤠 Right to construct and maintain fences in order to prevent grazing or other types of
encroachment on easement area.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
16
Table 2. Description for each refuge system property within the FSA tracts
Tract Ownership Year Acres Floodplain
Morehouse Parish
Handy Brake NWR Fee title 1988 468
International Paper Lease 1993 35
King & Iverson South Fee title 1992 876? Within Boeuf River floodplain
Oliveros Tract (Burress and
King were separate tracts
combined)
Fee title
(1993 &
1992)
1000
(668 &
332)
Within Arkansas Alluvial Cone between Boeuf River and
Bayou Bonne Idee
(Burress and King have water management capability
R.Adcock Easement 1990 250
B.Brown Easement 1990 103 Adjacent to Bayou Bonne Idee
McKinnie Easement 1991 76 Along Bayou Bonne
Richland Parish
R&A Farms Fee title 1991 200 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplain
A. Adcock Fee title 1991 306
W.R. Adcock Fee title 1992 355 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplain
Lewis Easement 1990 29
Leggitt Easement 1990 49
Moore Easement 1990 24
Norman Easement 1989 322 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplain
W-W North Easement 269
W-W South Easement 82
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Richland Parish
Douciere Easement 1990 480 Between Boeuf River and Big Creek
Nobles Easement 1990 140
Thomas Easement 1990 107 Within Boeuf River floodplain along Cypress Creek and
headwaters of Cow Bayou
Walker Easement 1989 4 Within Boeuf River floodplain
West Carroll
Johnson Easement 1998 3 Archaeological site
Burrell Easement 1996 7 Along Macon Ridge with two tributaries of Colewa Bayou
Dosher Easement 21 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along bogzack Creek
Hendrix Easement 1990 19 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along Bear Skin Bayou
Leguin Easement 1990 56 Within Boeuf River floodplain adjacent to Big Colewa
Bayou
Mayhall Easement 1990 182 Within Boeuf River floodplain bordering Colewa Bayou
Oldham Easement 1990 15 Within Boeuf River floodplain with Colewa Bayou
running through northwest corner
Prisock Easement 1994 49 Within Boeuf River floodplain
Rawls Easement 1990 14 Within Boeuf River floodplain adjacent to Big Colewa
Bayou
Smith Easement 1990 14
East Carroll
Harden Fee title 1996 31 Within Bayou Macon floodplain and adjoins Caney
Bayou
Coleman Easement 1990 42 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along Joe’s Bayou
Gilfoil Easement 1989 7
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
18
East Carroll
Harvey Easement 1990 35 Within Bayou Macon floodplain
Love Easement 1990 113
Minsky Easement 1990 75
Pippin Farms Easement 1992 93 Within Bayou Macon floodplain bordering Joe’s Bayou
Robinson Easement 1990 86 Within Bayou Macon floodplain
Travis-Bobby Easement 1990 56 Within Bayou Macon and Tensas Bayou floodplain,
adjoins Joe’s Bayou and Cypress Bayou passes through
Travis-William Easement 1990 46 Within Bayou Macon floodplain
Wolfe Easement 1990 7 Within Tensas Bayou floodplain
Grant
Dean now Trotter Easement 1989 88 Within Red River alluvial cone adjacent to Bayou
Marteau
Brister Easement 1990 19 Within Red River alluvial cone between Red River and
Bayou Darrow
Natchitoches
Van Matre Easement 1990 11 Within Red River alluvial cone within Young’s Bayou
drainage on Montgomery Terrace; may have yellow lady
slipper orchid (Cypipedium kentuckiense)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
􀁹􇤠 Right to prohibit or regulate hunting or other taking of migratory birds, notwithstanding
permissive provisions of state or federal law. Unless the easement manager prohibits public
entry, the landowner may permit it at the landowner’s discretion. Subject to the easement
manager posting the area, or giving notice of prohibitions to the landowner, the landowner and
invitees may hunt and fish on the easement area in accordance with all federal, state, and
local game and fish regulations.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
LOUISIANA’S NATURAL AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Louisiana Natural and Scenic River System is one of the nation’s largest, oldest, most diverse,
and unique state river protection initiatives. It began in the early 1970s with the passage of the
Louisiana Natural and Scenic River Act. The Act set certain requirements in order for it to be
included in the system. The Act also established a regulatory program and empowered the Secretary
of the LDWF to administer the system through regulation and permits.
LDWF designated the Ouachita River a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. This designation
extends across Morehouse and Union Parishes, from the north bank of Bayou Bartholomew at its
intersection with the Ouachita River, to the Arkansas State line. Bayou Bartholomew, located in
Morehouse Parish, is also designated a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. This designation
extends from the Louisiana-Arkansas State line to Dead Bayou. There is strong interest at the local,
state, and federal levels to ensure that the scenic rivers are conserved both as irreplaceable
elements of Louisiana’s rich natural heritage and as resources to be used and enjoyed by the local
residents and visitors. Therefore, certain activities, which drastically alter the natural and scenic
qualities in the system, are prohibited by the State of Louisiana. These activities include
channelization, channel realignment, clearing and snagging, impoundments, and commercial clear-cutting
of timber within 100 feet of the low water mark.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM (LMRE)
The LMRE includes the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with
the Ohio River and the delta plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the
meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (USFWS 2002). Louisiana has twelve
water quality management basins delineated on the basis of natural drainage patterns of its
major river basins (Lester et al., 2005). The Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs are within
the drainage basins and tributaries of the Ouachita Basin. Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake
NWRs, and four FSA tracts, are within the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion. The
majority of the FSA tracts are within the ecoregion of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV)
section of the LMRE (Figure 3). Three easements in Grant and Natchitoches Parishes are
within the Red Basin and the ecoregions of the Lower West Gulf Coastal Plain and Upper West
Gulf Coastal Plain.
Upper Ouachita NWR and the FSA tracts, including Handy Brake NWR, are in the heart of
protected bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands of north Louisiana. Five national wildlife
refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake and Tensas River),
thirty-six Service easements, and thirty-six LDWF wildlife management areas are lands focused
on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwood forests; moist-soil
management; endangered species management; environmental education; and compatible
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
20
wildlife-dependent recreation in the LMRE. The LMRE guides Service efforts to enhance,
restore, and conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types of the LMRE, while
maintaining the economic productivity and recreational opportunities.
The ecosystem serves as primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as
well as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain
forests of the past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from
agriculture and flood control projects.
The LMRE developed eight goals that this CCP will consider and promote when establishing refuge
goals and objectives to ensure the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem conservation and
integrity. These goals are:
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
LMRE.
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE.
􀁹􇤠 Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered,
and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE.
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE.
􀁹􇤠 Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
􀁹􇤠 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
􀁹􇤠 Enforce natural resource laws.
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region
The LMRE is covered primarily by two bird conservation regions: Mississippi Alluvial Valley and West
Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The West Gulf Coastal Plain includes Upper Ouachita and Handy
Brake NWRs, as well as some of the FSA tracts properties because it reaches to the most
northwestern portion of the Mississippi Alluvial Basin. This section of the region is primarily mixed
pine – hardwood types with bottomland hardwood forest species in the more mesic areas and on
slopes. These forests are of high conservation priority for conserving the natural communities and
the bird populations within these habitats. The primary threats to these forests include reservoir
construction; stream modifications; destructive timber harvesting practices; and conversion to pine
plantations, pastures, and other land uses (Neal, http://www.lmvjv.org/wgcp).
Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Region
Most of the FSA tracts lie 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 Illinois to Louisiana. The primary threats to
these forests include forest loss and fragmentation, alterations to hydrology, siltation of aquatic
ecosystems, and proliferation of invasive aquatic plants.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMISSION (BBCC)
The goal of the BBCC “is to promote the restoration of the Louisiana black bear in its historic range,
through education, research, and habitat management.” The Service is a partner with the BBCC in
its repatriation efforts. Although Upper Ouachita NWR is not considered an area for repatriation, the
refuge supports timber management guidelines that produce good bear habitat. Bears have been
seen on the refuge and may be utilizing it for more than just a travel corridor. Two FSA tracts lie
within the core breeding area of the Louisiana black bear, while thirteen properties lie within its
historic range.
NORTHERN BOBWHITE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The initiative’s goal is “to restore northern bobwhite populations range wide to an average density
equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in the baseline year of 1980 [58,857,000].” The
population objective for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region is to add 131,033 new
coveys, with 21,833 of these in Louisiana. Habitat management is the primary vehicle for
accomplishing this goal with two specific objectives:
1) Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing,
and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season
grasses and other conservation plantings, such as shrubs and forbs.
2) Enhance the management practices on pinelands and mixed pine-hardwoods by thinning,
controlled burning, and site preparation in a fashion that benefits bobwhites and other wildlife,
and increase acreage devoted to longleaf pine where it is ecologically feasible.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Woodcock Plan was developed by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of woodcock in
the United States.” The plan gives general guidance for habitat and population management at the
national level. Although habitat for woodcock is limited on Upper Ouachita NWR and the FSA tracts,
habitat practices that benefit woodcock are considered in this CCP.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER RECOVERY PLAN
The red-cockaded woodpecker population on Upper Ouachita NWR is considered an important support
population, but is not identified in the recovery criteria (USFWS 2003). The CCP will evaluate resource
and management needs for RCW management under the guidelines for critically small populations, as
defined in the RCW Recovery Plan. These include such things as monitoring nest success, pre-breeding
roost checks, maintaining at least four suitable cavities in each cluster, augmenting the population as
needed, maintaining 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat for each group, and using prescribed fire
during the growing season to maintain an herbaceous understory (USFWS 2003).
LOUISIANA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN)
The LDWF Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was defined in 2005 (Lester et
al., 2005). Its mission statement follows:
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
22
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ mission is to manage, conserve, and promote
wise utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and wildlife resources and their supporting habitats
through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, and education for the
social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide opportunities for
knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to promote a safe and healthy
environment for the users of the resources.
The state developed four goals with associated objectives that this CCP will consider and promote to
ensure that the refuge and FSA tracts continue their contribution to Louisiana wildlife conservation
and habitat integrity. These four goals are:
􀁹􇤠 Provide the habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all
species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act.
􀁹􇤠 Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for
the continued survival of species of conservation concern.
􀁹􇤠 Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and
conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and related habitats.
􀁹􇤠 Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships between LDWF and state and
federal natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental
groups, private industry, and academia.
The primary focus of the CWCS is species of conservation concern and the habitats they depend
upon. Information relative to these species and those habitats found on Refuge System lands will be
evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
LOSS OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST AND FRAGMENTATION
The entire 25-million-acre LMV was once a floodplain forest of primarily oak-gum-cypress cover types
with overcup, willow, Nuttall, water, swamp chestnut and cherrybark oaks, as well as sweetgum,
water tupelo, water hickory, willow, cottonwood, sycamore, sugarberry, red maple, box elder,
baldcypress, and green ash. Only about 23 percent of bottomland hardwood forests remain in the
LMV. In Louisiana, 50-75 percent loss of bottomland hardwood forest has occurred statewide (Lester
et al., 2005). Loss and fragmentation has primarily occurred due to cropland conversion and
hydrological changes associated with flood control. There are a few large tracts remaining, such as
Upper Ouachita NWR and state wildlife management areas, but much of it is second growth and not
old growth forest. This unique ecosystem is important to hundreds of wildlife species and native plant
communities. Bottomland hardwood forests and associated wetlands support substantial wintering
populations of a number of waterfowl species, mainly mallards and breeding and wintering wood
ducks, and are a primary migration corridor for significant numbers of other dabbling ducks.
Conserving bottomland hardwood forest habitat is also a high priority for nesting neotropical
migratory birds, breeding habitat for area-sensitive birds, and necessary stopover habitat for spring
migratory birds coming across the Gulf of Mexico.
Because the remaining bottomland forest is so fragmented, conservation often focuses on retention
or restoration of blocks of forest that are connected and of sufficient size to support healthy
populations of bottomland hardwood forest birds. The refuges contribute to bottomland hardwood
conservation by maintaining more than 19,000 acres of mature bottomland hardwood forests and
9,236 acres of reforestation as a critical component of maintaining a forested corridor in the Ouachita
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
River basin. The refuges provide important habitat for neotropical migratory birds following the
Ouachita River during migration, as well as area-sensitive breeding migratory birds that are
dependent on bottomland hardwood forests to nest. Over 10,000 wading birds utilize the refuges
bottomland hardwood forests during late summer and when post-breeding dispersal occurs.
ENCROACHMENT OF INVASIVES
Non-native or invasive plants alter the function of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat, displacing
native species, changing carrying capacity by reducing native forage production, lowering plant
diversity, and increasing soil erosion and soil sedimentation. Invasives are at a critical junction on the
North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Until recently, invasive species were considered
a minor nuisance. Meanwhile, two invasive plants, Japanese climbing fern and Chinese tallow tree,
moved northward into this area and now threaten to disrupt the entire ecosystem both on and off the
refuge. Other invasive plants found on the refuge include water hyacinth, princess tree, tree-of-heaven,
Chinaberry, and mimosa. No formal monitoring program has been established and only
opportunistic treatment has occurred. This threat has the potential to significantly decrease the
integrity and natural diversity of plants and wildlife in all refuge habitats.
CONTAMINANTS
The Monroe Gas Field (MGF) underlies portions of Ouachita, Union, and Morehouse Parishes in
northeast Louisiana. At the time of initial discovery and development, during the 1920s, it was the
largest known gas field in the United States. A portion of the MGF underlies approximately 32,900
acres of the 42,594-acre Upper Ouachita NWR (Figure 4). Until the 1970s, economics generally
restricted wells to one per 40 acres. However, tax laws and a dramatic, though short-lived, increase
in natural gas prices combined to spur a rash of drilling, which lasted until about 1986. During this
period, the number of wells in the MGF more than doubled. In some instances, wells were drilled
within 600’ of each other. This rapidly depleted the gas reserves, reduced the average gas pressure,
and caused production at many wells to cease.
Mineral rights were not obtained when the refuge was acquired. Since all the subsurface mineral
rights within the refuge are held by private interests, mineral exploration and production activities can
occur anywhere on the refuge. Natural gas exploration and production activities involve a number of
operations, including, but not restricted to, seismic testing; surveying; site clearing; well drilling; road
and pipeline construction; maintenance of wells, pipelines, other above-ground facilities; periodic
meter reading and inspections; and well-plugging operations (USFWS 1985). These actions have
produced five main problems with refuge management:
1) Habitat and wildlife disturbance: clearings for well sites, pipelines, and access
roads result in loss of wildlife habitat and fragment the remaining forest into smaller
patches. Fragmentation has been shown to have negative effects on nesting
migratory birds caused by increases in nest depredation and cowbird parasitism. The
clearing of vegetation can result in destroying potential nesting and foraging trees
within red-cockaded woodpecker clusters, and drilling can cause disturbance during
the nesting season. There is potential for further habitat damage by erosion, siltation,
flooding, and contamination by brine or other harmful substances.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
24
Figure 4. Natural gas activity on Upper Ouachita NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
3) Improperly covered mud pits: prior to 1990, there were no regulations relating to pit closure
and often soil was pushed into mud pits, leaving several feet of mud under a thin shell of soil.
Such pits were quagmires and became hazardous for people, wildlife, vehicles, or heavy
equipment. Once the surface soil layer was broken, animals, people, or eguipment would sink
to the bottom of the pit, a distance of up to seven feet.
4)
Abandoned or poorly maintained wells and facilities: equipment parts, survey marking tape,
and all man-made items used in or resulting from gas well operations are supposed to be
removed from the area when they are no longer functional, needed, or when the well is
vacated for reasons such as completion of the well or following repair projects. Often,
equipment is left in place to rust and become an eyesore and result in additional cleanup duty
for the refuge. Litterers can be cited by law enforcement, but dealing with this activity takes
time away from more pressing law enforcement duties. Abondoned equipment can also be a
safety hazard.
5) Mercury contamination: until the 1970s, most meters used to measure gas production
contained mercury, which was carelessly handled and resulted in significant amounts
of mercury being found in the soil below the meter itself. Meters have been replaced
with non-mercury substances, and all known spill sites have been remediated. The
primary source of environmental exposure to mercury is through the consumption of
fish. It is likely that this contamination is related to the levels of methyl mercury in the
Ouachita River and its tributaries.
6) Saltwater contamination of soil and water: saltwater contamination of soil and water
was once a serious problem on the refuge. Saltwater (brine) is a by-product of natural
gas during its production process. It was formerly stored in open pits that were subject
to leaks and seasonal floodings. Brine pollution has a severe and long-lasting impact
on soils and their ability to support vegetation. Concentrated brine kills all herbaceous
and woody vegetation in the contaminated area. Brine is not biodegradable and the
resulting damage is very difficult to remediate. Presently, brine from refuge wells is
pumped back into the subterranean strata through injection wells. The potential for
brine damage is still high due to poor condition of pipelines, wellheads, and other
facilities and the lack of proper maintenance in many cases.
BARGE TRAFFIC AND SUBSEQUENT CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
Within the refuge, the Ouachita River is dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
allow navigation by barge traffic. The refuge portion of the river has not been straightened,
and consequently, barges sometimes crash into the banks of the river, removing large swaths
of trees on the refuge. Barge traffic needs to be monitored for impacts and disturbance to the
refuge resources.
The Corps has caused siltation on the refuge by blowing dredge spoil (sand) on shore during
high-water events. These disposal activities of dredge spoil being pumped into the forests
need to be monitored and analyzed to determine if there are impacts to habitat and wildlife.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
26
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate of the refuge lands is typical of northern Louisiana and largely determined by the large
land mass to the north, the subtropical latitude, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. Prevalent winds
are from the south or southeast. Summer weather is predictable with regular thundershowers that
develop rapidly. Occasionally, periods of hot, dry weather may interrupt the normally moist summer
conditions. During late summer and fall, hurricanes and tropical storms may move across coastal
Louisiana. Such occurrences may produce unusually heavy rainfall in the refuge area, and, at times,
bring damaging winds. Fall, winter, and spring weather is more variable with cold polar continental air
alternately replacing the warmer humid subtropical air. Large cyclonic winter storms usually track
north of the refuge area. Occasionally, when these storms track farther south, ice storms, heavy
rains, sleet, or even snow may result.
Daily average temperatures normally range between 20oF to 70oF during winter and 70oF to 95oF
during the summer with a yearly average of 64.9OF. The maximum daily temperature is above 90o F
on an average of 41 days per year. Probability of freezing conditions earlier than November 5th and
later than March 12th is less than 50 percent. The average annual growing season is 237 days.
Mean annual precipitation is 49.6 inches. Thirty percent of the total occurs in the wettest months of
February through April, and 15.7 percent in the driest months of August through October. Snowfall
and ice storms are uncommon occurrences.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Refuge land is all composed of Recent- and Pleistocene-age alluvial soils in the floodplain of the Ouachita
River. These lands are subject to annual flooding by stream overflow or backwater (Figures 5 and 6).
The Recent alluvium exists in a band generally within one to one and a half miles of the present river
channel. The Recent alluvium is mostly point bar deposits consisting of “tan to gray clays, clayey silts,
and fine sands in the ridges, and soft, gray clays and silty clays in the swales (USFWS 1988).” Water and
organic contents are high in the swales but usually lower in the ridges. The top strata of the Recent
deposits are mostly between 50 and 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The bulk of the refuge land consists of point bar and abandoned channel Pleistocene-age deposits
known as the Deweyville Terrace formation. The somewhat older alluvial soils of the Deweyville
Terrace are mostly “gray to light-brown silty to sandy clay.” Elevation of the Deweyville Terrace
formation is between 60 and 80 feet MSL.
On the western edge of the refuge is another Pleistocene-age formation known as the Prairie
Terrace. Prairie terrace soils are similar to those of the Deweyville Terrace, but higher in elevation,
generally between 80 and 150 feet MSL. Whereas the Recent alluvial land and Deweyville Terrace
are relatively flat, the Prairie Terrace is gently rolling, due to differential erosion.
The Pleistocene and Recent deposits are underlain by much older Tertiary-age formations. The
tertiary deposits outcrop beyond the Prairie Terrace several miles west of the refuge boundary,
generally above 150 feet MSL. Soils of the Tertiary Uplands generally contain more sands and
gravels than do the Recent and Pleistocene soils. These soils are also more acidic than the
Pleistocene and Recent alluvial soils.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 5. Elevation of Upper Ouachita NWR
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
28
Figure 6. Elevation of Handy Brake NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
SOILS
Upper Ouachita NWR consists of thirteen different soil associations. The vast majority of the north unit on
the west side of the river is level, poorly drained, and its Litro, Perry, and Portland soils are subject to
frequent flooding by the Ouachita River. Most of the south unit is a grayish-brown silt loam surface and a
mottled reddish brown and brownish gray silty clay loam subsoil (Hebert). These soils are mixed in with
well-drained soils with a brown silt loam surface and reddish-brown silty clay loam subsoil. The higher
edges of the western edge include level to gently sloping acid, silty soils. Portions of these soils (Frizzel
and Guyton) are somewhat poorly drained, while others (Providence) are moderately well-drained. The
east side of the refuge on the Mollicy Unit completely consists of poorly drained soils in the Perry-
Portland, Litro-Haggerty, and Groom-Wrightsville associations.
HYDROLOGY
Upper Ouachita NWR and the majority of the FSA tracts and Handy Brake NWR are located in
northeastern Louisiana. The northern boundary of Upper Ouachita NWR lies on the Louisiana-
Arkansas State line (Figure 7). The refuge borders both sides of the Ouachita River for 13.7 miles
and extends 3.3 miles to the east and 16 miles to the west.
The Ouachita River originates in the Ouachita Mountains of west-central Arkansas, near the
Oklahoma border. It flows south through northeastern Louisiana, drains into the Little River at
Jonesville, Louisiana, joins the Tensas River to form the Black River, which empties into the Red
River. The river has a drainage basin of 10,825 square miles at the refuge (Figure 7). The drainage
basin in Arkansas is mostly forested, resulting in extremely high water quality when it flows through
the refuge, even during flood periods. A series of three major reservoirs are located on the Ouachita
River in Arkansas. The Corps has a lock and dam at Felsenthal, Arkansas, approximately two river
miles north of the northern refuge boundary. The combined effects of the dams on the river exert
considerable influence on river stages at the refuge. In northern Louisiana, the Ouachita River is a
slow moving, muddy river that averages 300 feet wide when at pool stage.
The normal low-water elevation of the Ouachita River during the dry summer months is 52.4 feet
above MSL, a level maintained by another navigational lock and dam at the town of Columbia,
approximately 98 river miles downstream from the refuge. Rainfall in the Ouachita Basin upstream
from the refuge may produce river stage differences as great as 30 feet, causing various portions of
the refuge to be flooded, depending upon river stage. When the river is at 70 feet MSL,
approximately 80 percent of the refuge’s western side is inundated (Figure 7).
Permanent water areas on the refuge include the Ouachita River, Fish Lake, Moss Lake, Pierre
Creek, Cecil Creek, Bayou DeButte, Big Lake, Finch Lake, Harrel Lake, and Boggy Bayou.
There are a few FSA tracts in the Red River Basin (Figure 8). The Red River originates in eastern
New Mexico and flows east to northwestern Louisiana. At Shreveport, the river turns southeastward
to join with the Atchafalaya River.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
30
Figure 7. Watershed map of Upper Ouachita NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Figure 8. Watershed of some FSA tracts
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
32
AIR QUALITY
Air quality receives protection under several provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the prevention of significant deterioration program.
Particulate matter (PM10) is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that is respirable in
the lungs. In the area of the refuge, dust associated with dirt from roadways, fields, and construction
sites; paper industry; utilities; other combustion sources; and soot from open burning may all
contribute to particulate matter. Other air pollutants under NAAQS are lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, and sulfur dioxide.
Since initially setting standards in the early 1970s, the EPA changed the standards in 1979, 1987,
and most recently in 1997. Under the 1997 review, the EPA concluded that the current primary
standards for ozone and particulate matter were not adequate to protect the public from adverse
health effects. Therefore, the EPA proposed a new revision of the ozone and particulate matter
standards. These new standards became effective September 16, 1997. The EPA is requiring
states to continue implementation of current standards while working toward achieving the old
standards (http://www.deq.state.la.us).
Louisiana operates a statewide air monitoring network of 44 monitoring sites. Monitoring sites are
selected based on minimum federal requirements, usually driven by historical conditions in the area.
Monitoring data are used to demonstrate that a geographical subdivision's (parish, city, or town) ambient
air is within the criteria pollutant standards (i.e., in attainment), or if it exceeds one of these standards (i.e.,
in nonattainment). Louisiana’s ambient air quality standards are more stringent and comprehensive than
47 other states. Air quality in Louisiana has improved over the last 20 years. There was only one non-attainment
area in 2004, as opposed to 20 in 1984. Union, Morehouse, Richland, East Carroll, West
Carroll, Grant, and Natchitoches Parishes have always achieved attainment.
The annual burn program for the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex does not affect
air quality on a regional scale. At this time, Louisiana has no legal mandates restricting the volume
of smoke produced within a given area; however, voluntary smoke management guidelines issued
by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry are closely followed. The primary concern
related to air quality and smoke management is visual impairment from smoke drifting onto public
roads and is handled with safety devices and traffic control personnel.
Industries are also monitored for toxic emissions and air pollutants throughout the state. Industries
report chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold limits.
Industries report estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground
injection wells, and land environments. Table 3 illustrates the amount of total releases, air releases,
and water releases for each parish of the refuge and district and their associated rank in the state to
other parishes (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2004).
WATER QUALITY
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the majority of the FSA tracts lie within the Ouachita
River Basin, which encompasses much of southwest Arkansas and northeast Louisiana (Figure 7).
Contaminant issues in the past have always been related to high levels of mercury in the water and
saltwater spills at gas well sites. As part of the 1134 Steep Bank Creek Project, a water quality
study was conducted in August 2002. Water quality, fish tissue, and wetland soil samples were
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
taken from Moss and Fish Lakes. Parameters measured in the field were water temperature,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, pH, and Secchi Depth. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity
exceeded their standards. Water samples were also collected for laboratory analysis of nutrients,
organic carbon, solids, and mercury. Fish and Moss Lakes did not exceed state standards for any
of these parameters. However, the Ouachita River is known to have concentrations of mercury in its
water, sediment, and fish tissue. Fish and Moss Lakes had concentrations of total mercury two
orders of magnitude lower than the Ouachita River mean concentration of 0.55 ug/l and were at or
below the MDL for mercury. Samples of fish tissue showed that fish collected from Moss Lake did
not exceed the fish consumption action level from the state. However, four of the fish collected from
Fish Lake exceeded the consumption level of 0.5 mg/kg for Louisiana.
There have been mercury advisories in the past for the waters of Ouachita River. Advisories have been
in place to limit largemouth bass consumption to two meals per month with no limit on other species.
High levels of mercury can collect in the human body over long periods of time. These high levels can
cause health problems, especially for pregnant and breastfeeding women, children less than 7 years of
age, people with compromised immune systems, and others at high-risk. The advisories do not mean
that people should stop eating fish. Consumers can still get the health benefits of fish and avoid harmful
levels of mercury by following the advisories for the amount consumed. The refuge must monitor for
advisories and provide the information to the public fishing refuge waters.
Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with Upper Ouachita
NWR and the FSA tracts in 2002
Parish #
Facilities
Total Releases1 Air Releases Water Releases
Pounds Rank Pounds Rank Pounds Rank
Union 2 959,497 21 98,023 29 1,210,441 4
Morehouse 1 2,378,553 11 1,782,650 9 185,353 14
Richland 1 272 52 262 52 10 37
East Carroll 0 No data4 No data4 No data4
West Carroll 0 No data4 No data4 No data4
Grant 0 No data4 No data4 No data4
Natchitoches 6 1,649,083 15 873,625 17 521,216 6
1 Estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground injection wells and land
environments.
27,398,978 pounds all from one chemical facility in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 4 among the top
25 facilities for total pounds released.
31,001,922 pounds all from one paper industry in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 16 among the top
25 facilities for pounds released into the air.
4Parish does not have a Toxic Release Inventory facility that reports releases for this category.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
34
The source of mercury contamination may be from a certain kind of gas well meter, atmospheric
contamination, or naturally occurring mercury in the Ozarks. Many of these meters were on the
Mollicy Unit before it became part of the refuge. The Service required that the meter sites be cleaned
up according to a specific remediation plan before the Mollicy Unit was purchased. A gas company
contractor began cleanup of several dozen sites in 1996, and completed the work in August 1997.
HABITAT
Both refuges and the FSA tracts are situated on the western edge of the Mississippi River Delta. In this
region, hydrology, topographic position, and soil moisture plays very important roles in determining the
composition and character of floodplain plant communities because each species has a different level of
tolerance to flooding. Upper Ouachita NWR and most of the FSA tracts are predominately bottomland
hardwood forest. The typical gradient of forest species relative to flooding in response to elevation is
seen in Figures 9 and 10 for Upper Ouachita NWR. As one moves from permanent water up and out of
the terraces to uplands, forest communites transition from baldcypress/tupelo to overcup oak-water
hickory, to willow oak, to upland pines mixed with hardwoods. Management and restoration of these
communities require an understanding of how long species can be inundated and whether that flooding
should occur during the growing season or dormant season.
Upper Ouachita NWR contains 4,540 acres of pine and pine/hardwood forest, 19,767 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest, 2,000 acres of scrub-shrub, 1,182 acres of moist-soil impoundments,
2,541 acres of agricultural fields, 9,236 acres of reforested bottomland hardwood forest, 682 acres of
fallow agricultural fields, and 2,910 acres of open water (Figure 10).
Handy Brake NWR is primarily a permanent wetland of 455 acres. Open water constitutes 60 acres;
forested wetlands 175 acres; and emergent vegetation covers 220 acres (Figure 11). A free lease of 35
acres from International Paper Company provides an upland area overlooking the wetland. These
uplands include swamp chestnut oak, white oak, southern red oak, mockernut hickory, and loblolly pine.
The FSA tracts are primarily a variety of marginal agricultural tracts totalling 4,930 acres that
were replanted in bottomland hardwood forest habitat. Several tracts have small acreages of
moist-soil habitat; however, the vast majority of FSA tracts were reforested after acquisition.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland hardwoods account for the majority of Upper Ouachita NWR’s land cover and can be
classified into three primary habitat types: 1) Sweetgum – Willow Oak; 2) Overcup Oak – Water
Hickory; and 3) Baldcypress – Water Tupelo. Handy Brake NWR has a Swamp Chestnut Oak-
Cherrybark Oak habitat type. These classifications are described below:
Sweetgum - Willow Oak
The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically occupied by this forest type.
Sweetgum and willow oak comprise the largest proportion of the stocking in stands of this type. There are
extensive areas of this type on the poorly drained willow oak flats of the Upper Ouachita NWR. These
stands are strongly dominated by willow oak because of the heavy clay soils.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 9. Water levels of Upper Ouachita NWR
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
36
Figure 10. Vegetation on Upper Ouachita NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 11. Vegetation and water management on Handy Brake NWR
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
38
Sweetgum often forms only a minor proportion of the stocking. A major associate on higher clay
ridges and flats is Nuttall oak, which may represent 30 - 50 percent of the stocking at times. Other
trees associated with this forest type are sugarberry, green ash, overcup oak, water oak, water
hickory, cedar elm, persimmon, and sometimes baldcypress. Common shrubs include swamp privet,
American snowbell, possumhaw, hawthorn, and dull-leaf indigo. Woody vines occasionally present
are greenbrier, peppervine, and red vine.
Overcup Oak - Water Hickory
This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight clay or silty clay soils.
These sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring inundations. Overcup
oak and water hickory together constitute the majority of stocking. Associates include willow oak,
Nuttall oak, cedar elm, green ash, and water locust. Minor associates include black willow,
persimmon, and sweetgum. Common shrub species include swamp privet, hawthorn, buttonbush,
planertree, and possumhaw. Woody vine species often associated include red vine, peppervine,
trumpet-creeper, dewberry, and possibly greenbrier. Panicums, asters, annual grasses, and
cocklebur may occur in openings within the stand.
Baldcypress - Water Tupelo
In stands of this type, the majority of the stocking comprises baldcypress and water tupelo together. This
forest type occurs in swamps, deep sloughs, and very low, poorly drained flats. The sites are always very
wet, and surface water stands well into or throughout the growing season. Soils are generally mucks,
clays, or fine sand. Common trees associated with this type are black willow, water locust, overcup oak,
green ash, and persimmon. Among the shrub species are swamp privet, buttonbush, and planertree.
Woody vines include red vine. A variety of herbaceous plants will be commonly seen and take the form of
flotants, emergents, and submergents. Frequently, a variety of mosses and lichens adorn the exposed
tree trunks, and the crowns may be draped with Spanish moss.
Swamp Chestnut Oak - Cherrybark Oak
This forest type occurs on the best, most mature, fine sandy loam soils on the highest of the first
bottom ridges and hammocks, and on the second bottoms or terraces down from the ridges. These
well-drained sites are seldom covered with standing water and only rarely overflow. Species
composition of this habitat type varies widely, though cherrybark oak will most likely be much more
common than swamp chestnut oak. Many other species contribute to a well-stocked stand: white
oak, post oak, sweetgum, blackgum, hickory, willow oak, water oak, southern red oak, winged elm,
sassafras, delta post oak, slippery elm, shumard oak, black oak, black cherry, white ash, green ash,
red maple, and loblolly and shortleaf pines. Common midstory plants include: eastern redbud,
flowering dogwood, American holly, red mulberry, American hornbeam, eastern hophornbeam, and
witch-hazel. Shrub species usually include red buckeye, devil’s walkingstick, sweetleaf, and
Virburnum spp. Often included in this habitat type are grape vines, Alabama supplejack, Carolina
jasmine, trumpet creeper, and greenbrier.
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Uplands
Loblolly Pine
Loblolly pine forest type can be found on almost all soil types above 70 feet in elevation in the general
locale of the refuge. It is found mostly on sites with abundant soil moisture, which also promotes the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
development of rich undergrowth. This forest type is dominated by loblolly pine as the overstory with
sweetgum associated, as well as shortleaf pine, southern red oak, and post oak. On moderately to
poorly drained sites, common associates include red maple, blackgum, and water oak. Midstory
trees include flowering dogwood, American holly, black cherry, hawthorn, eastern hophornbeam,
sassafras, and red mulberry. Common woody vines include Carolina jasmine, Alabama supplejack,
greenbrier, grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Among the shrubs associated with this
type are American beautyberry and Viburnum spp.
Loblolly Pine - Hardwood
Hardwoods are predominant in this type with loblolly pine making up at least 20 percent of the
stocking. On wet sites, loblolly pine is associated with sweetbay, blackgum, sweetgum, water oak,
willow oak, red maple, and American elm. Species associated on drier sites are southern red oak,
white oak, post oak, hickory, shortleaf pine, and persimmon. Generally, many of the same shrub,
vine, and herbaceous species found with the loblolly pine type are also common associates in stands
of the loblolly pine – hardwood type.
Scrub-Shrub
The acres of scrub-shrub habitat are found where shallow, semi-permanent water occurs on the
refuge. Typically, these habitats are found adjacent to permanent water, in isolated swales, partially
filled-in abandoned river channels, and along creeks and bayous. The dominant woody species is
buttonbush. Swamp privet is often found associated with the buttonbush.
Mollicy Unit Open Fields (moist-soil, reforested, agriculture)
The Mollicy Unit, located on the east side of the Ouachita River, is the focus of farming and moist-soil
management for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The Mollicy Unit was once a vast bottomland
hardwood forest that provided ideal habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Due to soaring soybean
prices in the late 1960s, the land was cleared to make way for row crop agriculture. A large levee
was constructed along the Ouachita River to protect some of the cropland from flooding. At that time,
there were approximately 13,705 acres of cropland inside the levee and 2,574 acres of farmland
outside the levee. The remaining 2,850 acres include the levee, two reservoirs for rice irrigation,
roads, river frontage, abandoned fields, and moist soils in rotation with rice farming. Moist soils are
managed for wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, and wading birds (Figure 12). Vegetation
mostly consists of sprangletop, millet, smartweed, sedges, rushes, toothcup, panic grass, goose foot,
and cocklebur. The refuge planted 9,236 acres on the Mollicy Unit with bottomland hardwood
seedlings between 1997 and 2001. The levee has broken several times over the years but has been
repaired by previous landowners to prevent flooding at all but the highest river stages. The
reforested fields outside the levee experience the highest flood depth, duration, and frequency. Rain
water also accumulates inside the levee during the winter due to depressional topography of the
area. All of these factors contribute to the shallow flooding of croplands and moist-soil areas
producing extremely valuable migratory bird habitat.
Invasives
Invasive plants are not a large problem—yet. The three species that are of primary concern are
Japanese climbing fern, Chinese tallow, and water hyacinth.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
40
Figure 12. Farming and moist-soil management on Upper Ouachita NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Japanese climbing fern is well established on Upper Ouachita NWR and may be beyond the point of
control, much less eradication. This invasive fern can increase in cover to form mats, smothering
shrubs and trees (Miller 2003).
The second problem species, Chinese tallow tree, is increasing exponentially and is an imminent
threat to wetland and upland habitats. Figure 13 identifies areas where refuge staff have
opportunistically identified invasion of the Chinese tallow tree. This species causes large-scale
ecosystem disruption by replacing native vegetation, which reduces native species diversity. This, in
turn, has a negative impact on wildlife. Tallow can quickly become the dominant plant in disturbed
areas and invade bottomland forests such that it earned a spot on the “America’s Least Wanted-The
Dirty Dozen” list of the Nature Conservancy (Flack and Furlow 1996).
Other invasive plants that have been found on the refuge include water hyacinth, princess tree, tree-of-
heaven, Chinaberry, and mimosa. Chemicals, such as Garlon and Roundup, have been used in
the past to kill invasives on an opportunistic basis. No formal monitoring program has been
established. Control of invasives on the refuge is no longer possible as a routine component of
general refuge management, both from a funding and manpower perspective.
Fire Regime
Fire is a natural phenomenon that has played a critical role in the ecosystem dynamics of the natural
communities within north Louisiana. Before wildfire suppression strategies were implemented, naturally
caused fires and anthropogenic fires likely burned thousands of acres of mostly upland habitat across
northern Louisiana each year. Low intensity fires occurred on average in 3- to 5-year intervals. With
differences in elevation and moisture gradients, these frequent fires maintained a mosaic of vigorous and
diverse plant communities in various stages of post-fire succession and provided a wide variety of habitat
types and conditions for wildlife. Higher elevations of the bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge
have experienced some low-intensity fire events during extended drought conditions. These occurrences
were probably rare and played little, if any, long-term role in affecting plant species composition. In
general, fire is viewed as detrimental to hardwood forest communities.
Prior to refuge establishment, wildfires occurred on refuge lands every 7 to 12 months based on
Louisiana Office of Forestry records (USFWS 2001). After refuge establishment, wildfires occurred
on refuge lands every 22 to 74 months. Most wildfires occurred in October-December and averaged
5 to 17 acres. In the last 10 years, Upper Ouachita NWR has had 6 wildfires burning only 1,904
acres, while the FSA tracts have had two wildfires burning 135 acres.
Prescribed fire has been used as a cost-effective method of controlling mid-story hardwoods in the
pine and mixed pine-hardwood habitat types since 1987. For the entire complex, there have been
116 management ignited burns for a total of 6,884 acres with an average size of 58 acres. These
burns were conducted to comply with management guidelines for red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Prescribed fire interrupts succession of pine stands so that it doesn’t continue toward more
hardwoods and increased mid-story, which deteriorates habitat for this endangered species.
Management for the red-cockaded woodpecker has driven the prescribed fire program on the refuge.
Moderate- to high-intensity spring burns, on a 3- to 5-year cycle, were used to control small diameter
hardwoods, to increase the amount of grasses, and to promote other vegetative growth by increasing
the amount of sunlight that reaches the forest floor. The annual growing season burns significantly
reduced or eliminated hardwoods over time and promoted production of grasses.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
42
Figure 13. Invasive plant species identified on Upper Ouachita NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Fire management is administrated by the refuge forester as collateral duties, with ultimate
responsibility placed on the project leader. Wildfire suppression is handled by the Louisiana Office of
Forestry. Refuge resources are not used for initial attack, but will pre-position equipment to shorten
response time should fire threaten refuge lands.
WILDLIFE
A complete list of biota is located in Appendix I.
Migratory Birds
Waterfowl
The refuges and FSA tracts provide important wintering waterfowl habitat that varies in quality and
acreage available depending on water levels, weather, and mast crops. Dabbling ducks favor more
shallow-water levels for feeding when off-refuge areas are dry, causing them to seek the permanently
flooded areas and low, flooded fields on the refuges. As water levels rise and the backwater floods
the uplands, mallards and other dabblers begin using the flooded timber. When open water in the
maize field and at the Mollicy Unit becomes more deeply flooded, diving ducks, such as ring-necked
ducks and canvasbacks, are attracted to the invertebrate food source on the submergent vegetation.
The majority of waterfowl use occurs at the north end of the Mollicy Unit where rice fields and moist soils
are present. This area appears to be an ancestral wintering ground and migratory stop-over site.
At least 15 species of migratory waterfowl commonly use Upper Ouachita NWR for wintering habitat:
mallard, mottled duck, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, northern
shoveler, northern pintail, wood duck, hooded merganser, ring-necked duck, canvasback, and lesser
scaup, snow goose, and white-fronted goose. Other species that utilize the refuge less frequently
include bufflehead, redhead, common merganser, red-breasted merganser, greater scaup, ruddy
duck, common goldeneye, and American black duck.
Mid-winter waterfowl surveys are flown annually on Upper Ouachita NWR (Table 5), Handy Brake
NWR, and the Oliveros FSA Tract. Though mallards and ring-necks are abundant, wood ducks
probably are the most abundant wintering duck on Upper Ouachita NWR. From 1992-2007,
averages of 1,600 and 3,200 ducks were recorded on Handy Brake NWR and the Oliveros Tract,
respectively. Of those species detected, mallard, green-winged teal, and pintail were most often
recorded. Wood duck numbers, as well as hooded merganser, are under-represented when using
traditional survey methods (aerial) because ducks are not detected well in the flooded timber.
Waterfowl use of the refuge during the breeding season is limited due to the southern latitude. Wood
ducks nest using the many natural cavities available in bottomland hardwood forests and in the dead pine
trees on the refuge quite regularly. In addition, wood duck nest boxes are located throughout the refuge
to provide additional nesting habitat. In the past, hooded mergansers have nested in wood duck boxes
on the refuge on rare occasions. Mergansers probably nest in natural cavities within the refuge, but they
are rarely seen during summer. Mottled ducks are present on the Mollicy Unit year-round. The staff has
seen mottled ducks with young broods on the refuge but no nests have been documented.
Water and Marsh Birds
Sloughs, bayous, flooded timber, scrub-shrub, and the Mollicy Unit provide wadingbird habitat at different
times of the year. When water is coming out of the refuge in late spring, wadingbird concentrations are
high as they capitalize on trapped fish and crayfish. No major rookeries are known to occur on the refuge.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
44
Species that commonly use the refuge include: great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, cattle egret,
little blue heron, white ibis, green heron, yellow and black-crowned night-herons, and American bitterns.
Glossy ibis, roseatte spoonbills, wood storks and tri-colored herons are seen irregularly, usually
during post-breeding dispersal in late summer. When conditions are right during late summer,
several hundred wood storks will forage on the Mollicy Unit. Least bitterns most likely migrate
through the refuge. Large concentrations of double-crested cormorants utilize the refuge during
winter, and anhingas are found during summer. American white pelicans are sometimes seen on
the Mollicy Unit in late summer and during migration.
Marsh bird habitat is not available on the refuge, but Virginia rails and soras probably migrate
through. King rails may breed irregularly in the fields on the Mollicy Unit when water levels are
suitable. Coots are present year-round and are especially abundant in winter. Although common
moorhen and purple gallinules are supposed to breed in this area, there are no records of them
nesting on the refuge, and they are rarely seen.
Shorebirds
Shorebird habitat is available on the Mollicy Unit when water levels are suitable. The unit tends to
attract shorebirds during autumn migration rather than spring migration due to the lack of exposed
land during spring when water is high. Thousands of shorebirds migrate through during fall; most
commonly seen are pectoral, semi-palmated, western, and least sandpipers and yellowlegs. Other
species seen include: dunlin, stilt sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, spotted sandpiper, American avocet,
dowitchers, upland sandpiper, semi-palmated plover, and black-bellied plovers. The buff-breasted
sandpiper, willet, and American golden-plover are seen irregularly. One or two piping and snowy
plovers have been spotted. Black-necked stilts nest on the refuge during summer. Common snipe
winter on the refuge and killdeer are seen year-round. International Shorebird Surveys and surveys
for the LMVJV have been conducted in the past on the Mollicy Unit.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Breeding landbird surveys have been conducted on the refuge for a few years but point-count
stations were not randomly or systematically established. Large parts of the western side of the
refuge have not been surveyed. The Mollicy Unit had 20 points along roads and the western side
only had 15 points. In 2004, points were randomly established within forest compartments on the
western side of the refuge. Three compartments will be surveyed per year and therefore the refuge
will be entirely surveyed every five years. In 2005 and 2006, the initial surveys were in compartments
that included bottomland hardwood forest and upland pine/hardwood mix. The three most abundant
species detected were red-eyed vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. Thirty-four
species (11.38 + 0.46) were detected on 18 points, with an average of 15.88 + 0.17 individuals/point.
Brown-headed cowbirds were detected on 33 percent of the points. The most abundant species on
the Mollicy Unit were dickcissels, red-winged blackbirds, and western meadowlarks. Of course as
reforested areas succeed, bird species composition is going to change drastically in the next few
years. Surveys for breeding cerulean warblers were conducted along the Ouachita River in 2004,
however, none were detected.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Table 5. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for Upper Ouachita NWR at the Mollicy Unit
Year Mallard G-w
Teal Pintail Gadwa
ll Wigeon Ring-neck
Other
Species
1
Total
Ducks
Snow
Goose
White-fronted
Goose
Total
Waterfowl
1990 47000 7200 3000 750 500 50 250 58750 7000 2000 67750
1991 19800 1150 16700 1270 0 0 1100 40020 7000 700 47720
1992 88200 5000 10000 15000 5000 8000 6500 137700 4000 1000 142700
1993 35880 4800 6000 4000 4000 600 4520 59800 10240 15360 85400
1994 18018 5000 1660 691 0 0 2351 27720 6250 3650 37620
1995** 7500 1200 2000 2500 0 600 1500 15300 10000 2000 27300
1997 38000 0 500 4000 0 0 5000 47500 10000 5000 62500
1998 18650 19650 4630 2260 770 0 356 46316 5100 100 51516
1999 16000 14000 10000 0 0 0 0 40000 30000 5000 75000
2000 1000 1000 250 250 500 0 0 3000 80 0 3080
20012 6000 0 0 32 48 0 0 6080 1000 0 7080
2002 10370 7200 550 554 50 4545 90 23359 1100 842 25301
2003 12700 18900 7700 770 52 1000 70 41192 35000 2700 78892
20042 8000 2500 1000 100 50 50 250 11950 2500 750 15200
2005 10370 1320 500 1335 120 3370 545 17560 0 0 17560
2006 335 75 0 15 0 0 5 430 6000 35 6465
2007 3287 4720 725 770 0 500 52 10054 220 4380 14654
* Surveys conducted first week of January from airplane
**Mid-winter waterfowl surveys were not conducted in 1996.
1 Other species may include unidentified ducks, black ducks, mottled, scaup, shoveler, blue-winged teal, and wood duck.
2 Ground survey due to lack of funding for aerial.
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
46
Resident Landbirds
Resident landbirds nesting on the refuge include northern cardinal, woodpeckers, Carolina
chickadee, tufted titmouse, blue jays, eastern bluebirds, Carolina wren, American crow, and pine
warbler. Brown-headed cowbirds are also numerous on the refuge.
Woodcock are found in damp, brushy woods and courtship displays are in grassy areas nearby
(Sibley 2000). Wintering woodcock arrive in our area usually when the Mollicy Unit and the
bottomland hardwoods are already completely flooded. Consequently, they are pushed into the
upland pine/hardwood habitat that is mostly on the west side of the refuge. Woodcock hunting is
open to the public, but they are not nearly as popular to hunt as in south Louisiana.
Wild turkey declined from over-hunting in the early 1900s in this area. Today, turkeys utilize the
mixed upland pine/hardwood areas of the refuge, though that type of habitat is limited (i.e., 3,000
acres). At times, they are seen along the river in the bottoms. The bottoms are usually completely
flooded during the spring gobbler hunting season, pushing turkeys into the uplands. General season
turkey hunting is not allowed on the refuge due to the limited acreage available for a safe, quality
hunt; however, plans for a limited youth turkey hunt are in the works.
Only a few northern bobwhite quail are found on the refuge, again, because of limited upland habitat.
A small amount of quail habitat exists on the western side of the refuge. Reproduction does occur on
the west side of the refuge where a few coveys have been seen in the mixed pine/hardwoods. The
Mollicy Unit supports a larger population of quail. Bobwhites are one of the more numerous birds
recorded when breeding landbird surveys are conducted during May and June. However, the habitat
is changing quickly from the grassy, herbaceous fields that the quail desire to regenerated
bottomland hardwoods.
Resident Wildlife
Mammals
Forty-six species of mammals are known to occur or are likely to occur on the refuge, although an
inventory has not been conducted. The white-tailed deer is the only big game on the refuge.
Furbearers found on Upper Ouachita NWR include: Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, river
otter, beaver, mink, nutria, and muskrat. Gray fox, red fox, coyote, and bobcats are present also.
Both eastern cottontail and swamp rabbits inhabit the refuge. Fox and gray squirrels are found on the
refuge, with fox squirrels in the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the dense forests.
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and southeastern myotis have been found roosting in water tupelo trees
on the refuge. One roost of southeastern myotis had approximately 1,000 bats and was most likely a
maternity colony. Research on habiat selection, roosting behavior, reproduction, and wintering
habitats is needed.
No inventories have been conducted on small mammals, such as mice, voles, or moles, and species
occurrence and abundance are unknown.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Reptiles and Amphibians
Over seventy species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix I). Frog and
toad surveys have confirmed 11 species on the refuge: northern cricket frog, upland chorus frog, spring
peeper, cope’s gray treefrog, squirrel treefrog, green treefrog, leopard frog, bronze frog, bullfrog, narrow-mouthed
toad, and Fowler’s toad. Other species that may be present but have not been recorded
include: pickeral frog, Gulf Coast toad, spade-foot toad, crawfish frog, and bird-voiced treefrog.
Amphibian malformations have been occurring across the country. The U.S. Geological Survey and
the Service have been conducting studies to try to determine the extent and cause of these
malformations. In 2004 and 2005, four collections of tadpoles were taken on Upper Ouachita NWR to
check for malformations. Two collections were of southern leopard frogs and two were of bullfrogs.
Only one leopard frog was found to be abnormal with fused digits on its hind foot, but many of the
bullfrogs were malformed with their hindlegs fused to their tails.
American alligators are not common on the refuge. Highly fluctuating water levels cause habitat to be
unsuitable. During the early 1980s, alligators were stocked by the state and federal government from
southern Louisiana to northern Louisiana, as part of an effort to reintroduce them to their natural
range. In 1979, 98 alligators were released on the refuge at Finch Lake.
Three-toed box turtles utilize the upland areas on the refuge. Often, red-eared sliders, musk,
softshell, and map turtles are found basking on logs along the waterways. Alligator and common
snapping turtles utilize the refuge.
Fisheries
The Ouachita River and its tributaries provide habitat for many species of freshwater fish. When the
river floods into the backwoods, good spawning habitat becomes available. The important game
species present in refuge waters are: bluegill; redear sunfish; longear sunfish; white and black
crappie; and largemouth, yellow, and white bass. Other species include: blue, flathead, and channel
catfish; smallmouth, bigmouth, and black buffalo; freshwater drum; longnose, shortnose, alligator,
and spotted gar; bowfin; and carp. Paddlefish are common in the river and utilize shallow areas on
the refuge for spawning. In Louisiana, 112 fish species have been documented within the Ouachita
River. The greatest diversity of those documented was collected from Alabama Landing on the west
side of the refuge. A fish species list can be found in Appendix I.
Moss and Fish Lakes were historically great fisheries that were legendary among the local public.
The lakes held water in the spring and summer due to a water control structure located at the mouth
of Steep Bank Creek. The structure was pulled out in the 1980s by refuge management for various
reasons and the fisheries declined. In 2001, at the request of the Friends of Upper Ouachita NWR,
refuge management decided to work with the AGFC and the Corps to restore the fisheries by
replacing the structure and completing an 1135 wetland restoration study. Hydrologic modeling has
been conducted by the Corps. Fish and water quality sampling was conducted in the lakes before
the structure was replaced and for two years after the structure was installed. Initial results of fish
sampling suggest the fisheries are still good and will benefit by the completion of the 1135 project,
when water is diverted from Felsenthal pool through the Steep Bank wetlands.
In 2002, Service fisheries’ biologists sampled Finch Lake, Harrell Lake, wigeon pond, and north
reservoir for fish. Bass catch per unit effort was low for both Finch and Harrell Lakes. Most of the
bass were 8-12 inches in size. Because the Ouachita River influences the lakes by overflowing into
them, it is very difficult to manage a sport fishery and have an efficient hatchery stocking. After
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges
48
sampling the wigeon pond on the Mollicy Unit, it was recommended that 500 bass fingerlings, 1,800
channel catfish fingerlings, and 10,500 bluegill be stocked, which has been completed. The North
Reservoir on the Mollicy Unit showed sport fish to be sparse, probably due to high turbidity levels. It
was recommended that a jar test be conducted to determine the source of turbidity, and then
alternatives could be discussed on how to fix the turbidity.
Species of Concern
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)
The RCW is confined to old pine stands in the southeastern United States. Because this species
evolved in a fire-maintained ecosystem, these woodpeckers prefer open, park-like pine stands with
no midstory and herbaceous groundcover. Red-cockaded woodpeckers excavate only live pine trees
that are usually 75 years old or older. Habitat loss and then demographic isolation are the primary
causes of their endangerment. Current pine stands are on shorter rotations and fire has been
excluded from most of the landscape, causing RCW habitat to be scarce.
The RCW Recovery Plan calls for growing season burns, pine basal areas of 40-70 square feet, the
installation of artificial cavities, population monitoring, and the translocation of individuals to help
increase genetic diversity and overcome demographic isolation.
Currently, there is one active group of RCWs on Upper Ouachita NWR (Figure 14). When
populations are this small and this isolated, any mortality of adults affects the population greatly. Any
population under 10 groups is not considered viable, and preferably, populations should consist of 30
groups or more to be relatively safe from extirpation.
Bald Eagle
Many bald eagles are seen during the year, most of them during winter at the Mollicy Unit. For