Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge
401 Island Road
Marksville, LA 71351
Telephone: 318/253-4238
Fax: 318/253-7139
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 2005
O N W R
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD
401 Island Road - Marksville, LA 71351 http://www.fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
O
W R
Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge
CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn Pllaann
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region
September 2005
Submitted by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________
Mike Chouinard, Refuge Manager
Lake Ophelia NWRs
Concur: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________
Lou Hinds, Refuge Supervisor
Southeast Region
Concur: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________
Jon Andrew, Regional Chief
Southeast Region
Approved by: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________
Sam Hamilton, Regional Director
Southeast Region
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table of Contents
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
I. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan...............................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .........................................................................................................................2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................................................2
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ...................................................................................................................3
Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem ...........................................................................................................4
Overview .......................................................................................................................................................4
Threats and Problems.................................................................................................................................4
Forest Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................................4
Alterations to Hydrology................................................................................................................7
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems....................................................................................................7
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants ......................................................................................8
Conservation Priorities...............................................................................................................................8
Challenges...................................................................................................................................................12
II. THE REFUGE ................................................................................................................................................13
Introduction and History.......................................................................................................................................13
Purposes and Ecosystem Context........................................................................................................................15
Legal Policy ..................................................................................................................................................16
Resource and Management Descriptions.............................................................................................................16
Physical Environment...............................................................................................................................16
Climate ...........................................................................................................................................16
Physiography and Geology...........................................................................................................17
Soils ................................................................................................................................................18
Hydrology......................................................................................................................................18
Water Quality ................................................................................................................................19
Biological Environment .............................................................................................................................20
Flora ...............................................................................................................................................20
Fauna..............................................................................................................................................23
Socioeconomic Environment .....................................................................................................................26
Cultural Environment...............................................................................................................................33
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................35
Overview .........................................................................................................................................................35
Public involvement in the Planning Process ........................................................................................................35
Issues and Concerns...............................................................................................................................................35
Fish and Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................................................35
Habitats.......................................................................................................................................................36
Visitor Services ..........................................................................................................................................38
General Administration.............................................................................................................................39
Land Protection and Conservation ..........................................................................................................39
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION....................................................................................................................41
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................41
Vision .........................................................................................................................................................41
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plan .......................................................................................................................41
Summary.....................................................................................................................................................41
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................................44
Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Populations........................................................................................44
Objective 1: Neotropical Migratory Birds and Other Nongame Migratory Birds .......44
Objective 2: Shorebirds ..........................................................................................................45
Objective 3: Waterfowl ...........................................................................................................46
Objective 4: Woodcock ............................................................................................................47
Objective 5: Resident Wildlife Species.................................................................................48
Objective 6: Furbearer Populations......................................................................................48
Objective 7: Nonnative Plants and Animals........................................................................49
Objective 8: Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................49
Objective 9: Amphibians and Reptiles .................................................................................50
Objective 10: Fisheries ...........................................................................................................51
Goal 2. Habitats ............................................................................................................................51
Objective 1: Contiguous Forest.............................................................................................52
Objective 2: Forest Wetlands.................................................................................................53
Objective 3: Open Water Wetlands .......................................................................................54
Objective 4: Moist Soil Wetlands ..........................................................................................55
Objective 5: Cropland Management.....................................................................................56
Goal 3. Land Protection and Conservation...............................................................................57
Objective 1: Land Acquisition ...............................................................................................57
Objective 2: Private Lands Technical Assistance ...............................................................58
Objective 3: Cultural and Historic Resources.....................................................................59
Goal 4. Education and Visitor Services .....................................................................................59
Objective 1: Environmental Education................................................................................59
Objective 2: Fishing ................................................................................................................64
Objective 3: Hunting...............................................................................................................65
Objective 4: Interpretation ....................................................................................................66
Objective 5: Wildlife Observation and Photography..........................................................66
Objective 6: Visitor Facilities and Support Programs .......................................................67
Goal 5. Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................68
Objective 1: Refuge Staffing..................................................................................................68
Objective 2: Law Enforcement .............................................................................................69
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................71
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................71
Project Summaries .................................................................................................................................................71
Fish and Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................................................71
Habitats.......................................................................................................................................................73
Land Protection and Conservation ..........................................................................................................76
Education and Visitor Services.................................................................................................................77
Refuge Administration..............................................................................................................................78
Staffing and Funding ............................................................................................................................................79
Step-Down Management Plans.............................................................................................................................80
Partnership Opportunities .....................................................................................................................................82
Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................................................................................................83
Plan Review and Revision......................................................................................................................................83
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Section B. Appendices
Appendix I. Glossary .....................................................................................................................................85
Appendix II. References and Literature Cited ............................................................................................93
Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates ........................................................................................................97
Appendix IV. Refuge Biota............................................................................................................................103
Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals.........................................................................................................111
Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation....................................................................................111
Compatibility Determination .................................................................................................115
Appendix VI. Management Methods and Priorities ...................................................................................133
Partnerships .............................................................................................................................133
Avifaunal Analysis ...................................................................................................................134
Archeological and Historical Resource Protection.............................................................137
Ecosystem Management ........................................................................................................138
Land Protection and Conservation.......................................................................................139
Appendix VII. Public Involvement..................................................................................................................147
Appendix VIII. Budget Requests - Refuge Operating and Maintenance Needs.......................................153
Appendix IX. Finding of No Significant Impact..........................................................................................155
List of Figures
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1-1. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain........................................................................................................5
Figure 1-2. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain .....................................................6
Figure 1-3. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge in the context of the
Red River/Three Rivers Source Population Objective Area...................................................10
Figure 1-4. Known breeding ranges and proposed critical habitat for the
Louisiana black bear .....................................................................................................................11
Figure 2-1. Location of Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex in
Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana ........................................................................................................14
Figure 2-2. Vegetative habitat types of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................21
Figure 2-3. Habitat communities of ridge and swale topography ...................................................................22
Figure 2-4. Current visitor facilities at the northern end of Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................................................31
Figure 2-5. Current visitor facilities at the southern end of Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................................................32
Figure 4-1. Priority areas of protection at Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.....................................43
Figure 4-2. Current and planned visitor facilities at the northern end of Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................60
Figure 4-3. Current and planned visitor facilities at the southern end of Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................................................61
Figure 4-4. Planned visitor facilities at Duck Lake on Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................................................62
Figure 4-5. Planned visitor facilities on Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge .........................................63
Figure 5-1. Current and planned staffing chart for the Central Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex ...........................................................................................................................80
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
List of Tables
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table 2-1. Summary of existing habitat types at Lake Ophelia National
Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................................................................23
Table 2-2. Summary of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, timber harvest and
landowner income, 1988 to 1998 ................................................................................................28
Table 2-3. Major commercial fisheries harvest (pounds) in Avoyelles Parish,
Louisiana, 1994 - 1998 ..................................................................................................................30
Table 2-4. Effects of tourism (revenue $1000, payroll $1000, and employment)
in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, State of Louisiana, 1992 to 1996 ...........................................30
Table 4-1. Summary of existing and planned habitat types at Lake Ophelia
National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................54
Table 5-1. Summary of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan projects..........................................................................................................72
Table 5-2. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans .......................................81
Section B. Appendices
Table VI-1. Priority bird species for the Mississippi Alluvial Plain: entry criteria and
selected rationale .................................................................................................................142
Table VI-2. Species suites for Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge, based
on present and potential habitat ........................................................................................146
Table VII-1. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
Planning team members and list of preparers. ................................................................150
Table VII-2: Expert contributors to the Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and their areas of expertise...................................151
Table VII-3: Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge Scoping Team members..........................................152
Table VIII-1. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge operating and
maintenance needs................................................................................................................153
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Guiding Principles of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold’s teachings that land is a community of life and that love
and respect for the land is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our stewardship
and to instill it in others.
Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essential to the quality of the
American life.
We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and
a voice in the protection of their trust resources.
Management, training from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and populations, is necessary
to achieve the missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and envi-ronmental
education and interpretation, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed essential.
Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected and deserve an empowering, mentoring,
and caring work environment.
We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to pro-vide
a foundation for the management and use of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or
Lake Ophelia Refuge) in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. The plan is intended to serve as a working guide
for the Refuge's management programs and actions over the next 15 years.
The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969. Compliance with this Act is being achieved through the involvement of the public and the
completion of an Environmental Assessment. When fully implemented, this plan will strive to achieve
the vision and purposes of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
The plan's overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
Fish and wildlife are the first priority in Refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recre-ation)
is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the Refuge's
mission and purposes.
The plan has been prepared by a planning team composed of representatives from various Service pro-grams,
including Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, Migratory Birds, and Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. In developing this plan, the planning team and Refuge staff have
incorporated the input of local citizens and the general public through a stakeholder scoping meeting,
public scoping meetings, and a series of public meetings following the release of the draft CCP. The Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment describing the Service's proposed alter-native,
as well as three other alternatives, considered the effects on the environment and was made avail-able
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 plan. This public
involvement, the planning process itself, and the Service response to comments are described in
Appendix VII, Public Involvement.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to identify the role that Lake Ophelia National Wildlife
Refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to pro-vide
long-term guidance to the Refuge’s management programs and activities. The plan is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge;
• Provide Refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge;
• Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational and educational
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
• Ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and county or parish
plans; and
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public participa-tion
in its efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System. Many agencies, organizations, institu-tions,
businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships with the Service to advance the goals
of the Refuge System. This Comprehensive Conservation Plan supports the Partners in Flight
Initiative, Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetland Conservation Initiative, North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for the conservation, pro-tection,
and enhancement of the Nation's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the
Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private enti-ties,
it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadro-mous
fish, and certain marine mammals. As part of its mission, the Service administers a national net-work
of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more
than 95 million acres. These areas comprise the Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, lie in
Alaska. The remaining 15 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and several island territories.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
To date, the Refuge System is comprised of more than 540 national wildlife refuges and over 3,000
small waterfowl breeding and nesting sites covering more than 95 million acres, the world's largest
collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands,
77 million acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several
island U.S. territories. The mission of the Refuge System is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, manage-ment,
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.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (RIA) established, for the first time, a
clear mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. The Act states that each refuge shall be
managed to:
• Fulfill the mission of the refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
• Fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the Refuge
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are legitimate and priority public
uses; and
• Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Following passage of the RIA in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction of
the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. The
development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with RIA, all refuge comprehensive
conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement and each refuge is
required to complete its own plan by 2012.
Approximately 37.5 million people visited the country's national wildlife refuges in 1998, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic bene-fits
are being generated to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have reported
that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local economies.
In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reports that
nearly 40 percent of the country's adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related recreational pursuits in
1996 (USFWS, 1996).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998, volun-teers
contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles:
• The wildlife and habitat vision for the National Wildlife Refuges stresses the following principles:
• Wildlife comes first.
• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management.
• Refuges must be healthy.
• Growth of refuges must be strategic.
• The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service, during the course of acquiring and managing refuges, shall ensure timely and
effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife agencies.
This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainment of fish and
wildlife throughout the United States.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) (http://www.wlf.state.la.us) is a State
agency which partners with the Service and is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory
birds and endangered species, as well as managing the State’s natural resources. It also manages
approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas (WMAs) in Louisiana.
State officers are deputized to enforce migratory game laws.
The LDWF coordinates the State’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation oppor-tunities,
including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several WMAs located near Lake
Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge (Grassy Lake, Pomme de Terre, Red River, Spring Bayou, and Three
Rivers). The LDWF’s participation and contribution throughout this Comprehensive Conservation
Planning process have been valuable, and the LDWF is continuing its work with the Service to provide
ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the ecological sustainment of fish
and wildlife in Louisiana. Not only has the LDWF participated in biological reviews, stakeholder meet-ings,
and field reviews as part of the CCP planning process, they also are a principal partner in black
bear repatriation efforts, annual hunt coordination planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. In
the past two years Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge has expanded hunting opportunities for small
game, deer archery, waterfowl, and wild turkey in cooperation with the LDWF. A key part of the com-prehensive
conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between the
Service and the LDWF, where appropriate.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY ECOSYSTEM
OVERVIEW
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley (MAV; Figure 1-1). The MAV was once a 25-million-acre complex of forested wetlands
that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Historically, the extent
and duration of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River fluctuated annually, with floods recharging
the MAV's aquatic systems and creating a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array
of fish and wildlife resources.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Forest Loss and Fragmentation
The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. From the 1950's to the 1990's, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottom-land
forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 1-2). The greatest changes to the landscape have been in
the form of land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects.
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a
tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley. Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments rang-ing
in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained
many of the original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest
fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches and resulted in the disrup-tion
of extensive forest habitats into smaller and smaller isolated patches. Severe forest fragmentation
has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species endemic to the MAV that
have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, Florida panther, ivory-billed wood-pecker,
Bachman's warbler, and Louisiana black bear.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1-1. Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1-2. Forest cover changes in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian species most
adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent on large contin-uous
blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that have special habitat
requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source; and those that require good water quality.
More that 70 species of breeding migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these species, including
Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have
declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Due to fragmentation, the forest edge and the brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird common in
agricultural areas) are now closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds. The
brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than build-ing
a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds often out-compete host species, because the cowbirds are typical-ly
larger and more aggressive nestlings. This results in poor reproductive success and declining popula-tions
of forest interior-nesting species.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts surround-ed
by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested corridors along
sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between the remaining
forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the functional values of
many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of gene flow. Restoring
the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is particularly important for some
wide-ranging species such as the threatened Louisiana black bear.
Alterations to Hydrology
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant alter-ations
in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood control lev-ees,
reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimenta-tion
and contaminants.
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands and
indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography and
soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to forested wetlands
and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer, 1988).
Large-scale man-made hydrological alterations have changed the natural spatial and temporal patterns
of flooding throughout the entire MAV. In addition, these alterations have reduced both the extent and
the duration of annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual flooding regime has had a tremendous
effect on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult–if not impossible–to fully emulate and reconstruct
the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), restoration of
wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic
regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous, have been degraded as a result of defor-estation
and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated
accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies are now filled
with sediments, which greatly reduce their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source
runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. In
Louisiana, the Service lists one fish species as threatened and one fish species as endangered.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration of
these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with flood con-trol
and navigation.
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic vegeta-tion.
Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding, and reduced water depths resulting from
excessive sedimentation, have created conditions favorable for the establishment and proliferation of sev-eral
species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation
capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic
species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a
degree that often prevents recreational use.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the MAV's bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife resources
have prompted the Service to designate this forest system as an area of special concern. A collaborative
effort involving private, State, and Federal conservation partners is now underway to employ a variety of
tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the MAV. The goal is to prioritize and manage
wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity in the MAV. Some
areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that most of the 20+ million acres of forested wetlands that have been
cleared and converted to other uses in the MAV will not be reforested. Some areas will have low value
for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-dependent species, such as
waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning resources, and the focusing of
available programs, the MAV's biological diversity can be improved.
Several coordinated efforts have been initiated to set priorities and establish focus areas to overcome the
impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. A cooperative private-State-Federal partner-ship
known as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
(LMVJV), was established in 1986 to help provide sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the
MAV. Partners operating in the LMVJV have helped to establish step-down management objectives
(expressed in duck-use days and number of acres of flooded habitat) for public and private lands
throughout the MAV.
The initial LMVJV effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding bird objectives for
shorebirds and Neotropical migratory birds. The LMVJV is working with the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Working Group to establish step-down objectives for shorebird foraging habitat for the fall
migration period throughout the MAV.
The habitat goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture can only be met through active manage-ment
of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private land (Reinecke and
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Baxter, 1996). Active management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) is required
to compensate for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that have been caused by clearing and hydro-logic
alterations throughout the MAV. Lake Ophelia Refuge uses a system of levees, water control struc-tures,
and wells to provide approximately 1,155 acres of dependable seasonally flooded croplands, bot-tomland
hardwood forest, and moist soil areas as part of its waterfowl habitat step-down objectives. If
totally reforested, the Lake Ophelia Refuge will not be able to meet its habitat step-down objectives for
multi-species of waterfowl. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of the MAV is
advantageous because it looks at the big picture and enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a
diversity of species throughout their range.
Another cooperative private-State-Federal partnership involving the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, and the LMVJV has identified a number of Source Population
Objective Areas (SPOA). Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge lies within the 100,000-acre Three Rivers
SPOA (Figure 1-3), one of the few SPOA in the MAV that is close to its acreage objective. The purpose of
identifying these zones is to focus a number of private, State, and Federal restoration programs into specific
areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for Neotropical migratory birds.
The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide islands or blocks of forested habitat in an
otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres.
Such areas are large enough to support viable populations of various suites of Neotropical migratory
birds. Of course, these areas will also support other species, such as the Louisiana black bear, that
depend on large forested blocks.
Most SPOAs encompass an existing or proposed wildlife management area or national wildlife refuge.
These public lands serve as anchors of biodiversity that are enhanced and supported by the expansion of
forested blocks, through either public or private management.
The Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC), a group of Federal, State, and private partners in
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and east Texas, is dedicated to restoring the federally listed Louisiana
black bear to suitable habitat. The recovery of this species in Louisiana will be accomplished when: (1)
there are at least two viable subpopulations, one in the Tensas River Basin and one in the Atchafalaya
River Basin; (2) immigration and emigration corridors are established between those two subpopula-tions;
and (3) habitat and interconnecting corridors that support those two subpopulations are protected.
Black bear recovery is dependent on the restoration and protection of a series of large forested blocks
connected by forested movement corridors to facilitate the bear's natural movements between habitats
and thus enhance its genetic viability. These forested blocks typically overlie the SPOAs in the Louisiana
portion of the MAV, from Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Louisiana through the
Three Rivers SPOA in east-central Louisiana to the St. Mary/Iberia Parish area in south-central
Louisiana (Figure 1-4, p. 14). In an attempt to speed up the bear recovery process, the Black Bear
Repatriation Team is attempting to establish a population of bears within the immigration and emigra-tion
corridor between those two subpopulations with a five-year project of releasing adult female black
bears and cubs of the year in this area. During the spring of 2003 and 2004, 11 adult female bears (radio-collared)
with cubs were successfully relocated to Lake Ophelia Refuge. As of fall 2004, a majority of
these bears either are using the Refuge or are on adjacent private lands.
Although reforestation is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests that have been convert-ed
to row-crop agriculture, it must be remembered that hydrology (flooding) drives the ecological system
in the MAV. The plant and animal community throughout the MAV is dependent upon the hydrologic
cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers to manage hydrology in an effort to restore the ecological
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1-3. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge in the Context of the Red River/Three Rivers Source
Population Objective Area.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 1-4. Known breeding ranges and proposed critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear.
diversity that once characterized the MAV. Ditches can be plugged and structures installed to control
and manage water in an effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet waterfowl habitat objectives.
CHALLENGES
One of the biggest challenges to the restoration efforts underway in the MAV, and one that affects
refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management objectives that address comprehensive
ecosystem needs, including those of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shore-birds,
bears, and other wide-ranging species. Oftentimes, management for one species or species group
conflicts with the management objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pur-sue
short-term priorities, but these frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in
special resources shift. Caution must be exercised to prevent the start-up of restoration actions that are
difficult to reverse and that fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management needs of the ecosys-tem
or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a project to totally reforest Lake
Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to reduce fragmentation even though the Three Rivers
SPOA already nearly meets its forest block size objective for forest interior-nesting birds. Such an
approach will overlook the critical habitat needs of non-forest waterfowl and shorebirds, which require a
complex of seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil areas, and forested wetlands.
In order for Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national, regional,
and local scope--ranging from the establishment of wintering waterfowl habitat to the reduction of forest
fragmentation to providing for public use-it must be funded and staffed well above current levels.
Securing adequate funding and personnel and then implementing a variety of programs to achieve the
best balance of all objectives, through a system of coordinated planning, is the Refuge's biggest chal-lenge.
In the interim, while waiting for program funds and personnel to become available, the Refuge
will concentrate on its highest priorities without committing irreversible actions that will preclude future
implementation of the desired management programs.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
II. The Refuge
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge is located in north Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, about 15 miles
northeast of the city of Marksville (population 6,087) and 30 miles southeast of Alexandria (population
46,000) (Figure 2-1). The Refuge covers a total of 17,525 acres within the 38,000-acre acquisition bound-ary
and lies approximately eight miles northwest of where the Red River empties into the Atchafalaya
River. This region is part of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
Lake Ophelia and the surrounding lands were once part of a vast bottomland hardwood forest that
stretched along the Mississippi River. Much of this forested land, including large areas of what would
later become the Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge, was cleared for agriculture in the late 1970s.
The Refuge was established in 1988 to provide wintering habitat for mallards, northern pintails, and wood
ducks, as well as breeding and nesting habitat for wood ducks, and to assist in meeting the goals of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The Refuge is also being managed to provide habitat for a
natural diversity of plants and animals, and to provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education
and interpretation.
The Refuge is named for Lake Ophelia, a 350-acre, cypress-lined lake formed by a remnant channel of
the Red River. The Service’s interest in the Lake Ophelia area began in 1977. With support from the
Louisiana congressional delegation, the State of Louisiana, and several conservation groups, the
Service’s Southeast Regional Director approved the first land acquisition for the Refuge in August 1978.
At that time the property was rated by the Service as one of the five most important bottomland hard-wood
tracts for wintering waterfowl in Louisiana, and it was in imminent threat of being cleared for agri-culture.
Before the Service could begin acquisition, a core 20,000-acre tract was purchased by a private
party and 13,000 acres were cleared for soybean production. Toward the end of the clearing operation,
the Avoyelles Sportsman’s League and Environmental Defense Fund filed suit to have the wetland clear-ing
operation stopped. The lawsuit, which was successful, provided the precedent for the regulation of
wetland clearing operations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The Service’s interest in acquiring the property continued with the first land acquisition, which was
scheduled for fiscal year 1982. However, the loss of the core tract, the unwillingness of some landowners
to sell, and funding limitations, coupled with an emphasis on purchasing intact bottomland forest and
other factors, relegated the project to a lower priority. In 1987, the cleared 13,000-acre tract was con-veyed
to the Federal
Land Bank for indebtedness. At that time, poor agricultural prices made selling farmland attractive, and
the Service had refocused its attention on acquiring waterfowl habitat (particularly for northern pintails
and mallards) in the MAV. In April 1988, the Service's Southeast Regional Director approved a
Preliminary Project Proposal to acquire 38,000 acres for the establishment of Lake Ophelia National
Wildlife Refuge. The first 1,536 acres were purchased in June 1988. With the aid of The Nature
Conservancy, the Refuge grew to almost 15,000 acres within a few years. The last sizable addition (2,200
acres) was purchased in 1998.
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge is administered from an office located at Grand Cote National
Wildlife Refuge (6,077 acres), about 20 miles southwest. This office, known as the Central Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, is responsible for managing the Lake Ophelia, Grand Cote, and Cat
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2-1. The location of Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Island Refuges; three Farm Services Agency (FSA) fee title tracts covering a total of 1,990 acres (one
each in Avoyelles, Rapides, and St. Landry Parishes); and 12 FSA conservation easements (190 and 74
total acres in Avoyelles and Rapides Parishes, respectively) (Figure 2-1). Although three staff members
report for duty at Lake Ophelia Refuge, one at Cat Island and five at Grand Cote, the work responsibili-ties
for each member include duties at all three complex refuges and FSA tracts. The Complex's current
staff includes a Project Leader (GS-0485-13), Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-11/12), Refuge Manager -
Lake Ophelia (GS-0485-9/11), Refuge Manager - Cat Island (GS-0485-9/11), an Office Assistant (GS-0303-
07), a Park Ranger (GS-0025-09), a Wildlife Biologist (GS-0486-11), a Natural Resource Planner (GS
0401-12), and two Engineering Equipment Operators (WG-5716-10).
PURPOSES AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The purpose of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the Refuge’s authorizing legisla-tion,
is to protect and conserve migratory birds and other wildlife resources through the protection of
wetlands, in accordance with the following laws:
...the conservation of 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., Sec. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986);
...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...
16 U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929);
...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources... 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)4; and
...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services... 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
The Refuge’s purpose and importance to migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, were further described
in the Service’s Environmental Assessment for the proposed establishment of the Refuge (1989): To pre-serve
wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, and wood ducks and production habitat for wood ducks
to meet the habitat goals presented in the Ten-Year Waterfowl Habitat Acquisition Plan and the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The Refuge purpose was further described in the Approval Memorandum for the for the establishment
of Lake Ophelia Refuge, where the primary reason for acquisition and inclusion of the area into the
Refuge System was to preserve wintering habitat for mallards, pintails, and wood ducks, as well as pro-duction
habitat for wood ducks (USFWS Southeast Region, Approval Memorandum 1989). Three objec-tives
for which the area will be managed were identified in the Approval Memorandum: to preserve an
area which has traditional high use for wintering waterfowl; to provide additional waterfowl habitat
through refuge management; and to establish a waterfowl sanctuary.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan's Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office, work-ing
through a collaborative effort with private, State, and Federal agencies, has established certain habi-tat
objectives for the MAV. These objectives have been stepped down for private and public lands
throughout the MAV. The minimum step-down objectives for Lake Ophelia Refuge are to provide 1550
acres of managed water, including 350 acres of flooded moist soil plants; 500 acres of flooded timber; 200
acres of unharvested crops; and 500 acres of harvested crops. Managed water is defined as areas that
can be flooded through management actions taken by Refuge staff, such as the pumping of water and the
closing of gates on water control structures, etc. Lake Ophelia Refuge also has an objective to provide
50 acres of shorebird habitat during the annual fall migration period from July 15 through October 15.
The Three Rivers SPOA, which includes Lake Ophelia Refuge, is a 283,204-acre area with an objective of
providing 100,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and a core area of 84,000 acres of forest land. A
core area is a contiguous block of forest that is 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) from the forest edge. Waterways
within forest blocks are included in that acreage. At the present time, the Three Rivers SPOA has a core
area of 80,000, only 4,000 acres short of its objective. Reforestation of relatively small areas in appropri-ate
locations could easily meet this objective.
One species of concern, the woodcock, is showing significant long-term declines in the eastern United
States. Habitat loss, including the loss of preferred, safe, nocturnal wintering habitats, is likely a key
factor. Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge may be important in helping the Service to meet its objec-tives
in the North American and Regional Woodcock Management Plans. The Refuge will maintain a
minimum of 200+ acres of open areas or agriculturally manipulated fields that will be available in various
stages of plant succession or crop removal to gauge the importance of such habitats for nocturnal winter-ing
use by woodcock. Scrub-shrub and forested wetlands with overhead cover and open below are the
woodcock's preferred daytime habitat. Blocks of 25 to 50 acres of scrub-shrub habitat support not only
woodcock but several other species of birds, including the white-eyed vireo, painted bunting, and orchard
oriole. This habitat is also important as dense cover used by Louisiana black bears and a host of other
wildlife species. In addition, scrub-shrub habitat is generally considered to be unattractive to brown-headed
cowbirds, which tend to favor more open or forest edge habitats.
The Three Rivers SPOA is considered a prime area for reestablishing populations of the threatened
Louisiana black bear, and is an integral part of the effort to recover this high-visibility species. During
the spring of 2003 and 2004 the Louisiana black bear repatriation project has successfully relocated 11
adult female bears (radio collared) with cubs on Lake Ophelia Refuge.
LEGAL POLICY
The administration of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge is guided by a variety of international
treaties, Federal laws, and Presidential Executive Orders. Management options under the Refuge’s
establishing authority (Public Law 104, Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national
wildlife Refuges) are contained in the documents and acts listed in Appendix III.
RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Climate
The climate at the Refuge is humid-subtropical and is primarily influenced by the Refuge’s subtropical
latitude and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The climate is controlled by two principal air masses.
Warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico generally dominates in the spring and summer, and cooler, drier
air from the Central Plains prevails during the winter months. Extended, hot, sultry summers and mod-erately
cool winters are the norm.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The average annual air temperature is 65 degrees Fahrenheit. During winter, the average temperature
is 50 degrees, with an average daily minimum of 39 degrees. Average seasonal snowfall is less than one
inch. The average temperature is 81 degrees during the summer (Martin, 1986), but temperatures above
90 degrees occur almost daily.
The mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Half of this rainfall (30 inches) usually falls during April
through September. The growing season is about 235 days long and begins in mid-March and ends dur-ing
early November. Thunderstorms occur on average about 70 days each year, with most occurring dur-ing
the summer months. The average relative humidity in the mid-afternoon is about 60 percent.
Humidities are higher at night, with the average at dawn being 90 percent (Martin, 1986).
The sun shines 60 percent of the time during the summer, and 50 percent during winter. Prevailing wind
is from the south. Average wind speed is highest, 9 miles per hour, during the spring months. These cli-matic
values play an important role in influencing the area’s hydrologic regime, which subsequently
shapes ecosystem process and functions.
Physiography and Geology
As the climate has changed on the Earth, marine and deltaic sediments have been deposited in alternat-ing
cycles in Louisiana. Geologists have determined from studying these deposits that a major river sys-tem,
corresponding to the modern Mississippi River, has persisted here at least since the Gulf of Mexico
began to form (Louisiana Geologic Survey, 1990).
The Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago (mya), began with a warming trend
in which the sea covered almost the entire Lower Red River Basin. In the early Eocene epoch, which
began about 54 mya, the land began to build up again as the continental ice sheets advanced. However,
this trend was reversed during the late Eocene, when a second advancement of the sea occurred. With
the sea as far inland as Natchitoches Parish, the last cycle began in the early Oligocene Epoch (38 to 23
mya). In Miocene time (23 to 5 mya), the sea level dropped and sedimentation began to extend the land
gulfward (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975).
The Refuge lies within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain section of the Coastal Plain Province (Beccasio et
al., 1983), to the west of the confluence of the Mississippi and Red Rivers in Avoyelles Parish. The topog-raphy
of the Refuge has been greatly influenced by the aggrading Mississippi and Red Rivers, and much
of the geology is from Quaternary (1.8 mya to present) alluvial deposits. Although the continental ice
sheets did not reach this far south, the lower Mississippi valley carried glacial meltwaters and outwash in
a braided-stream pattern that concurrently widened and aggraded the valley during periods of waning
glaciation. As each glacial cycle progressed and the sediment loads and stream discharges declined, the
river abandoned its braided stream configuration in favor of a single-channel meandering pattern. This
alluvium has been sorted, reworked, and deposited many times by riverine processes.
During flood periods prior to human influence, stream channels within the MAV, unable to hold the complete
volume of water within their banks, overtopped and spilled onto adjacent floodplains. In this process, the
velocity of these sediment-laden waters decreased dramatically. Unable to continue to carry their sediment
load, these waters dropped the coarsest particles closest to the stream channel and the finer particles farther
away. These deposits formed natural levees, which gained elevation closer to the river channel.
Another result of this localized deposition was the creation of lowlands at the base of these natural levees.
These lowlands received only the clay particles held in suspension in flood waters (Fisk, 1940). These low-lands
paralleled the meander belt of the stream for great distances and were utilized as seasonal backwater
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
flood storage areas. Water within the channel will continue to erode the banks, and often will cut through
the natural levees. The stream will then change its course and occupy the lowland channel.
The formations of alluvium described above comprise the entire Lake Ophelia Refuge. Relict channels
and natural levees, often referred to as ridge and swale topography, are easily seen by visitors to the
Refuge. Human disturbances, including the construction of artificial levees and channelization projects,
have drastically altered these natural alluvial processes within the Mississippi and Red River floodplains.
The elevation at the Refuge averages about 45 to 50 feet above mean sea level. The topography is com-plex,
with numerous stream channels, small tributaries and depressions, old river meanders and oxbow
lakes, multiple river terraces in various stages of erosion and deposition, and adjacent poorly drained
lowlands. This subtle but complex topography has given rise to the flora and fauna found on the Refuge.
Soils
The soils at Lake Ophelia Refuge demonstrate the influence that the Mississippi and Red Rivers have
had on the terrain. The Refuge contains mostly hydric soils that fall into two broad series of soil groups.
Most of the Refuge consists of Sharkey-Tensas soils, which are level to undulating and are either poorly
drained or somewhat poorly drained. These soils have a clayey surface layer and a clayey or loamy sub-soil.
Many shallow lakes and bayous are found in most areas containing these soils, which are occasional-ly
flooded during the winter months. Most of these soils are formed in Mississippi River alluvium.
Sharkey-Fausse-Moreland soils are found within the Sharkey-Tensas soils in a few areas on the Refuge.
These clayey soils are level and either poorly drained or somewhat poorly drained, and are present in
low positions on natural levees along the old channels of the Mississippi and Red Rivers.
Only one soil group containing nonhydric soils, the Roxana-Norwood group, is present (in minor
amounts) on the Refuge. This series group is found on natural levees along the Lake Long drainage
that flows through the center of the Refuge. These level to undulating, well drained, alkaline soils are
loamy throughout (Martin, 1986).
Hydrology
In pre-modern times the Mississippi River was a dynamic and changing system. The many courses the
river has taken in recent geologic history have been noted by geologists. Fisk (1940) wrote:
The youngest pre-modern course of the Mississippi River is the most easily interpreted;
it can be traced along the Tensas River in northeastern Louisiana southward to Black
River. Black River and Tensas River, which locally reverse the original drainage direc-tion,
unite and drain southeastward through a crevasse channel. Red River enters this
meander belt in another crevasse channel opening. South of the Red River, the meander
is occupied by Lake Long and Bayou des Glaises and continues to the Atchafalaya River,
which follows an old meander from Lower Old River, a recent Mississippi cut-off mean-der,
to Simmesport.
The Refuge lies within the Bayou Natchitoches basin and the Red River alluvial cone, in an area com-monly
referred to as the Red River backwater area. During flood periods, the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya Rivers reach levels that significantly slow and even back up the discharges from the Red
River. This water enters the basin and occupies the lowland areas that dominate the Refuge. Statistical
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
analysis (based on river stage and precipitation data for the period from 1929 to 1975) indicates that
somewhat more than half of the tract, at elevations up to 45.8 feet above mean sea level, is subject to the
average annual flood, with an average duration of 13 percent of the year, with the entire tract flooding
about once a decade (Combs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in U.S. Court of Appeals Briefing, 1982).
The Red River borders the Refuge on the north. The main drainages within the Refuge include Lake
Long, Possum Bayou, Palmetto Bayou, Bayou Jeansonne, and Bayou Sans Facon. Numerous lakes are
present, including Nicholas, Duck, Long, Ophelia, and West Cut. Numerous unnamed sloughs and sea-sonal
or ephemeral drainages are also found here. Flow into the Refuge enters from Little River to
Bayou Jeansonne. Bayou Jeansonne flows south into Bayou Natchitoches. Flow also enters into Bayou
Natchitoches from Lake Long, which meanders east and south through the Refuge.
Bayou Jeansonne has been leveed to prevent backwater flooding. A levee is also in place along the Red
River east of the Refuge ; it ends a short distance below Lock and Dam Number One. Lake Long is not
leveed, but is cut off from the Red River. The elevation of the 100-year flood event has been lowered four
feet due to the diversion of Mississippi River flows down the Atchafalaya River through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Old River control structure. The diverted flows have caused the Atchafalaya River
bed to incise, thereby lowering the flood stage in the lower end of the Red River (Marcy, pers. comm.).
Another contributing factor causing the Atchafalaya River bed to incise is the confinement of its flood-plain
for approximately 75 miles between levees.
In an effort to mimic the area’s historical hydrology, the Service is manipulating the Refuge’s hydrology
in some areas through the use of levees, ditches, wells, and water control structures. These areas include
approximately 850 acres of moist soil and cropland habitat; 340 acres of bottomland hardwoods; and 690
acres of permanent water.
Two distinct aquifer systems underlie Avoyelles Parish: the Quaternary and the upper Tertiary. The
water levels in both of these aquifer systems are generally less than 50 feet below the surface. The
Quaternary aquifer can supply very large quantities of fresh water to parish residents. The Quaternary
aquifer is composed of poorly sorted sand and gravel. It ranges in thickness from 50 to 150 feet. This
aquifer offers the greatest potential source of ground water. Water in this aquifer is generally suitable
for irrigation, but its hardness and high iron content must be treated for most other uses (Martin, 1986).
Beneath this aquifer is the upper Tertiary system, which can yield moderate to large supplies of fresh
water in the Bunkie-Hessmer and Simmesport-Odenburg areas (Marie, 1971). This aquifer system is
recharged principally by rainfall. In areas where the aquifer system has been developed for public and
industrial supplies, withdrawals from wells have lowered the water level as much as 20 feet (Marie, 1971).
Aquifers in this system range from 20 to 80 feet in thickness and are composed principally of well-sorted,
fine- to medium-grained sand (Martin, 1986).
Water Quality
Historically, the water quality of the Refuge has not been monitored. Water quality within the Red River
north of Lake Ophelia Refuge has been affected by mercury contamination from an unknown source
(Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 1998).
Recently, Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge was one of 26 refuges in the MAV surveyed for chemi-cal
contamination. Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and passive sampling devices
deployed. Residues of current-use pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, poly-cyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, and mercury were measured and limited toxicity testing was done (Shea et
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
al, 2001). Lake Ophelia Refuge had one of the lowest levels of chemical contamination of all refuges sur-veyed.
Although each of the chemical contaminants surveyed for was detected at Lake Ophelia Refuge,
none were detected at levels of concern to human health or fish/wildlife.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Index of Watershed Indicators shows that 80 to 100 percent of
the water bodies within this area of the lower Red River watershed are meeting designated uses, and
characterizes the streams in this area as having good overall water quality and a low vulnerability to
problems related to runoff. The EPA has identified a moderate loss of wetlands in this watershed.
Wetlands perform many important functions, such as improving water quality, recharging groundwater,
providing natural flood control, and supporting a wide variety of fish, wildlife, and plants. The economic
importance of wetlands to commercial fisheries and recreational use is also known to be significant.
Land clearing, man-made levees, navigation structures, stream channelization projects, and canal and
ditch construction have impaired the historic functions of forested wetlands.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Flora
The Refuge is a 17,525-acre complex of forested wetlands, shrub wetland habitats, recently reforested
areas, agricultural lands, moist soil areas, open waters, and dirt access roads and trails (Figure 2-2; Table
2-1). The varied and diverse plant communities that remain on the Refuge reflect slight variations in
topography, soils, and hydrologic regimes resulting from the influence of the Mississippi and Red Rivers,
as well as the Service’s management objectives (Figure 2-3).
Before human settlement, the area’s alluvial soils and slight physiographic relief, combined with seasonal
backwater inundation, created an extremely productive forested wetland ecosystem with several differ-ent
habitat types. As the human populations increased in Louisiana, so did the demand for natural
resources, and large expanses of bottomland hardwood forests were harvested for lumber and cleared
for conversion to agricultural farmlands.
Prior to the establishment of the Refuge, the land was used for timber production and agriculture.
During 1978, when worldwide demand for soybeans increased, the former landowners of this tract began
clearing timber and draining the land to prepare the site for agricultural use. Much of the timber was
pushed into huge windrows and burned. The remaining residue was then spread out, buried in pits, or
pushed into cypress sloughs and Bayou Jeansonne.
The remaining natural forest on the Refuge totals 6,745 acres and is in small blocks of woods inter-spersed
with lakes, sloughs, bayous, and fields. Of the remaining forests, most trees are from 20 to 60
years old. On these areas are a mix of even- and uneven-aged groups, likely as a result of previous tim-bering
practices. The bottomland hardwoods occur at scattered locations, and depending upon the eleva-tion
and history of disturbance, their overstory vegetation consists of a variety of oaks (Nuttall, water,
and willow). Other species include bitter pecan, water locust, green ash, sweetgum, black willow, red
maple, box elder, American elm, sycamore, and hackberry. Persimmon, deciduous holly, dogwood, and
hawthorn are common mid-story species.
To date, about 4,588 acres of the Refuge have been reforested. Species planted include Nuttall, overcup,
water, and willow oaks; bald cypress; green ash; pecan; sweetgum; persimmon; and mayhaw. Natural
regeneration of deciduous holly, persimmon, green ash, water hickory, and sweet gum has also occurred
within the reforestation areas.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
21
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2-2. Vegetative habitat types of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
22
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2-3. Habitat communities of ridge and swale topography.
Willow
Cottonwood Sweet Pecan
Sweet Gums
Sugarberry
Overcup
Blackgum
Water Oak
Oak, Elm, Ash,
Nutall Oak,
Sweetgum,
Willow Oak
Canebrake
Palmettos
Swamp
Cypress/Typelo
Marsh/Herbaceous
Wetlands
These bottomland hardwoods may be transected by numerous permanently or semi-permanently wet
areas, best described as inland open fresh water, shrub swamp, and wooded swamp. Shrub and wooded
swamps are located in the fluvial scars or depressions within the bottomland hardwoods. Most of these
depressions retain water throughout the year, and depending upon their depth, support a variety of vege-tation,
consisting of bald cypress, overcup oak, water tupelo, buttonbush, swamp privet, water elm, water
locust, duckweed, American lotus, water hyacinth, smartweed, floating heart, pickerelweed, and several
species of grasses and sedges. The open water areas are vegetated with water hyacinth, pennywort,
duckweed, arrowhead, smartweed, water primrose, and other emergent aquatic vegetation.
The Refuge currently contains about 3,678 acres of non-forested lands that are managed to provide both
natural moist soil plants and agricultural crops. The Refuge’s water management capabilities allow season-al
flooding of approximately 1,155 acres of moist soil areas and agricultural fields on an annual basis.
Common moist soil plants include smartweed, wild millet, various sedges, coffee bean, cocklebur, sprangle-top,
and trumpet creeper. Grain sorghum, soybeans, corn, and winter wheat are the agricultural crops.
Table 2-1. Summary of existing habitat types at Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
* Includes 68 acres of reforestation.
Fauna
Louisiana’s mild climate, long growing season, abundant and varied plant species, rich soils, numerous
streams, wet areas, and slight but varying elevations provide a wide variety of habitats and favorable
conditions for terrestrial and semi-aquatic animals, including numerous game and nongame species.
These animals may be residents, migrants, or transients at the Refuge.
The early explorers to this region sought fur, bear oil, and hides due to their commercial importance.
They found an abundance of beaver, mink, otter, muskrat, deer, buffalo, bear, opossum, raccoon, bobcat,
cougar, fox, wolf, and skunk (Lower Mississippi Region Comprehensive Study Coordinating Committee,
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Habitat Type Existing Acreage
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 6,745
Reforestation 4,588
Non-flooded Cropland 2,523
Floodable Cropland 605-855
Floodable Moist Soil 300-550
Floodable Mud Flat 0
Floodable Bottomland Hardwoods
Lakes, Bayous and Seasonally 345*
Flooded Forest Swales 1,879
Roads, Trails, Levees and Facilities 290
TOTAL 17,525
1974). As more and more settlers moved into the area, the demand for natural resources increased.
Large expanses of bottomland hardwood forests were cleared for lumber and converted to agricultural
operations. Along with this conversion came the extirpation of the wolf, bison, Florida panther, and sev-eral
avian species. Game populations went from abundant prior to settlement to points of near or total
elimination during the early 1900s (Lower Mississippi Region Comprehensive Study Coordinating
Committee, 1974).
While some baseline wildlife surveys have been conducted (for waterfowl, wading birds, deer, furbearers,
bear, woodcock, and shorebirds) on the Refuge, a thorough assessment of all wildlife occurrence is not avail-able.
Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research Center have recently
begun to conduct baseline surveys of species groups about which little is known (e.g., reptiles, amphibians).
Mammals. The mammals that occur on the Refuge are those typical of bottomland hardwoods: white-tailed
deer, fox and gray squirrels, swamp and cottontail rabbits, armadillos, beaver, bobcat, coyotes,
opossum, Louisiana black bear, and raccoons. Nonnative feral hogs are abundant.
The Refuge’s white-tailed deer population is thought to be near the desired level. While an internal par-asite
survey conducted by the Southeastern Wildlife Disease Study in fall 1999 suggested the population
was near the upper limit of carrying capacity, browse surveys conducted by the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries indicate the habitat is not being overbrowsed.
Gray and fox squirrel populations are abundant where mast-producing hardwoods occur. Fox squirrels
are more abundant than gray. Due to their high reproductive and natural mortality rates, it is unlikely
that any long-term changes in squirrel population densities have occurred.
Swamp rabbits, and to a somewhat lesser extent, cottontail rabbits, are common in this area. Again,
their high reproductive and natural mortality rates would lead to the expectation that no long-term popu-lation
changes have occurred and that rabbits should occupy all suitable habitat.
A number of furbearers, including nutria, raccoon, mink, opossum, coyote, bobcat, beaver, river otter, and
striped skunk, are collectively abundant on the Refuge. Among this group, the beaver, muskrat, river
otter, nutria, and mink are associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and riverine sys-tems.
The raccoon is well adapted to all existing habitats; and the opossum, coyote, and bobcat are most-ly
associated with drier forested habitats. Most furbearers are found throughout the ecosystem.
Little or no formal data are available to provide population estimates for these species. However, infor-mal
surveys indicate that the population numbers of beaver and raccoon have increased in recent years,
likely due to a decrease in the demand for fur. These two species are of concern because of their poten-tial
to significantly impact ecosystem functions. Beavers manipulate hydrology both on and off the
Refuge by constructing dams that inundate bottomland forests for prolonged periods of time. Predation
by raccoons may be adversely affecting populations of breeding Neotropical migratory birds (Cooper and
Ford, 1993) and ground-nesting turkeys (Moore, 1993), as well as some bird rookeries in the forested
wetlands on the Refuge.
Little is known about the species and populations of bats that may be found on the Refuge. The
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, a species of management concern associated with bottomland hardwood
forests, may be present on the Refuge.
Problem species include feral swine. Ample scientific evidence exists related to the adverse effects of
feral swine on the habitat productivity and reproduction of most native wildlife (Lipscomb, 1989; Belden,
1972; Belden and Pelton, 1976; Scott, 1973; Yarrow, 1987; Jacobi, 1980; Baron, 1980; Lacki and Lancia
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
,1986; Willy, 1987). Because swine are omnivores, they utilize virtually every component of the habitat,
resulting in direct competition with native wildlife, reductions in carrying capacity, and adverse impacts
to reproduction/recruitment. In addition, existing documentation indicates feral swine serve as a source
for many diseases that impact wildlife as well as domestic livestock and swine.
The Louisiana black bear is a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act. It is likely
that male Louisiana black bears move through Refuge lands. As a part of the Recovery Plan for the bear,
the Service and other partners have developed plans and have begun relocating females to protected lands
within this area of Louisiana, in order to establish a new breeding population of bears in the State. The ini-tial
relocation effort took place in March 2001, when four female bears with cubs were relocated from exist-ing
breeding populations in north and south Louisiana to the Red River WMA, located directly across the
Red River from Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge. During the spring of 2003 and 2004, 11 adult female
bears (radio-collared) with cubs were successfully relocated to Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
Birds. The bottomland hardwood forests, moist-soil impoundments, open water, and early successional
vegetation on Lake Ophelia Refuge provide outstanding habitat for a variety of bird life. The location of
the Refuge within the Lower Mississippi River Valley migratory flyway adds to the value of the habitat
for migratory birds. The Refuge’s forested wetlands, moist soil units, flooded agricultural fields, and
open water provide wintering and migrating waterfowl an area to rest, feed, and winter. Waterfowl
found here include wood ducks, mallards, gadwall, hooded mergansers, blue- and green-winged teal, wid-geon,
northern pintail, and northern shoveler.
Some resident bird species also use the varying habitats at the Refuge year-round. The resident wood duck
population derives essential life support elements from the bottomland hardwoods interspersed with other
wetlands and interconnecting water bodies. Woodcock are a common winter resident in forested fields and
scrub-shrub habitat. The northern bobwhite quail uses the Refuge’s early successional habitats.
Forested wetlands offer a haven to many songbirds (Appendix IV). Recent bird surveys indicate that a
minimum of 110 species inhabit or migrate through the Refuge (Lichtenberg, pers. comm.). Neotropical
migratory birds use these habitats for breeding in the spring and summer and during their migrations in
the spring and fall. Many species of songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of wide-spread
habitat loss. Bottomland hardwood forests and riparian woodlands have been identified as high
priorities for restoration and management throughout the southeastern United States (Hunter et al.,
1992). These critical areas on the Refuge will enhance the breeding, wintering, and transitional habitats
for many species of migratory and resident songbirds.
Some of the more common year-round residents include the Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse,
northern cardinal, northern mockingbird, downy woodpecker, and red-winged blackbird. Several
species of shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors are also common. Wading birds are often seen on
the edges of open water in the Refuge. Common wading birds include the great blue heron, little blue
heron, green heron, tricolored heron, white ibis, snowy egret, and great egret.
The bald eagle has been known to occur here, and the Refuge was once used as a hacking site. One
unsuccessful starter nest was documented on the Refuge after the hacking project, and other nesting
attempts are possible; however, none have been officially documented. Wintering eagles are occasionally
observed on the Refuge and future nesting efforts are possible.
Amphibians and Reptiles. Amphibians and reptiles require quality wetland habitat for their survival,
and they often serve as important indicators of environmental health. The Refuge’s moist, forested bot-tomland
hardwood habitat is conducive to an abundant and diverse reptile and amphibian community.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Amphibians present include salamanders, toads, and frogs, while reptiles include turtles, alligators,
lizards, skinks, and snakes. As with other wildlife groups, detailed information is lacking. However,
recent inventories have documented nine species of frogs and one species of toad (Appendix IV),
although additional species are likely to exist (King, pers. comm.).
Fish. The topographical and inundation characteristics that create the Refuge’s productive terrestrial
habitat are also largely responsible for its excellent aquatic systems. The lakes, streams, and bayous of
the Red River backwater area historically supported extensive populations of sport and commercial fish,
such as crappie, largemouth bass, and bream.
The seasonal flooding that usually occurs in the late spring provides a timely increase in fish spawning
areas that perpetuate a natural restocking of the fishery. Several species have adapted their spawning
activities for this spring event, including black crappie, pickerel, carp, gar, and bigmouth buffalo.
Zooplankton and phytoplankton counts are usually high during and following periods of flooding as com-pared
with periods of normal water flow, supplying a critical food source for recently hatched fish.
During the summer 1999, a survey of Frazier/Whitehorse Lake (a Red River bend cut-off lake west of
the Refuge), conducted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers biologists, identified 39 species of fish. By
number, the most abundant fishes included several species of sunfish; mosquito fish; and numerous
species of shads, herrings, minnows, and shiners. Other less common species included paddlefish, spot-ted
gar, channel catfish, and buffalo. While freshwater shrimp, crawfish, and shellfish are also known to
occur, their specific occurrences and abundance are unknown.
Socioeconomic Environment
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge lies in the northern portion of Avoyelles Parish. Avoyelles Parish
is located near the center of Louisiana and is bounded by Rapides Parish on the west; LaSalle and
Catahoula Parishes on the north; Concordia Parish on the northwest; Pointe Coupee Parish to the south-east;
St. Landry Parish to the south; and Evangeline Parish to the southwest. The Old River and
Atchafalaya River form the southeastern boundary of Avoyelles Parish. The Red River flows through
the northern portion of the parish and forms part of the Refuge’s northeastern boundary.
Traditionally, Avoyelles Parish has not been in the forefront of economic growth or development in the State
of Louisiana, and historically, unemployment figures in the double digits have been common. Instead, much
of the economic and social life of the area centers on neighboring Rapides Parish and the City of Alexandria.
Avoyelles Parish is predominantly rural, with the largest town and parish seat being Marksville (1998
population: 6,087). As in other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities are both popular
and necessary. Hunting and recreational fishing are popular pastimes, and farming, commercial fishing,
and forestry are important elements of the economy.
Early Settlement of Avoyelles Parish
Avoyelles Parish received its name from the tribe of Avoyelles Indians that resided there when the first
European settlers arrived. Native Americans play an important role in Avoyelles Parish, as the Tunica-
Biloxi Indians are the largest employer, employing 1,100 employees out of an estimated labor force of
15,860 in 1997 (Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Avoyelles Parish Profile, 1998).
The first European settlers in Avoyelles Parish were the French. In Avoyelles Parish, the prairie land
was settled first. The early settlers were primarily self-sufficient. Game and fish were plentiful. Cattle
and pigs were allowed to roam the woods freely, and along with poultry, could be raised at little expense.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
26
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Corn, rice, and fruit were grown for personal consumption, while indigo was the primary cash crop, with
some tobacco cultivation.
Around 1780, the area became known as Avoyelles Post. The post became an important center for trade,
first between European settlers and Indians, then later as a merchandising center for the area
(Avoyelles Parish Planning Board, 1947:11). Later settlers settled along the streams, where the land was
very fertile and the streams could serve as sources of transportation. Canoes and flatboats were used to
carry merchandise and were the primary methods of transportation.
In the early 1800s cotton began to replace indigo as the main money crop, and in 1804 a cotton gin was
built in Avoyelles Parish (Saucier, 1943:23). The cotton farms were primarily small farms in the high-lands.
Although these higher lands were safe from floods, transporting the cotton to the river landings
was sometimes a problem.
In 1815 the first steamboat went up the Red River, and by 1875, when navigation on the river began
to decline, there were 52 boats traveling the Red River (Saucier, 1943:173). The Old River, the
Bayou des Glaises, Lake Long, and Bayou Rouge were other navigable streams that were also used
to transport cotton bales.
Land Use
Avoyelles Parish is predominantly rural. In 1990, 66.4 percent of the population lived in rural areas, with
6 percent of these living on farms (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). In 1992, 48 percent of the total
land area was utilized by farms (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.A. Counties, 1996). There were 953
farms, with an average size of 269 acres. This is slightly smaller than the average size of a farm in
Louisiana (306 acres; U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 1992).
The number of farms, along with the total acreage in farmland, has declined over the past 10 years. At the
same time, the average size of a farm has increased, mirroring a trend that is occurring across the nation.
As in much of the nation, agriculture has proved to be a volatile commodity in Avoyelles Parish. While
cotton was king in the early days of the parish and enjoyed a resurgence in the early 1990s, its impor-tance
today has diminished considerably. With the decline of cotton, sugarcane has risen in importance
to become the largest cash crop in 1998. Perhaps nothing has disrupted farming practices, and indeed
land use in general, as much as the volatile nature of the soybean market. High soybean prices in the
1970s and 1980s led to the clearing of marginal lands, and the almost ruinous recent price decline has
resulted in serious trouble for many farmers.
Demographics
Avoyelles Parish is primarily rural, with a total estimated population of 41,860 in 1998 (Louisiana
Department of Economic Development, 1998). The parish actually lost population between 1980 and
1990. The 1980 population of Avoyelles Parish was 41,393, but by 1990 the population had declined to
38,159 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980, 1990). Marksville, the parish seat, is the largest town.
Most of the population is White, 27 percent is Black, 1.6 percent is Hispanic, and 0.3 percent is Native
American (1990). In 1990, the median family income was $16,803, with 37.1 percent of the population falling
below the poverty level. This compares unfavorably with the State of Louisiana’s poverty rate of 23.6 percent
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). By 1996, the parish’s median family income had risen to $20,252, and
only 30.1 percent of the population was below the poverty level (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Employment
The service industry is the largest employer in Avoyelles Parish, employing 4,016 of 7,998 employees,
with an annual payroll of $58.5 million in 1996 (U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business
Patterns, 1996). This is due in large part to the Paragon Casino (the largest single employer) which
employs over 1,000 employees (Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Avoyelles Parish
Profile, 1998).
Employment in the parish in other economic sectors generally has been stable. In both 1993 and 1996,
the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows: the service
industry, retail trade, manufacturing, finance, construction, wholesale trade, and transportation (U.S.
Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns, 1993, 1996).
Forestry
Timber has always been a source of wealth for Avoyelles Parish. In the years following the purchase of
Louisiana from France (about 1815), cotton and lumber were the staples for Avoyelles Parish (Saucier,
1943:237). However, much of the timber was cleared in order to cultivate the land for cotton and other crops.
Today, Avoyelles Parish is approximately 27 percent forested, with 147,300 acres of timberland. In con-trast,
52 percent of Louisiana is forested. Ninety percent of the parish’s forest is in oak, gum, and
cypress (USDA Forest Service, 1991).
In 1990, corporations were the largest forest landowner and owned 30 percent of the parish’s forested
land. The forest industry leased or owned 20 percent, and parish or municipal entities, private individu-als,
farmers, and miscellaneous Federal and State governments owned 17 percent, 13 percent, 10 per-cent,
3 percent, and 3 percent, respectively (USDA Forest Service, 1991).
Despite the diminished wooded acreage, timber is still a large source of income for Avoyelles Parish. In
1998, landowner income from the sale of timber was $3.3 million. In fact, income from the sale of timber
increased 161 percent from 1988 to 1998 (Table 2-2). This is comparable with figures for the State of
Louisiana, where landowner income from the sale of timber increased 162 percent during the same time
period (Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 1999).
Table 2-2: Summary of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, timber harvest and landowner income 1993 to 2003.
Source: http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/divisions/forestry/reports/timberpulpwood/default.asp
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
28
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Saw Timber
(million
board feet)
10.6 8.5 6.9 13.4 8.9 9.4 3.9 2.4 7.6 7.7 10.0
Pine and
Hardwood Pulpwood
(thousand cords)
18.9 16.2 19.2 32.3 23.1 33.3 16.8 12.3 42.0 30.2 46.3
Landowner
Income
($1,000,000)
1.73 2.26 2.24 4.14 2.32 3.33 1.39 0.95 2.52 3.01 4.05
Recreation
Avoyelles Parish has always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters.
As early as 1939 a sportsmen’s club was created in Avoyelles Parish for the purpose of protecting game
and wildlife (Saucier, 1943:303). Later, as part of a comprehensive wildlife management program, Lake
Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge was created to preserve and restore habitat for native wildlife and
migratory birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.). In addition to the Refuge, three State wildlife
management areas are located within the parish: Grassy Lake (13,300 acres), Pomme de Terre (7,100
acres), and Spring Bayou (12,100 acres).
Refuge Recreational Use. Lake Ophelia Refuge contains large populations of fish and wildlife, includ-ing
a number of game species. Indeed, these provide the primary recreational activities occurring on the
Refuge, namely public hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing on the Refuge are provided in accor-dance
with Federal, State, and Refuge regulations.
Hunting is the most popular activity, with more than 1,500 hunters using the Refuge in 1998 (Lake
Ophelia Refuge Management Information System, 2000). Deer, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, waterfowl,
woodcock, and snipe may be taken on the Refuge during the appropriate seasons. Feral swine may be
taken during game seasons. Large portions of the Refuge are accessible for hunting only by all-terrain
vehicle (ATV) trails, which are open only during the hunting season.
Fishing is the second most popular activity on the Refuge, with 1,000 participants in 1998 (Lake Ophelia
Refuge Management Information System, 2000). There are three lakes suitable for fishing, with boat
ramps on Duck Lake and Lake Ophelia.
Although Lake Ophelia Refuge is largely undeveloped (Figures 2-4 and 2-5), it received over 10,000
annual visits in both 2000 and 2001 (Lake Ophelia Refuge Management Information System, 2001). The
Refuge has no camping facilities.
Outdoor Recreation Economics. In addition to those on the Refuge, the fish and game of Avoyelles
Parish are economically important in two ways. First, a considerable commercial fishery is present in
both the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers, along with local aquaculture operations. Crawfish and catfish are
the major species harvested, and the buffalo fish is also important (Table 2-3). Secondly, hunting and
fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population spends money
and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the parish.
Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the preservation of fish and wildlife resources, combined with
wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and to the loss of
habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these resources, Lake
Ophelia Refuge serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant and
wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to enjoy these resources, either through observa-tion
or, more directly, through hunting or fishing.
When improved access, facilities, and staffing are added, Lake Ophelia Refuge can serve as an important
commodity in the economic life of the community. Ecotourism, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable
industry. As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the
Refuge may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community directly
by providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting tourists from
outside the parish to generate additional dollars to the local economy.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
29
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tourism
With the opening of the Grand Casino Avoyelles (later renamed Paragon Casino) in May of 1994, tourism
began to play a larger role in the local economy. Although tourism-related employment in Avoyelles
Parish had been stagnant for a number of years, within two years after the opening of the Casino the
parish’s tourism employment increased 70 percent, along with a 53 percent increase in revenues and an
84 percent increase in payrolls. This compares with increases of 22 percent, 38 percent, and 37 percent,
respectively, for the State (University of New Orleans, 1999; Table 2-4).
Because of its proximity to the Marksville community (and the casino), it is possible that Lake Ophelia
Refuge could serve as an additional attraction to tourists visiting the area. If better roads and more
facilities were provided within the Refuge, tourists might be enticed to stay longer in the area to enjoy
the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. This could
generate more income for the local economy.
Table 2-3. Major commercial fisheries harvest (pounds) in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, 1994-1998.
Source: Louisiana Summary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Table 2-4. Effects of tourism (revenue [$1000], payroll [$1000], and employment) on Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana,
and the State of Louisiana 1992 to 1996.
Source: University of New Orleans, Division of Business Research
Transportation
In its early days, Avoyelles Parish relied on water transportation. The rivers and bayous which criss-cross
the parish served as a means for transportation, trade, and communication for almost every com-munity
within the parish (Avoyelles Parish Planning Board, 1947:13). Some of the important waterways
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Crawfish (Farm) 360,000 168,000 140,000 82,500 146,250
Catfish (Farm) 19,000 50,000 19,500 19,300 21,000
Crawfish (Wild) 295,000 297,000 287,000 306,000 311,000
Catfish (Wild) 64,000 65,000 63,000 147,000 150,200
Buffalo 86,000 89,000 87,000 105,000 105,200
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Revenue Louisiana 4,704,480 4,845,070 5,547,050 6,070,100 6,495,380
Avoyelles 9,980 10,110 11,550 12,460 15,270
Payroll Louisiana 977,110 999,120 1,162,960 1,270,970 1,337,530
Avoyelles 1,150 1,180 1,430 1,590 2,120
Employment Louisiana 77,480 77,310 85,230 91,120 94,190
Avoyelles 100 100 100 120 170
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
31
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2-4. Current visitor facilities at the northern end of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
32
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Figure 2-5. Current visitor facilities at the southern end of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
within the parish were the Red, Old, and Atchafalaya Rivers, and the Rouge, Des Glaises, Choctaw, and
Boef Bayous. While today these waterways are no longer necessary for most of the transportation needs
within the parish, they are still important as sources of income and for recreation.
Interstate Highway 49 and U.S. Highway 71 run through the southwestern portion of the parish, while
Louisiana State Highway 1 runs through the center. A number of smaller roads connect the various
communities within the parish.
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge, located in the northeastern part of Avoyelles Parish, can be
reached via Louisiana Highway 452, a mostly paved road from Marksville. All roads within the Refuge
are unpaved and are unsuitable for some vehicles. This is one of the primary factors limiting recreation-al
use on the Refuge.
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Archaeological investigations within the Refuge have been very limited and, with the exception of Gibson
(1989), have occurred prior to the establishment of the Refuge. Eight archaeological sites have been
recorded on the Refuge. The majority of the sites were occupied between 400 and1700 A.D. (Coles
Creek and Plaquemine periods) and range from village sites to mound complexes. Two sites are 20th-century
hunting and fishing camps. Sites from before 2000 B.C., if present on the Refuge, may be deeply
buried or limited to the relict Pleistocene surfaces, such as the Avoyelles Terrace and Sicily Island. The
meandering of the Red River’s course over the last 12,000 years has essentially erased or buried earlier
surfaces (Saucier, 1994).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
33
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
34
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
Early in the process of developing this plan, and after having held public scoping meetings, the planning
team identified a list of issues and concerns that were likely to be associated with the conservation and
management of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A number of issues and concerns were generated from the input of local citizens and public agencies, the
team members' knowledge of the area, and the resource needs identified by the Refuge staff. A Fish and
Wildlife Service planning team (see Appendix VII) was assembled to evaluate the resource needs. The
team then developed a list of goals, objectives and strategies to shape the management of the Refuge for
the next 15 years.
The identification of these issues provided the basis for developing the Refuge's management objectives
and strategies. These issues played a role in determining the desired future conditions for the Refuge
and were considered in the preparation of the long-term Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The issues
and concerns described below are of local, regional, and national significance and they reflect the public's
concerns as expressed at the planning meetings.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
Threatened and Endangered Species
Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important responsibility
delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Three threatened or endangered animals are
thought to use (or historically used) Lake Ophelia Refuge: the bald eagle, Louisiana black bear, ivory-billed
woodpecker, and pallid sturgeon.
Bald eagles have historically nested on Lake Ophelia Refuge. In the past, the Refuge has attempted to
restore nesting bald eagles by hacking eaglets collected from coastal Louisiana. This project was carried
out for three years and terminated, after 32 eaglets were successfully fledged. The Refuge's habitat
restoration and protection activities do provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles.
Louisiana black bears have been relocated to Lake Ophelia Refuge as part of the recovery plan to establish
a population within suitable habitat. The Refuge can continue to support the recovery of this species by
providing suitable habitats (including the interior forest and forest corridor) and by providing personnel to
monitor the bears, conduct education programs, and handle nuisance complaints. In order to ensure the
success of local recovery efforts, an effective pubic outreach program aimed at educating the local commu-nity
about the black bears needs to be conducted.
The Refuge can support pallid sturgeon recovery efforts by restoring riverine habitat and recovery efforts
for the recently re-discovered ivory-billed woodpecker by restoring forested habitat with minimal distur-bance
as well as provide technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management agencies.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
35
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Waterfowl
The Refuge's waterfowl purpose guides the primary operation and management actions on the Refuge. A
portion of the Refuge is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded cropland, moist soil, and forested wet-lands
to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. The
Louisiana Waterfowl Step-Down Plan identified the following minimum habitat objectives needed to pro-vide
sufficient winter water, food, sanctuary, and resting/loafing areas to meet the needs of waterfowl in
the core waterfowl sanctuary area: 500 acres of bottomland hardwood forest providing 56,000 duck-use
days; 500 acres of harvested crop providing 336,500 duck-use days; 200 acres of unharvested crop provid-ing
4,258,000 duck-use days; and 350 acres of moist soil providing 485,100 duck-use days. Additional
waterfowl habitat will be preserved and managed in nonsanctuary areas of the Refuge to support winter-ing
waterfowl and provide public waterfowl hunting opportunities.
Reforesting all Refuge cropland and expanding waterfowl hunting opportunities are wishes identified
during the scoping process. But in order to meet its waterfowl purpose, the Refuge must maintain
enough cropland/moist soil areas to meet multi-species waterfowl habitat needs and must provide suffi-cient
sanctuary areas to provide undisturbed resting and feeding areas for waterfowl. Some additional
reforestation can be accomplished, but the Refuge must maintain enough cropland/moist soil habitat to
meet the needs of waterfowl. Additional waterfowl hunting opportunities can be provided as the Refuge
acquires additional land, but the core waterfowl sanctuary needs to remain intact to meet the undis-turbed
resting and feeding needs of waterfowl.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Neotropical migratory birds are a species group of special management concern. Providing interior for-est
habitat (i.e., core forest area at least 1 kilometer [0.62 mile] from forest edge) for forest-dwelling
Neotropical migratory birds is one of the Refuge's major objectives. Strategic reforestation of cropland
surplus to the Refuge's waterfowl habitat objectives will contribute to the interior forest needs of
Neotropical migratory birds. Management of existing bottomland hardwood forests will also create
structural elements required by forest-dwelling Neotropical migratory birds.
HABITATS
Bottomland Hardwood Restoration
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge is situated near several large forested tracts in the Three Rivers
Source Population Objective Area. A cooperative private-State-Federal partnership under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the LMVJV calls for public lands in this
zone to be managed to provide 84,000 acres of interior forest habitat (forest more than one kilometer
[0.62 mile] from edge). The largest amount of unforested public land in the Three Rivers SPOA is locat-ed
on the Refuge. With strategic reforestation, significant amounts of interior forest can be created by
reforesting certain agricultural areas on the Refuge that are not needed to meet waterfowl and shorebird
objectives.
Approximately 12,000 acres of the Refuge are forested. Of this, 4,588 acres have been reforested since
Refuge establishment. Sites were restored by planting both seeds and seedlings (by hand and machine).
Restoration on some sites is incomplete, and further planting efforts are required. Currently, no active
forest management, other than reforestation, inventory, and survivability checks, occurs. Also, there is a
need to manage existing forests to simulate old-age type conditions within several of the current mid-aged
stands. In these stands, management actions should be directed toward providing a more complex
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
36
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
37
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
forest stand structure with large tree crowns interspersed with openings to promote vertical structure in
the mid-story and understory. Forest management practices may include set-aside forested areas in
which no or minimal disturbance would occur to benefit species such as the recently re-discovered ivory-billed
woodpecker.
The local community was an integral part of the court decision that stopped land-clearing operations
(specifically, those that occurred on the property that would become Lake Ophelia National Wildlife
Refuge) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As a result of this involvement, the community is
very concerned about bottomland hardwood restoration. Some in the community believe that the Refuge
was established to restore the forest that had been removed. More than 10 years after Refuge establish-ment,
there is still significant local interest in reforesting the entire Refuge. The area's cultural tradition
has a strong history of fishing and hunting, and forest restoration is seen as a first step toward increas-ing
the opportunities for hunting (primarily for white-tailed deer). Because providing multi-species
waterfowl habitat, including sanctuary areas, is a primary Refuge purpose, total reforestation is not suit-able.
However, approximately 1,178 acres, or 32 percent, of the existing Refuge cropland is being recom-mended
for future reforestation in this plan.
Agriculture
Reforesting the majority of the current Refuge cropland acreage will not result in a corresponding
increase in huntable acres because land is needed to provide a core waterfowl sanctuary area, protected
from disturbance, for migratory waterfowl. Most of the current Refuge cropland lies within the core
waterfowl sanctuary. During the November-to-February time period, the sanctuary area is closed to
most public entry in order to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. However, 13,325 acres, or 76 per-cent
of the existing Refuge acreage, is open to various forms of hunting, including waterfowl hunting.
The Refuge currently farms approximately 3,700 acres on Lake Ophelia Refuge. Cooperative farming is
used to fulfill the Refuge's waterfowl, resident wildlife, and threatened and endangered species trust
responsibilities. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement where the farmer is allowed to farm Refuge
land (with restrictions on crop type, pesticide use, techniques, etc.), while the Refuge receives 20 percent
of the crop or an equivalent value in services (e.g., mowing or discing moist-soil areas, maintenance of
water control facilities). Cooperative farming also infuses money into the local economy by providing
jobs and supporting local businesses.
Typically the Refuge grows a combination of corn, soybeans, wheat, milo, and millet. In combination,
each provides significant benefits to the species (waterfowl, Louisiana black bears) that the Service is
entrusted to protect. However, ancillary benefits also include improved habitat conditions for the
American woodcock, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and numerous other resident wildlife species.
Most of the current cropland lies within the core waterfowl sanctuary. During the November-to-
February time period, the sanctuary area is closed to public entry in order to minimize disturbance to
migratory birds. However, 13,325 acres, or 76 percent of the existing Refuge acreage, is open to various
forms of hunting, including waterfowl hunting.
VISITOR SERVICES
Visitor Services and Education
Currently, little public use occurs besides hunting and fishing. The complex does not have the staff or
facilities to provide on- or off-Refuge environmental education or interpretive or other wildlife-dependent
recreational programs. The lack of exposure and awareness resulting from the absence of non-consump-tive
public use negatively affects all Refuge programs.
The Refuge is located in Avoyelles Parish (population 41,860), within 15 miles of Marksville, Louisiana (pop-ulation
6,087). The Tunica-Biloxi Paragon Casino is a major tourist attraction in the parish, attracting over
200,000 overnight visitors annually. Many of the casino's overnight hotel and recreational vehicle (RV)
resort guests are interested in half-day tourist destinations. Visitor facilities in association with a proposed
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge visitor center annex would provide wildlife-dependent environmental
education, interpretation, and recreation opportunities currently not available in Avoyelles Parish.
Hunting
Hunting and fishing are integral parts of Louisiana culture. It is not surprising that there is a considerable
State and local interest in expanding hunting opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be
dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with Refuge purposes. However,
hunting opportunities will be made available to a greater number of people over a larger land base through
the Refuge's continuation of a land acquisition program, within the current acquisition boundary.
There is some interest in a modern gun hunt for white-tailed deer. However, much of Lake Ophelia
Refuge's hunting areas are open habitat (early succession and/or recently reforested areas), and a modern
gun hunt cannot be conducted there safely. Furthermore, recent surveys indicate that the Refuge's deer
herd is in balance with the habitat, indicating that the current hunting strategies (either-sex deer archery,
youth gun, and muzzleloader hunts only) are biologically sound. While the deer herd could be controlled
with modern firearms, relying on the current program provides more hunting opportunities (primitive
weapons are less efficient, requiring more units of effort to harvest a sustainable number of individuals).
As forest stands mature, opportunities for a modern gun hunt will be explored.
Fishing
Under current conditions, the area available for fishing opportunities cannot be greatly expanded with-out
compromising the Refuge’s waterfowl habitat objectives (i.e., allowing fishing in Lake Ophelia during
the current closed season, October 15- February 28). However, fishing could be expanded by developing
bank fishing areas, improving or expanding fishing piers, and controlling aquatic weeds. A recent acqui-sition
has provided the potential to allow public access to 300-acre Frazier-Whitehorse Lake. Also, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ preliminary surveys for the Spring Bayou Reconnaissance Study indi-cate
that Lake Long could be reconnected to the Red River, thus possibly restoring a historic fishery.
Roads and Trails, Exterior and Interior
In general, lack of access, both interior and exterior, limits all public use on the Refuge. No all-weather
roads or trails exist.
The Refuge's only exterior access route is Louisiana Highway 452. The paved section of this road ends
approximately 2 miles from the Refuge. Avoyelles Parish is responsible for maintaining Highway 452, 2
miles after the pavement ends. The Service is responsible for maintaining most of the remaining 38
miles of roads and trails that exist within the Refuge. Seasonal weather limits access (including that by
Refuge staff) to four-wheel-drive and high-clearance vehicles. Access will remain limited until all-weath-er
roads are provided and maintained.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
38
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Access to m