Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

September 2007

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

CATAHOULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

LASALLE AND CATAHOULA PARISHES, LOUISIANA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

September 2007 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4

Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5

North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................... 5

North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 6

Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 6

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ...................................................................................... 6

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ............................................................... 6

U.S. Woodcock Plan ........................................................................................................... 6

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 7

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13

Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................13

Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 13

Globally Important Bird Area ............................................................................................. 16

Ramsar Designation of Catahoula Lake ........................................................................... 16

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 17

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 17

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................20

Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................ 21

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 23

Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 23

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants ............................................................................. 23

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 24

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 24

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 24

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 24

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 25

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 25

Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 27

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 27

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................34

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 41

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 42

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 42
ii Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 42

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 46

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 49

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 49

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 49

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 51

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 52

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 53

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 54

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 55

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 57

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 59

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 59

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 62

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 72

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 74

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 80

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 83

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 87

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 87

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 87

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 88

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 89

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 90

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 91

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 92

Volunteers .................................................................................................................................. 92

Partnership Opportunities........................................................................................................... 92

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 94

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 96

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 96

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 97

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 103

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES ........................................................................... 109

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 117

Public Involvement Process ............................................................................................ 117

Draft Plan Comments and Service Response ................................................................ 117
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 123

APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS .................................................................... 130

APPENDIX VI. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................. 144

APPENDIX VII. REFUGE BIOTA ..................................................................................................... 148

APPENDIX VIII. LAND PROTECTION PLAN .................................................................................. 158

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 158

Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 159

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Policy .................................................................... 159

APPENDIX IX. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................ 164

Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 164

Biological and Habitat Review Team ........................................................................................ 164

Visitor Services Review Team ..................................................................................................165

APPENDIX X. BUDGET REQUESTS – REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS ........................................ 166

APPENDIX XI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 168
iv Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: The location of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................... 10

Figure 2: Approved acquisition boundary for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 11

Figure 3. Oil and gas activity on the Headquarter's Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ..... 14

Figure 4. Oil and gas activity on the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ... 15

Figure 5: Mississippi Alluvial Valley ................................................................................................. 18

Figure 6: Forest cover changes in the MAV .................................................................................... 22

Figure 7. The Little River and Lower Ouachita River Watersheds. .................................................. 26

Figure 8. Reforestation on Catahoula National Widilife Refuge Headquarters Unit ........................ 29

Figure 9. Reforestation on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit ...................... 30

Figure 10. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit ..... 32

Figure 11. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit ........ 33

Figure 12. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit ..................... 44

Figure 13. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit ................... 45

Figure 14. Proposed acquisition expansion boundary on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge ......... 58

Figure 15. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters Unit ............................................................................................................ 60

Figure 16. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Bushley Bayou Unit .......................................................................................................... 61

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Location/acreage of lands within approved acquisition boundary ........................................ 13

Table 2. The habitat types and associated acreages found on Catahoula 

National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................................... 28

Table 3. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Step-down and LMVJV Objectives .............................. 36

Table 4. Socioeconomic statistics for Catahoula and LaSalle Parishes ............................................. 41

Table 5. Fishing, hunting, and wildlife-dependent recreation in Louisiana ......................................... 42

Table 6. Summary of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan projects ........................................................................................................................ 93

Table 7. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans* ................................... 94

Table 8. Protection priorities for the proposed expansion and recommended 

methods of acquisition ....................................................................................................... 162

Table 9. Catahoula NWR operating and maintenance needs. ......................................................... 166
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge in LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes, Louisiana. 

The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat 

management program, and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues 

the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from Federal and 

State agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge 

staff held one public scoping meeting and solicited public reaction to the proposed alternatives. Also, 

a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment was provided. 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A was a proposal to maintain the 

status quo, with no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, existing 

refuge management practices and uses would continue. All management actions would be directed 

towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes, which include: (1) to provide migrating and 

wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall objectives of the Mississippi 

Flyway; (2) to provide nesting habitat for wood ducks; (3) to provide habitat and protection for 

threatened and endangered species; and (4) to manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat 

for a natural wildlife diversity. Management programs would continue to be developed and 

implemented with limited baseline biological information. Active habitat wetland management would 

be implemented by continuing water level manipulations for moist soil. Grassland and forest 

management actions, designed to provide diversified foraging, resting, and breeding habitat 

requirements for a variety of species, would be implemented only when resources are available. 

Land would be acquired from willing sellers within the current 28,254-acre acquisition boundary. Oil 

and gas operations would continue under current special use permits, with little opportunity to prevent 

potential risks of spills. There would be no water quality surveys or pollution prevention measures for 

improving or providing increased protection of refuge lands and water. Hunting and fishing would 

continue to be the major focus for the public use program, with no expansion of current opportunities. 

Alternative B, the proposed alternative, was considered to be the most effective management action 

for meeting the purposes of the refuge. It would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to 

provide greater enhancement and management of habitats and associated plant communities for the 

greater benefit of wildlife. Extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory activities would be 

initiated to obtain the biological information needed to implement management programs on the 

refuge. The refuge would improve migratory waterfowl habitat, the wood duck nest box program, 

habitat to support breeding pairs of wading birds, and migration habitat for southbound and 

northbound shorebirds. Habitat management activities would focus on providing healthy bottomland 

hardwood forests, moist-soil units, and grasslands needed to achieve wildlife population objectives. 

Forested habitat would be managed to establish a multi-layered canopy that promotes and maintains 

structural and plant species diversity and ultimately supports key species of migratory and resident 

species. To improve habitat for grassland birds, the refuge would work with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service to replant the 95-acre Willow Lake area with native warm-season grasses. The 

refuge would inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate 

invasive plants. An archaeological survey to identify potential cultural resources would help in 

planning for land protection. The refuge would work closely with partners to acquire or exchange 
2 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

lands with willing in-holding landowners and to expand the current acquisition boundary by 1,835.2 

acres in order to improve access for refuge staff and the public. The refuge would continue to work 

with the State and oil producers to identify and eliminate potential spill risks from oil and gas activities, 

to continue the refuge special use permit system, and to provide monitoring for first alert in spill 

events. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities would be improved. Youth hunts, handicap-accessible blinds, improved 

access for bank fishing, replacement of the observation tower and an additional tower, and supporting 

environmental-based curricula in the local schools are some of the improvements planned under 

Alternative B. In addition, the current office facility would be expanded to accommodate an 

environmental education display and an interpretive display. Additional staff would include a 

biologist, forester, park ranger (law enforcement), engineering equipment operator, maintenance 

worker, assistant refuge manager, and park ranger (interpretive) to accomplish objectives for 

establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, and for adequate protection of 

wildlife and visitors. 

The primary focus under Alternative C would be to maximize endemic bottomland hardwood forests 

with minimal management. Under this alternative, there would be no active management of refuge 

resources. Grasslands would be left fallow and moist-soil units would not be actively managed. 

Bottomland hardwood forests would be left to mature with no active management. Wood duck nest 

boxes would be left in place and banding quotas would not typically be met. There would be no 

active management of marshbird, long-legged wader, shorebird, or forest breeding bird habitat. The 

refuge would continue to support Bald Eagle Management Guidelines when nests are encountered. 

The refuge would continue to attempt to acquire land from willing sellers within the current 28,254-

acre acquisition boundary, but would plan no additional active management for these lands. Oil and 

gas operations would continue under current special use permits, with little opportunity to prevent 

potential risks of spills. There would be no water quality surveys or pollution prevention measures for 

improving or providing increased protection of refuge lands and water. An archaeological survey to 

determine if there are any cultural resources present would be used in planning for land protection. 

A limited amount of deer, duck, and small game hunting would continue and the refuge would 

maintain current recreational fishing. The current facilities for wildlife observation and photography, 

such as the observation tower, nature trails, and wildlife drive pull-offs, would be maintained and 

enhanced. Environmental education and interpretation requests would be increased and would be 

accommodated with the addition of a park ranger (interpretive). Law enforcement of refuge 

regulations and protection of wildlife and visitors would continue at current levels. 

The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this comprehensive 

conservation plan. Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of 

programs to best achieve the refuge purposes and goals. Alternative B emphasizes management 

and restoration of the refuge’s open wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, grassland habitats, and 

hydrology in support of migratory and resident waterfowl and other wildlife, especially forest breeding 

birds, amphibians and reptiles, marsh birds, white-tailed deer, wood duck, and woodcock. It also 

ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these 

management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with 

existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program 

elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

managed, maintained, and enhanced. Lands within the approved acquisition boundary will be 

prioritized for acquisition to best achieve national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

I. Background 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge was prepared to 

guide management actions and direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife 

conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be 

allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of 

the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the 

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft plan and 

environmental assessment was made available to State and Federal agencies, conservation 

partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity have been 

considered in the development of this plan. 

The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge will play in support of the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management and public use activities. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

y Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

y Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and the public’s 

participation in carrying out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many agencies, 

organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance 

the mission of national wildlife refuges. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 
4 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were 

initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete 

comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public 

involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and 

recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines 

for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the Refuge System; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

y Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 

Approximately 38 million people visited National Wildlife Refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in their 

natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, 

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 

years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per 

refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in 

the 1995 study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula 

(Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North 

Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon 

(Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana). Other findings 

also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, 

lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For 

each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in 

recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income. 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers 

contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates. 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and 

legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate into this comprehensive conservation plan. 

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is communication with the public and public agency 

participation in efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many 

agencies, organizations, institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to 

advance the mission of national wildlife refuges. This comprehensive conservation plan supports, 

among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, 

the North American Waterbird Plan, and the U.S. Woodcock Plan. 

NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE 

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government, private and academic 

organizations, and private industry leaders addressing bird conservation. The initiative’s vision is to 

achieve regionally based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships that deliver the full 

spectrum of bird conservation across the North American continent and that support simultaneous, 
6 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

on-the-ground delivery of conservation for all birds. As a result, North American bird populations will 

flourish because they are valued by society, including all levels of government and private initiative. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve migratory 

birds throughout the continent. Its goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by 

conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986, in 

reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. 

The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental 

organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland 

habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. 

PARTNERS-IN-FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

The Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan was launched in 1990, in response to growing 

concerns about many land bird species. It is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among 

federal, state, and local governments, philanthropic foundations, conservation organizations, 

professional organizations, industry, the academic community, and private individuals. The central 

premise of Partners-in-Flight has been that resources of public and private organizations in North and 

South America must be combined, coordinated, and increased in order to achieve success in 

conserving land bird populations in this Hemisphere. 

U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure 

that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan 

was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate 

regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key 

research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of 

shorebirds and the threats they face. 

NORTHERN AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

This plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 

29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, 

introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, 

disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the 

Service's Southeast Region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea 

island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of 

wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast 

populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection 

efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

U.S. WOODCOCK PLAN 

The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990, to “guide the conservation of woodcock 

in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives general 

guidance for habitat population management at the national level. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other 

state fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. State wildlife management areas and wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the 

protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species 

in the State of Louisiana. 

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state partnering agency with the 

Service and is charged with the responsibility of managing and protecting Louisiana's abundant 

natural resources (LDWF, No date). This includes enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds 

and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources and approximately 1.4 

million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates the state 

wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive 

hunting and fishing program on 47 state wildlife management areas, totaling 910,352 acres. It 

also manages nine refuges, totaling 540,694 acres, which are not hunted, and is responsible for 

fisheries in 1.7 million acres of lakes and 50,145 miles of streams (Moreland 2005; Tilyou 2005). 

Near the refuge, LDWF coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public 

recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on the Dewey Willis 

Wildlife Management Area, a 60,276-acre area that borders the south side of the headquarters unit of 

the refuge. In addition, it manages the natural resources on Catahoula Lake, which is adjacent to 

nine miles of the refuge headquarters unit. 

The state’s participation and contribution throughout the development of this plan has provided for 

ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in 

Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission 

objectives where appropriate. 
8 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1958, primarily as a wintering area for 

migratory waterfowl. The refuge, in east-central LaSalle Parish and west-central Catahoula Parish, 

Louisiana, about 30 miles northeast of Alexandria, and 12 miles east of Jena, now totals 25,242 acres 

(Figure 1). An additional 3,012 acres of land are included in the approved acquisition boundary of the 

refuge. The 6,671-acre Headquarters Unit borders 9 miles of the northeast shore of Catahoula Lake, 

a 26,000-acre natural wetland renowned for its large concentrations of migratory waterfowl. The 

18,571-acre Bushley Bayou Unit, located 8 miles west of Jonesville, was established in May 2001. 

The acquisition was made possible through a partnership agreement between The Conservation 

Fund, American Electric Power, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (Figure 2). 

The refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. This valley 

was, at one time, a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both sides of the 

Mississippi River from Illinois through Louisiana. Although the refuge was part of this very productive 

bottomland hardwood ecosystem, most of the forest on the refuge was cleared in the early 1970s for 

agriculture production. 

Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various habitat types, including remnant pieces of bottomland 

hardwood forest, reforested areas, cypress sloughs, moist-soil areas, grassland habitat, and mudflats. 

Since the inception of the refuge, approximately 13,868 acres have been reforested or are reverting 

naturally to a bottomland hardwood community. Primary species planted in the reforested areas are: (1) 

willow oak; (2) green ash; (3) baldcypress; (4) overcup oak; and (5) Nuttall oak. 

The diverse habitats found on the refuge are home to numerous wildlife species. Waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and neotropical migratory birds use the refuge during certain times of the year, but there are also resident 

birds, such as the northern cardinal and the wood duck, that are here all year. Other species of resident 

wildlife that occur include white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, river otter, red-eared slider, and tree frog. 

Fish species include catfish, buffalo, garfish, largemouth bass, and crappie. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

The refuge was established in 1958 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which 

calls for: 

"... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act); 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which calls for: 

"... the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a) (4) ”...the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 
10 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1: The location of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2: Approved acquisition boundary for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
12 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

With these establishing authorities, the objectives for the Headquarters Unit of Catahoula Refuge 

were refined as the following: 

y To provide migrating and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall 

objectives of the Mississippi Flyway; 

y To provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species; 

y To manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for a natural wildlife diversity; 

y To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education for 160,000 visitors annually. 

Objectives for the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula Refuge were refined in the 1999 Environmental 

Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Land Protection Plan, prepared by the Service as 

the following: 

y To provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and woodcock; 

y To provide nesting habitat for wood ducks; 

y To provide habitat for a natural diversity of wildlife; 

y To provide habitat for non-game, neotropical migratory birds; and 

y To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education. 

Prior to refuge establishment, lands that now make up the refuge were used for timber harvesting, 

agriculture, and open grazing. In 1925, the timber industry began logging in this area. Logging 

continued until 1936. In the early 1970s, a large portion of the land that now makes up the Bushley 

Bayou Unit of the refuge was cleared for agriculture, primarily for soybeans. 

 

Historically, local residents used the land for open grazing of cattle and hogs. Until the refuge 

was established and management began fencing different portions of the refuge in 1966, open 

grazing in Catahoula Lake and surrounding areas reached an estimated 2,500 head of cattle and 

5,000 head of hogs, using 5,000 acres annually. Gradual fencing of the refuge lands reduced the 

impacts of grazing but left a legacy of open fields with compacted soil that has been difficult to 

reforest to historic conditions. As of 2004, open grazing is no longer permitted in either parish 

(USFWS 1995a; Hammond 2004). 

Located 30 miles northeast of Alexandria, the original refuge lands acquired now make up the 

majority of the Headquarters Unit. About 745 acres of the refuge are used for administrative 

purposes, including the headquarters building and area, maintenance and storage buildings, and 

roads and trails. The headquarters and most of the maintenance and storage buildings are on 

the Headquarters Unit. 

The second major unit, Bushley Bayou, was established in 2001, for the benefit of migratory birds 

and other wildlife in east central Louisiana. Its northern portions are about 8 miles west of 

Jonesville and 35 miles northeast of Alexandria. In January 2001, The Conservation Fund, 

American Electric Power, and the Service signed a partnership agreement to acquire the entire 

Tensas Delta Land Company Tract, totaling 18,571 acres. The Conservation Fund bought the 

property from Tensas Delta and sold 10,000 acres to American Electric Power and 8,000 acres to 

the Service. American Electric Power agreed to provide $300,000 to the Service to assist with 

startup operations and maintenance. The Service also has an agreement to manage the 10,000 

acres owned by American Electric Power. The partnership brings together the Federal 

Government, a conservation organization, and private industry to restore and protect habitat for 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

wintering waterfowl and migratory birds and to manage bottomland hardwood forests. The 

Service entered into this partnership to restore biodiverse ecosystems through the re-creation of 

natural forest habitat, which, in turn, will result in carbon sequestration. 

The Service purchased 14,587 acres, including 3,600 acres of USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Wetlands Reserve Program land and 6,052 acres acquired using Wal-Mart's 

Acres for America Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and North American Wildlife 

Conservation Agreement grant monies, from The Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund sold 

the remaining 4,205 acres to American Electric Power. Under a 10-year Memorandum of Agreement 

between American Electric and the Service, the Service would manage the American Electric Power 

lands as part of the refuge; American Electric Power would reforest the lands on the Bushley Bayou 

Unit for potential future carbon credits. 

Table 1. Location/acreage of lands within approved acquisition boundary 

Location Acres 

Headquarters Unit – Service Owned 6,671 

Bushley Bayou – Service Owned 14,587 

Bushley Bayou – Owned by American Electiric Power and Service Managed 3,984 

Remainder of Acres Outside of Refuge Boundary, but within the current 

Acquisition Boundary – Privately Owned 3,012 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

According to the Government Accounting Office Report of 2003, the Catahoula Refuge has eight 

active wells, one orphan well, and forty-nine inactive wells (Figures 3 and 4). At present, only four of 

the active wells are in production. The remaining four wells are not operating. There are currently 

two sites that have been staked out for potential well sites on the Headquarters Unit. There are 

active pipelines on the refuge (Government Accounting Office 2003). There are four tank batteries 

(e.g., treatment and storage facilities) on the refuge. Previously, pipelines were used exclusively to 

transport oil and gas off the refuge; currently, pipelines, as well as tanker trucks, are used to transport 

oil from the refuge. The owners inspect the equipment daily to ensure proper functioning. The refuge 

issues special use permits for conducting oil production activities, such as facility maintenance. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The refuge works with a number of partners on conservation and management programs. A major 

effort was in the acquisition and reforestation of the Bushley Bayou Unit. The Conservation Fund, 

American Electric Power, and the Service worked together to acquire land from the Tensas Delta 

Land Company. The Conservation Fund bought the land and sold 14,587 acres to the Service and 

3,984 acres to American Electric. American Electric Power and the Service entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement to have the refuge manage the power company lands for ten years. The 

agreement also included American Electric Power’s reforestation efforts on both Service and power 
14 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Oil and gas activity on the Headquarter's Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 4. Oil and gas activity on the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
16 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

company land for carbon sequestration credits. The Conservation Fund has recently donated 6,273 

acres to the Service on the Bushley Bayou Unit, working with North American Wildlife Conservation 

Agreement and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through Wal-Mart's Acres for America Program. 

Environmental Synergy, Incorporated, represents private sector companies, such as American Electric 

Power, interested in addressing the effects of global climate change through reforestation of selected 

tracts of land that will promote the sequestration of carbon and restore wetland habitat in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. On the Bushley Bayou Unit, Environmental Synergy was contracted to reforest the sites 

that were selected under the agreement. The Service cooperated with Environmental Synergy in 

coordinating the reforestation process, including the selection of species and planting sites. 

The refuge works closely with the LDWF and with the Army Corps of Engineers in a tri-party 

agreement under which the refuge manages the water level on Catahoula Lake. 

The refuge also cooperates closely with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Portions of the 

refuge, including several impoundments, are under the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). These 

lands are in the Bushley Bayou Unit and are owned by the Service. The Service must comply with 

the same regulations that apply to private land enrolled in the WRP. 

GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIRD AREA 

The refuge is designated as a globally important bird area for wintering waterfowl and shorebirds 

under the American Bird Conservancy Important Bird Areas Program. 

Since 1995, the the American Bird Conservancy has designated 500 important bird areas as the top 

sites of significance on a global level for birds throughout the 50 states. Sites include national wildlife 

refuges, national parks and forests, state lands, conservation lands, and private lands. For these 

identifications, the American Bird Conservancy has used objective scientific information and the 

recommendations of experts. In order to be included in the American Bird Conservancy Important 

Bird Areas Program, a site must contain critical habitat that supports a significantly large 

concentration of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, including waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, 

raptors, and landbirds, during at least some part of the year. The important bird area designation is 

an important step towards raising the awareness of the public and land managers about the 

importance of a site and its value to bird conservation (ABC, No date). 

RAMSAR DESIGNATION OF CATAHOULA LAKE 

The most prominent international treatment of wetlands is the Convention on Wetlands of 

International Importance, often referred to as the Ramsar Convention, for a treaty that was signed in 

Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. The Ramsar Convention provides the framework for national action and 

international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. It was 

the first of the modern global intergovernmental treaties on wise use of natural resources. 

Participating countries must designate at least one wetland for inclusion on the List of Wetlands of 

International Importance. There are 146 Contracting Parties to the Convention, including the United 

States, which ratified the treaty in 1986. Currently, there are 1,436 wetland sites, totaling 125.1 

million hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. 

The Ramsar Convention designated Catahoula Lake, which borders nine miles of Catahoula Refuge, 

as a Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar site) in 1991. The lake is one of 18 wetland sites 

(one of six southern wetlands) in the United States recognized as a Wetlands of Importance globally. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Under the Ramsar Convention, there is an obligation for parties to include wetland conservation 

considerations in their land use planning. Also under the Ramsar Convention, planning is to promote 

the wise use of wetlands, which has been interpreted as being synonymous with “sustainable use” 

(Ramsar, No date; Messina and Conner 1998). 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Catahoula Refuge lies within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) (Figure 5). The MAV was once a 

25-million-acre complex of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River 

from Illinois to Louisiana. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the 

Mississippi River fluctuated annually, with floods recharging the MAV’s aquatic systems and creating 

a rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. 

The declines in the MAV’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated fish and wildlife 

resources have prompted the Service to designate this forest system as an area of special concern. 

A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to 

employ a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the MAV. The goal is to 

prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and possibly restore the biological 

diversity in the MAV. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation. 

It is widely recognized, however, that most of the 20+ million acres of forested wetlands that have 

been cleared and converted to other uses in the MAV will not be reforested. Some areas would have 

low value for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-dependent 

species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning resources, and 

the focusing of available programs, the MAV’s biological diversity can be improved. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Catahoula Refuge is part of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and is considered to be in the 

MAV. As such, the refuge is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning 

initiatives, which are described in the following paragraphs. 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) Plan. The purpose of this plan is to guide Fish and 

Wildlife Service efforts to conserve, restore, and enhance the natural functional processes and habitat 

types of the LMRE unit while maintaining the economic productivity and recreational opportunities of 

the region. The LMRE Plan has eight major goals, consisting of the following: 

1. Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats. 

2. Protect, restore, and manage wetlands. 

3. Protect and/or restore imperiled wetlands and viable populations of endangered species of 

concern. 

4. Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated 

with the wetlands and waters of the ecosystem. 

5. Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. 

6. Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management. 

7. Enforce natural resource laws. 

8. Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the ecosystem. 
18 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5: Mississippi Alluvial Valley 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV). The LMVJV is a private, state, and federal bird 

conservation partnership conceived in 1988 in response to the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan described previously in Chapter I. The LMVJV was established as a voluntary, 

non-regulatory partnership focused on increasing coordination of waterfowl and wetland habitat 

conservation in the MAV. Since its inception, the self-directed partnership has broadened its 

biological scope to include strategic planning and implementation for "all birds in all habitats,” and its 

geographic extent to include the West Gulf Coastal Plain. In response to challenges inherent in 

landscape scale integrated bird conservation, LMVJV partners have organized their institutional 

capabilities and personnel expertise to (1) define a science-based biological foundation, (2) develop 

a spatially explicit conservation blueprint, and (3) orchestrate habitat delivery and management. 

Specifically, private, state, and federal LMVJV partners have invested more than $650 million to 

develop: 

y Habitat objectives expressed at multiple scales linked to regional and continental bird 

populations based on testable assumptions regarding limiting factors. 

y Geographic Information System (GIS) decision support models and conservation planning 

tools. 

y Habitat and population tracking and monitoring programs. 

y Focused research applying the principles of adaptive resource management. 

y Habitat delivery programs that have helped to restore, enhance, or protect over one million 

acres of important wildlife habitat. 

Partners in Flight (PIF). Partners in Flight have formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation 

Regions that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Catahoula Refuge is 

part of the Saline Bird Conservation Area (Twedt et al., 1999). Habitats found on the refuge and 

associated bird species that are considered a priority in the MAV include: 

y Bottomland hardwood forest; 

y Swainson’s warbler, cerulean warbler, northern parula, painted bunting, prothonotary warbler, 

and Bell’s vireo. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP). As mentioned previously in Chapter I, the USSCP is a 

partnership effort being undertaken throughout the country to ensure that shorebird populations are 

restored and protected. 

Catahoula NWR is included in the Lower Mississippi Shorebird Planning Region and Bird 

Conservation Region. This plan recommends that public lands provide as much fall shorebird habitat 

as possible to meet the goal (520 hectare) of fall habitat in Louisiana. Catahoula Refuge is 

considered a Globally Important Bird Area for species such as: piping plover, American goldenplover, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American 

woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). NABCI is a broad coalition of governmental, 

non-governmental, and academic organizations interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird 

populations and the landscapes upon which they depend. NABCI evolved in 1998 out of recognition 

among conservationists of the value of coordinating and integrating planning, implementation, and 

evaluation efforts of NAWMP, PIF, USSCP, and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. The goal 

is to cause the combined effectiveness of these separate programs to exceed the total of their parts. 
20 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Woodcock Plan. The U.S. Woodcock Plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the 

conservation of woodcock in the United States.” Its objective is to protect and enhance wintering and 

migration habitat on public lands to increase woodcock carrying capacity. The plan also sets 

objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management demonstration areas; 

however, objectives have not been stepped down to states or individual refuges. Although no stepdown plans have been written, the plan gives general guidance for habitat population management at 

the national level. 

Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan). The Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries' Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy was defined in 

2005 (Lester et al., 2005). The mission statement follows: 

The mission of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is to manage, conserve, 

and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and wildlife resources and their 

supporting habitats through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, 

and education for the social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to 

provide opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to 

promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of the resources. 

The State developed the following goals with associated objectives that this comprehensive 

conservation plan will consider and promote when establishing refuge goals and objectives to ensure 

the refuge and wetland management district continue their contribution to Louisiana wildlife 

conservation and habitat integrity. 

 

y Provide the habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all 

species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act. 

y Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for 

the continued survival of species of conservation concern. 

y Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and 

conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and related habitats. 

y Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships with state and federal natural 

resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups, private 

industry, and academia. 

The primary focus of the Louisiana comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy is species of 

conservation concern and the habitats they depend upon. Information relative to these species and 

those habitats found on Refuge System lands will be evaluated for opportunities to foster 

conservation efforts. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

National wildlife refuges in the MAV serve as part of the last safety net to support biological 

diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. The greatest threats to biological diversity 

within the MAV include: 

y The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests; 

y The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (i.e., forest fragmentation); 

y The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices; 

y The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools; 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

y The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and 

y The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. 

FOREST LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

The MAV has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread throughout the area. 

From the 1950s to the 1990s, it has been estimated that 20 million acres of bottomland hardwood 

forested wetlands have been lost (Figure 6). The greatest changes to the landscape have been in 

the form of land clearing for agriculture and flood control projects. 

Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they have had a 

tremendous effect on the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the 

MAV. Vast areas of bottomland hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments, ranging in 

size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that have maintained many 

of the original functions and values of forested wetlands. This process, which is known as forest 

fragmentation, has reduced the size and connectivity of forest habitat patches and has resulted in the 

disruption of extensive forest habitats into smaller and smaller isolated patches. Severe forest 

fragmentation has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity. Species 

endemic to the MAV that have become extinct, endangered, or threatened include the red wolf, 

Florida panther, ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, and Louisiana black bear. 

Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian 

species most adversely affected by forest fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (i.e., 

dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; 

those that have special habitat requirements, such as mature forests or a particular food source; and 

those that require good water quality. 

More than 70 species of breeding migratory birds are found in the region. Some of these species, 

including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean 

warbler, have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and 

sustain their existence. 

Fragmentation has also brought forest edge along with the brown-headed cowbird (a seed-eating bird 

common in agricultural areas) closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest interior-nesting birds. 

The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than 

building a nest of its own. Nestling cowbirds are typically larger and more aggressive and they outcompete the young of the species building the nest. This results in poor reproductive success and 

declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are forced to nest near forest edges. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts 

surrounded by a sea of agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested 

corridors along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between 

the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the 

functional values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of 

gene flow. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel corridors is particularly 

important for some wide-ranging species, such as the threatened Louisiana black bear. 
22 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6: Forest cover changes in the MAV 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant 

alterations in the region’s hydrology due to urban development, river channel modification, flood 

control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic systems from 

excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands 

and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on 

topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to 

forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). 

The large-scale man-made hydrological alterations replacing the natural hydrology have changed the 

spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire MAV. In addition, these alterations 

have reduced both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding. The loss of this annual 

flooding regime has had a tremendous effect on the forested wetlands and their associated wetlanddependent species. 

In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult–if not impossible–to fully emulate and reconstruct 

the structure and functions of a natural wetland. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1993), 

restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of 

hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs and bayous, have been degraded as a result of 

deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water bodies 

are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic 

resources. The Service lists 39 species of fish as threatened, 67 species as endangered, and 16 

species as either species of concern or proposed for listing in the MAV. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphological processes that created oxbow 

lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and restoration 

of these aquatic resources take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated with 

flood control and navigation. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths 

resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and 

proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic 

(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic 

systems. These invasive species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic 

systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. 
24 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Central Louisiana has mild winters and hot, humid summers. Temperatures range from 52° F in 

January to 82° F in July, with an average annual temperature of 67° F. Spring and summer are often 

wet, with an average annual rainfall of 71.21 inches. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Louisiana has a relatively young geologic history. Most surface deposits are marine and deltaic 

sediments that have been deposited in alternating cycles over the past 1.8 million years. 

During the Tertiary period, which extended from 65 to 1.8 million years ago (mya), the refuge was 

covered with a sea. In the early Eocene epoch (54 mya), the sea receded as the continental ice 

sheets advanced, resulting in alluvial deposits from rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. This trend 

was reversed in the late Eocene, as sea level rose again. At this time, the sea again covered the 

refuge. Finally, in the Miocene epoch (25 to 5 mya), the sea level dropped and sedimentation began 

to accumulate, extending land gulfward (LGS 1990). 

The alluvial soils that accrued since the Miocene have formed what topography exists in the refuge. 

The refuge is in the far western edge of the MAV ecosystem province, adjacent to the Gulf Coastal 

Plain ecosystem province. The province consists of flat to gently sloping broad floodplain and low 

terraces made up of mostly clay alluvium. The average elevation (above mean sea level) is 30 feet. 

The only noticeable slopes are sharp terrace scarps and natural levees that rise sharply to several 

meters above adjacent bottom lands or stream channels (Bailey 1995; LGS 1990). 

SOILS 

The dominant soil series on the refuge consist of the following: 

Alligator-Sharkey-Tensas - The broad backswamps, depressions, and sloughs are located on the low 

terraces of streams and tributaries, with slopes less than one percent. Some slopes range to five 

percent on short escarpments bordering channels. Soils in these areas (Alligator-Sharkey-Tensas) 

are poorly drained, with ponding in the depression areas. Areas along the lower courses of tributary 

streams to the Mississippi River are subject to backwater flooding. 

Dundee Sharkey - Natural levees and low terraces along former channels of the Mississippi River 

contain soils formed in thinly stratified beds of loamy alluvium (Dundee-Water-Sharkey). These 

hydric soils are very deep and somewhat poorly drained, with slopes of zero to one percent. 

Guyton Smithdale - In the northwestern portion of the refuge, soils are formed on local stream 

floodplains and in depressional areas (Guyton Smithdale), rather than derived from alluvium from the 

Mississippi River. Slopes range from zero to one percent, and soils are poorly drained, with yearround ponding in places. A seasonal high-water table is at 0 to 1.5 feet below the surface from 

December through May (NRCS 2004; STATSGO 1998). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

HYDROLOGY 

The refuge lies 30 miles west of the Mississippi River in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The area is 

subject to extensive annual backwater flooding that affects both the refuge and the adjacent 

Catahoula Lake (USFWS 1989). 

Catahoula Lake is 26,000-acre ephemeral lake that borders the west boundary of the refuge’s 

Headquarters Unit. This shallow lake basin is subject to drastic seasonal fluctuations. In addition, 

the hydrology of Catahoula Lake and surrounding rivers, streams, and bayous has been substantially 

altered by the Ouachita and Black River Navigation Project (1972). Before project construction, water 

flowed into the lake primarily through the Little River and drained through the French Fork of the Little 

River to the Ouachita River. Water still drains out through the French Fork of the Little River today; 

however, most of it flows out of the Catahoula Lake Diversion Canal to the Black and Red Rivers 

(USFWS 1989) (Figure 7). 

The Catahoula Lake water levels are managed by refuge personnel under a tri-party cooperative 

agreement with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Army Corps of Engineers, 

and Fish and Wildlife Service. Water management activities are specified in a Water Management 

Agreement and are primarily designed to emulate former natural conditions. The specifications 

promote desirable waterfowl habitat, which provides public waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 

opportunities. It also allows for commercial fishing and oil rig maintenance during high water levels, 

and it addresses lead shot issues. 

Backwater flooding from the Mississippi River has a major hydrological impact on the refuge. 

Backwater moves from the Red River to the Black River, and then through the diversion canal to the 

lake. Backwater can also enter the lake from the Ouachita River through the French Fork of the Little 

River or through Bushley Creek (Figure 7). This watershed begins near I-20 in the headwaters of the 

Dugdemona River and Caster Creek, which join to form Little River. 

In some years backwater flooding can be substantial, flooding refuge roads, and in some cases, it 

raises the level of the lake so high that no water management is possible. 

There are several impoundments on both the Headquarters and the Bushley Bayou Units. There are 

also a number of small shallow lakes on the Bushley Bayou Unit, which are fed by perennial creeks, 

such as Greens Creek, Coons Creek, Rhinehart Creek, Dry Bayou, and Flat Creek, which flow out of 

the hills easterly to the refuge (USFWS 1999a). 

AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, required the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of 

NAAQS. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" 

populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect 

public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, 

and buildings (EPA 1993). 
26 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. The Little River and Lower Ouachita River Watersheds. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, 

which are called "criteria pollutants" including carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), 

particulate < 10 micrometers (PM-10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) (EPA 1993). Areas that do not meet 

the primary standard for a pollutant are non-attainment areas for that pollutant. 

Catahoula and La Salle Parishes are in attainment areas for these NAAQS. Louisiana violates the 

standard for ozone in five parishes - Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West 

Baton Rouge. Collectively, these parishes are called the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area 

(Tullier 2005; LDEQ 1997). 

The Clean Air Act also established Class I, II, and III “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” areas 

with limits on the concentration of a criteria air pollutant that can exist in certain geographic areas. 

Class I areas allow for very little deterioration of air quality. An example of such an area is a 

designated Wilderness Area. A Class II designation allows for more deterioration than Class I. 

Class III areas allow even more deterioration than Class II (USFWS 2002a). 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that fail to meet one or 

more applicable water quality standards and need total maximum daily levels (TMDLs). Louisiana's 

Section 303(d) List of Water Bodies identifies impaired water bodies and establishes a priority ranking 

for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water 

bodies. The Section 303(d) listing requirement applies to water bodies impaired by point and nonpoint sources. 

There are no 303(d) listed waters on the refuge; however, Catahoula Lake is listed by EPA as a 

303(d) impaired water body for oil and grease, salinity, chlorides, and sulfates. The lake floods the 

refuge at certain high-water levels, potentially impacting all water bodies. Suspected sources are 

rangelands, petroleum activities, flow regulations/modifications, and municipal sources (LDEQ 1999). 

Catahoula Lake also has a fish consumption advisory due to high mercury levels. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

The refuge lies within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). The MAV was, at one time, a 25-million-acre 

forested wetland complex that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to 

Louisiana. Although the refuge was part of this very productive bottomland hardwood ecosystem, most of 

the forests on nearby lands was cleared for agricultural production. No forests have been cleared within 

the Headquarters Unit while it has been part of the Refuge System. Most of the Willow Lake Unit of the 

Headquarters Unit was cleared in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as was most of the forest on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit. In both cases, this clearing occurred before the Service acquired these lands. 

Catahoula Refuge is low-lying bottomland subject to extensive flooding on the western edge of the 

Mississippi River alluvium. Currently, the refuge provides a mix of various habitat types, including 

remnant pieces of bottomland hardwood forest, reforested areas, lakes, bayous, cypress sloughs, 

moist-soil areas, and open grassland on one field in the Willow Lake area (Table 2). 
28 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 2. The habitat types and associated acreages found on Catahoula National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Habitat 

Type Acres 

Bottomland hardwood forest 8,599 

Reforested open fields 13,868 

Moist-soil units 580 

Lakes/streams/bayous/open water 1,275 

Grassland 95 

Admin/oil and gas/roads/pipelines, etc. 745 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Since the inception of the refuge, approximately 13,868 acres have been reforested or are reverting 

naturally to a bottomland hardwood community. Primary species planted in the reforested areas are: 

(1) willow oak; (2) green ash; (3) bald cypress; (4) Nuttall oak; and (5) overcup oak. 

On the Headquarters Unit, over 464 acres have been reforested with Nuttall oak, willow oak, water 

oak, Shumard oak, persimmon, baldcypress, and green ash. In 1976, a 40-acre agricultural field in 

the French Fork area of the Headquarters Unit was taken out of production and reforested with Nuttall 

oak seedlings by Boy Scouts. About five acres near the headquarters office were reforested in 1980-

81 with Nuttall oak, water oak, willow oak, sweet pecan, and baldcypress. The Willow Lake area was 

reforested in 1998 (187 acres) and 1999 (232 acres), totaling 419 acres, and replanted due to failures 

in 2000 (190 acres) and 2002 (43 acres) (Figure 8). 

On the Bushley Bayou Unit, a total of 13,404 acres have been reforested. Appoximately, 9,784 acres 

have been reforested for future potential carbon sequestration credits under the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Global Climate Change Program. This program aims to reduce greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere, partly by the sequestration of carbon in biomass. In return, the program creates a 

record of emissions’ reductions that could possibly be used by the funding clients (in this case 

American Electric Power) for “credit” against future mandatory requirements. In addition, prior to The 

Conservation Fund’s purchase of the Bushley Bayou lands, Tensas Delta Land Company reforested 

3,620 acres through the Wetlands Reserve Program, bringing the total of reforested areas to 13,404 

acres (Figure 9). 

The acreage on the Bayou Bushley Unit was planted with native oaks, including willow oak, Nuttall 

oak, overcup oak, and Shumard oak, baldcypress, green ash, and pecan trees. Within these 

reforested areas, many native “volunteer” species, including swamp privet, button bush, water elm, 

bitter pecan, green ash, sweet gum, sycamore, and river birch, have grown. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Figure 8. Reforestation on Catahoula National Widilife Refuge Headquarters Unit 
30 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Reforestation on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Moist-soil and Water Management 

Refuge staff manages water on the refuge to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds on several impoundments (Figures 10 and 11). In managing the impoundments, the 

staff creates moist-soil units that produce natural, desirable vegetation for waterfowl to consume 

during the fall and winter months. These moist-soil units also benefit shorebirds and wading birds. 

There are 16 water control structures on the refuge. 

The largest impoundment is Duck Lake, which is roughly 1,200 acres, on the Headquarters Unit. 

Water control became functional on this impoundment in 1980 with the installation of a water control 

structure within the levee at the outflow end of the impoundment. In 2001, a new water control 

structure was constructed to replace the old structure in conjunction with a federal highways road 

project whereby the Duck Lake levee was raised and widened. The new structure has two 

screwgates and a concrete weir within the structure with an 8-foot square box culvert through which 

the water flows, connecting Duck Lake to Duck Lake Slough. 

The refuge manages water levels on the Duck Lake Impoundment in coordination with Catahoula Lake 

management by raising levels before the state duck hunting season in mid-November. When the refuge 

staff closes the water control structure on Catahoula Lake, they also close the Duck Lake structure to hold 

rain and runoff in the impoundment. To draw down water on the impoundment, the refuge opens the 

water control structure to allow water to drain out of the impoundment to the outlet waters (Duck Lake 

Slough) and into the Big Bay portion of Catahoula Lake and eventually to the Catahoula Lake diversion 

canal. (Water is not drawn out of Catahoula Lake into Duck Lake. Only when there is a flood event does 

water from Catahoula Lake backflow into the Duck Lake Impoundment.) 

Several other impoundments on the Headquarters Unit have stop-log water control structures, 

including a small 7-acre impoundment on the Willow Lake area. 

The water within Cowpen Bayou on the Headquarters Unit is also managed, not for moist-soil but for 

fisheries resources. The water control structure is used to move water between Cowpen Bayou and 

Duck Lake. Cowpen Bayou and the Highway 28 borrow pits are the only water bodies on the 

Headquarters Unit open to fishing year-round. 

There are several impoundments managed for moist-soil on the Bushley Bayou Unit. Some of these 

have stop-log water control structures, including Long Lake, a 60-acre impoundment along the east 

boundary of the Bushley Bayou Unit, as well as one of the five impoundments north of Rhinehart Lake 

that were constructed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Wetlands Reserve Program. The 

other four Wetlands Reserve Program impoundments are passive in that they do not have control 

structures. These permanent water areas depend on rain, backwater, or runoff to fill the impoundments. 

In addition to managing water on Catahoula Refuge, the refuge staff also manages water levels on 

Catahoula Lake. This management of Catahoula Lake water levels is critical to the productivity of the 

RAMSAR Wetland of International Importance. Historically, Catahoula Lake was a natural moist-soil 

wetland that was subject to major seasonal fluctuations in water level. Under natural conditions, the 

lake typically flooded in the winter and spring, and dried out progressively during the summer. It was 

fed primarily by Little River on the northwestern shore of the lake, as well as numerous smaller 

watercourses, entering from the north. It was also subject to backwater-flooding from the Red, Black, 

Ouachita, and Mississippi Rivers. In 1972, the Army Corps of Engineers constructed a diversion 

canal on the southeast shore of the lake to improve the ecological conditions resulting from the 

Corps’ navigation project on the Ouachita and Black Rivers, in particular, the Jonesville Lock 
32 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 10. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Figure 11. Waterfowl impoundments on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit 
34 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

 Improvement. For this improvement, the Corps constructed a water control structure between the 

diversion canal and the lake that is manipulated to simulate natural conditions on the lake. The water 

control structure is essentially a pair of gates that can be raised or lowered to varying degrees to 

retain or raise the water level. 

The State of Louisiana owns the lake bed and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

manages the resources of the lake. The Corps maintains the water control structures. Catahoula 

Refuge is responsible for water level management under a 1963 Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Corps, with two subsequent amendments, and under a 1969 tri-party agreement among the 

Corps, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Service. Water management activities are 

specified in a Water Management Plan and are for the benefit of migratory waterfowl, as well as for 

wildlife-dependent recreation, including duck hunting and fishing (USCOE et al., 1969). 

Under this Plan, on July 1, the refuge begins to gradually dewater the lake by allowing more water to 

flow out of the diversion structure on the lake and through the diversion canal to the Black River. 

This drawdown encourages production for the fall migration of shorebirds and waterfowl. When 

the drawdown is complete, approximately 5,000 acres of shallow water is left in roughly the 

center of the lakebed. Production for waterfowl includes sedges, herbs, and grasses such as 

chufa (Cyperus esculentus), spikerush (Eleocharis obtuse), smartweed (Polygonum), pondweed 

(Potamogeton), sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis), Paspalum sp., teal grass (Eragrostis 

hypnoides), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Walter’s millet (Echinochloa walteri), and 

duck potato or arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). 

Two weeks before the state duck hunting season, which generally runs from mid-November through 

January, the refuge begins to raise the level of the lake by two feet to provide habitat for migratory 

waterfowl and for hunting opportunities including boat access. The refuge holds water in the lake by 

closing the water control structure. 

After the waterfowl hunting season, the refuge raises the water level another 4.5 feet to enhance 

commercial fishing resources. Raising water levels after duck hunting season also helps minimize 

lead poisoning of ducks due to lead shot, which was used in the past for duck hunting. The water 

levels in late winter are managed towards late winter natural conditions, as much as possible. This 

includes allowing the free passage of fish through the diversion canal gates. 

Invasive Plants 

Annual control of numerous invasive species, including Chinese tallow tree, American lotus, and 

black willow is necessary on the refuge. Managing for moist-soil preferred plant species requires 

using a combination of approved herbicides, water control, and mechanical control, including discing 

and mowing, to control these invader species. 

WILDLIFE 

Catahoula Refuge was established on October 28, 1958, to provide extensive wintering habitat for 

migratory birds and waterfowl. It is one of the earliest such areas in central Louisiana acquired by the 

Government for conservation purposes, and today is home to 219 species of birds. There are 42 bird 

species nesting on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

The list in Appendix VII contains wildlife species that have been observed by refuge personnel, 

visiting ornithologists, and local birders, or are thought to occur on the refuge. Waterfowl, wading 

birds, raptors, and songbirds abound at various times of the year and one can observe them by 

driving the Wildlife Drive or hiking along levees, fields, or wooded roads. 

Waterfowl 

The MAV is a critical ecoregion for migrating and wintering ducks and geese in North America 

(Reinecke et al., 1989). The MAV was selected as one of the wintering habitat focus areas. One of 

the first tasks faced by the LMVJV was to create a model or decision tool for determining how much 

habitat was needed and a way to relate this objective to the population goals of NAWMP. The 

solution was to view wintering areas as responsible for contributing to the spring breeding population 

goals of NAWMP, proportional to the percentage of ducks historically counted in wintering areas 

(Loesch et al., 1994; Reinecke and Loesch 1996). To contribute ducks to spring populations, 

wintering areas have to provide sufficient habitat to ensure adequate winter survival. To quantify 

winter habitat requirements, the LMVJV had to identify limiting factors and it assumed foraging habitat 

was most likely to limit waterfowl populations in the MAV (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

In simple terms, the objective of the LMVJV is to provide enough foraging habitat (in duck-use-days) 

for: (1) the continental duck population goal of NAWMP; (2) multiplied times the proportion of ducks 

typically wintering in the MAV area; (3) adjusted for ducks that die during winter but require habitat 

before they die; (4) multiplied by the average number of days ducks are present; and (5) multiplied by 

the amount of food required per duck per day. These calculations generate the need for millions of 

duck-days of foraging habitat value. Research indicates that foods used by mallards, pintails, wood 

ducks, and other species emphasized by NAWMP generally are obtained in three primary habitats: 

moist-soil areas, croplands, and forested wetlands. The ability of these habitats to provide duck-usedays of foraging habitat has been summarized (Reinecke et al., 1989; Loesch et al., 1994; Reinecke 

and Loesch 1996); this information is used by the LMVJV to calculate the acres of various 

combinations of habitat needed to satisfy population goals. 

The process of relating habitat objectives for individual management areas to overall habitat 

objectives for the MAV involved several steps. First, habitat objectives were allocated among states 

relative to historic abundance of waterfowl. Then, knowledgeable managers within states determined 

strategies for meeting state habitat objectives by allocating percentages of the objectives to habitats 

with managed or naturally flooded water regimes and habitats on public or private lands. One result 

of this step-down process was to clearly define the collective habitat objectives of state and federal 

wildlife areas in the MAV relative to objectives of the LMVJV, which, in turn, were related to the 

NAWMP. The collective objectives of state and federal wildlife areas then were assigned to individual 

management areas based on waterfowl management capabilities. 

Catahoula Refuge goals are to provide important foraging and resting habitats within the MAV for 

waterfowl and serve an integral role in NAWMP. The step-down objectives, originally expressed in 

acres that were established for Catahoula Refuge, are provided in Table 3. Duck-use-day objectives 

were calculated by multiplying the acreage objective by the assumed duck-use-day standard 

developed by the LMVJV for that habitat type. The acreage objective is more reflective of the 

originally established objective, but is not as descriptive as a duck-use-day objective. Complicating 

the reliability of the duck-use-day objective is the failure to include geese in the objective and the 

need for a review of the step-down process to further refine objectives based on more up-to-date 

information, a process that started in spring 2006 and should finish in 2007. 
36 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Step-down and LMVJV Objectives 

Objective 

(ac) DUDs Current Capabilities (ac) DUDs 

Bottomland forest 204 22,848 0 0 

Moist-soil 425 589,050 293 405,634 

Total 629 611,898 16,458 405,634 

The LDWF conducts midwinter and monthly waterfowl population surveys of the Catahoula Lake area 

each year and the refuge assists the state in these surveys. Limited amounts of data are available for 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. A breakdown of overall duck use by percentage for December 

2003 indicates that ring-necked duck (50 percent) was the largest user group, followed by greenwinged teal (20 percent), wigeon (10 percent), mallard (10 percent), and pintail (10 percent). 

Catahoula Refuge is designated as a Globally Important Bird Area for wintering and migrating 

waterfowl. Peak numbers of waterfowl occur in the area around December and January. The 

adjacent Catahoula Lake is also considered a Globally Important Bird Area with waterfowl population 

estimates ranging from 26,000 to 273,000 (2001-2002), which include mallards, pintail, ring-necked 

duck, canvasback, wigeon, gadwall, green-winged teal, scaup, and northern shoveler. 

Wood ducks reside all year and prefer the secluded forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, and 

tree-lined bayous on the refuge. They reach their greatest population level on the refuge in the fall. In the 

Bushley Bayou Unit, the bottomland hardwood forest around Dempsey Lake provides excellent wood 

duck production habitat. Important wood duck habitat is also found around the many other shallow lakes 

within this unit, including Round Lake, Rhinehart Lake, Long Lake, and Black Lake. 

Woodcock 

American woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the 

eastern United States. Woodcock populations in this region have declined 19 percent from 1968 to 

1990. Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with land 

conversion and the maturing of forest habitats. 

Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush and understory, especially 

those in close association with agricultural fields and old field succession. These sites are typically 

wet thickets with a high density of plant stems with the ground open and clear. Typical cover includes 

privet, cane, and briars that result from openings in the canopy. The scrub/shrub and dense habitats 

found in certain portions of the refuge provide good daytime cover for woodcock. These habitats 

result from reforestation, old field succession, ice storms, and forest management practices, which 

also benefit priority forest interior nesting land birds (e.g., Swainson’s warbler and cerulean warbler), 

and other wildlife. 

Woodcock have been observed around the edges of the refuge boundary and Catahoula Lake, as 

well as within the reforested areas of the Bushley Bayou Unit, especially at dusk. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Shorebirds and Wading Birds 

Shorebirds migrate through the MAV from the southernmost parts of South America to the 

northernmost part of North America. They typically probe in soft mud (mudflats) and shallow water 

for worms and small crustaceans. In the MAV, these birds generally move through during spring and 

fall, foraging as they migrate. They may spend only ten days in the MAV. Few shorebirds overwinter 

or nest in the summer in the MAV. Habitat is generally more limited during their fall migration in the 

MAV than the spring. 

Shorebirds can be found using the mudflats and shallow water areas of Duck Lake and its tailwaters 

and the impoundments within the Willow Lake Unit of the Headquarters Unit and the Minnow Ponds, 

Ducks Unlimited-Wetlands Reserve Program Ponds, Rhinehart Lake, Round Lake, and Long Lake 

located within the Bushley Bayou Unit. Shorebirds have been observed from spring to fall in these 

areas, but the highest use occurs as the lakes and impoundments are drawn down from July 1 

through October 31. 

Marsh birds, such as the Virginia and sora rails, use the moist-soil areas on the refuge during the fall 

and spring. Wading birds, such as great blue herons, snowy and cattle egrets, great egrets, tricolored herons, glossy ibis, green herons, and white ibis, are abundant. They use the shoreline of 

Catahoula Lake and the nearby sloughs and flooded depressions. 

Landbirds 

Many species of songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of widespread habitat loss, 

particularly loss of bottomland hardwood forests and riparian woodlands, as well as early successional 

habitats, such as grasslands and scrub. The refuge has over 8,599 acres of mature bottomland 

hardwood forests and there are more than 13,868 acres of reforested habitat (currently scrub habitat) that 

will grow into a mature bottomland forest. A large variety of neotropical migratory birds are common in the 

refuge’s different habitat types. Some common year-round residents include the Carolina chickadee, 

tufted titmouse, northern mocking bird, and red-winged blackbird. Yellow-bellied sapsuckers, white-eyed 

vireo, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler and white-throated sparrow are some birds common in the 

winter. A bird list is available for Catahoula Refuge in Appendix VII. 

The refuge has set aside about 95 acres on the Willow Lake Unit for grassland species that are 

declining in abundance in the MAV. This area, which is kept open by mowing, provides habitat for the 

dickcissel, LeConte’s sparrow, and Henslow’s sparrow. 

Raptors frequent the fallow fields and reforested areas in search of rodents. Northern harrier, 

American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and Cooper’s hawk are some raptors observed on the refuge. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been seen wintering on the refuge for many years, although 

there are no known nesting sites. They visit the refuge during their migration through the area and are 

classified as transient. Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) habitat exists on the refuge and 

it is conceivable that a transient black bear may occur. With the recent discovery of an ivory-billed 

woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) at the Central Arkansas Refuge Complex, there is a possibility, 

however slight, that this refuge could provide some form of habitat now and in the future. 
38 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Species of Concern 

Ospreys, woodstorks, northern harriers, swallow-tail kites, and alligator snapping turtles are species 

of special concern occasionally reported in this area. 

Mammals 

Mammals that are thought to occur on the refuge and are associated with bottomland hardwood 

forests include white-tailed deer, fox and gray squirrels, swamp and cottontail rabbits, armadillos, 

beaver, bobcat, coyote, opossum, and raccoon. Nutria, muskrat, mink, raccoon, opossum, beaver, 

and otter are the primary furbearers. Of these, the beaver, muskrat, river otter, nutria, and mink are 

associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and riverine systems. 

Problem Wildlife 

Beavers, raccoons, and feral hogs cause damage on the refuge. Beavers interfere with water 

management activities by clogging water control structures with debris. They can also cause flooding 

in reforested areas. The refuge staff controls beavers by trapping and shooting. USDA Wildlife 

Services has been contracted to remove beavers by trapping for the past three years on the Bushley 

Bayou Unit. Excessive numbers of raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest 

breeding birds and wild turkeys. 

Feral hogs have been a problem on the Headquarters Unit for a number of years and are becoming 

an increasing problem on the Bushley Bayou Unit. There is a large amount of scientific evidence on 

the adverse effects of feral hogs on habitat productivity and on reproduction of native wildlife 

(Barrett et al., 1988). They are omnivores, use virtually every component of the habitat, and are in 

direct competition with native wildlife, including deer. They root in the reforested areas, killing and 

eating seedlings, and can diminish regeneration in established hardwood forests because of their 

appetite for acorns. The feeding habit of hogs can disturb small, ground-dwelling mammals, 

amphibians, and reptiles. They also damage levees and roads. The refuge allows hunting of feral 

hogs as incidental to other regulated hunting. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Amphibian management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global amphibian 

declines. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation appear to be the primary factors in declines. This 

group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for their survival and they also serve as important 

indicators of environmental health. Although no amphibian and reptile surveys have been conducted on 

Catahoula Refuge to determine species occurrence or population levels, lists of potential species, 

including frogs, turtles, and snakes, from some surveys in similar habitats are found in Appendix VII. 

Fish 

Impoundments and streams on the refuge are restocked during backwater flooding. Seasonal 

flooding of wooded areas provides a vast quantity of spawning and feeding habitat for numerous 

sport, commercial, and forage fishes. These species include largemouth bass, spotted bass, black 

crappie, white crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish, white bass, channel catfish, blue catfish, flathead 

catfish, alligator gar, largemouth and smallmouth buffalo, freshwater drum, and shad. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historical Background 

This region of Louisiana has long been settled and used by humans, in good part because of its mild 

winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Local and regional archaeological resources have 

been identified from the Paleo-Indian and Meso-Indian era (2000 B.C. – 1600 A.D.). Although the 

first people entered what is now Mississippi about 12,000 years ago, the earliest major phase of 

earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until some 2,100 years ago. Mounds continued 

to be built sporadically for another 1,800 years. Of the mounds that remain today, some of the 

earliest were built to bury important members of local tribal groups. These mounds were usually 

rounded dome shapes. Later mounds were rectangular, flat-topped earthen platforms upon which 

temples or residences of chiefs were erected. 

The Ancient Anilco, a state-recognized historic site, is an 80-foot tall Great Mound located in 

Jonesville, in Catahoula Parish. It was visited by Hernando De Soto in 1542 and was the site of a 

later battle between Spanish explorers and local Native Americans. 

European settlement in LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes started with the Spanish in the 1760s. 

American settlement in the two parishes began in earnest in the earliest years of the 19th century 

when they were both part of Louisiana Territory’s Rapides Parish. 

The immediate vicinity of the present-day Catahoula Refuge was the location of numerous settler 

activities. Harrisonburg and Alexandria to the west were joined by a trail begun in 1800 as an overland 

trade route. The bluffs above Catahoula Lake (along its western shoreline) and the area along the north 

bank of the Little River were the location of several communities. A store developed at Rhinehart, just 

east of the Catahoula Lake, as early as 1807. Eventually a trail from Natchez, Mississippi, into east 

Texas would cut through LaSalle Parish. By the 1820s and 1830s, much of the hill country of LaSalle and 

Catahoula Parishes was settled. By 1833, the White Sulphur Springs resort was offering healing waters, 

fishing on Trout Creek and the Little River, hiking, gambling, and a dance hall. 

During the Civil War, Confederate soldiers built four forts to guard the Ouachita River. One of these, 

Fort Beauregard, located in Harrisonburg, survives and is a state historic site. 

During the late 19th century, Urania became a center of the newly developing timber industry, which 

sought to exploit the stands of hardwoods such as cypress. By the early part of the 20th century, 

LaSalle Parish (created in 1910) and Catahoula Parish had experienced industrial expansion as the 

Louisiana and Arkansas Railroad cut through the region. Oil was discovered near Tullos in the 

1920s. Currently, there is a federally recognized tribe, the Jena Band of Choctaws, located in LaSalle 

Parish. They do not currently own or live on a reservation (Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, No date; 

Online Highways, No Date; Encyclopedia Louisiana Online, No Date). 

Cultural Resource Protection 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access 

To "Indian Sacred Sites," to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any 

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, 
40 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are 

related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as 

a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. 

Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, 

and that is of archaeological interest. 

Section 106 of the NHPA provides the framework for federal review and consideration of cultural 

resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing regulations for the 

Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). The Secretary of the Interior maintains the NRHP and sets forth significance 

criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be considered “historic 

properties” for the purpose of consideration by a federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or 

program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, 

including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial 

assistance; those requiring a federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to state or local 

regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency.” Historic properties 

are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those that meet 

the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion. 

Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources 

management in the Service is the responsibility of the regional director and is not delegated for the 

Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing 

archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The regional historic preservation officer 

(RHPO) advises the regional director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of the 

several cultural resources laws. The refuge manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO early 

about Service undertakings, by protecting archaeological sites and historic properties on lands 

managed and administered by the Service, by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors 

and permittees, and by reporting violations. 

The refuge follows these procedures to protect any cultural/historic legacy that may potentially occur 

on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy 

earth-moving equipment like tractors, graders, and bulldozers, such as for the development of moistsoil units, the refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an 

archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to the RHPO 

as well as the state historic preservation officer (SHPO), which in Louisiana is an archaeologist within 

the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development 

(Williams 2005; Bush 2005). 

The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that 

is, whether any properties listed in or eligible or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If 

cultural resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify 

the SHPO immediately. 

To date, there have been two comprehensive archaeological surveys on the refuge; however, no 

properties have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. Cultural resource surveys within the 

refuge have focused on the eastern shore area of Catahoula Lake (Wiseman et al., 1978; Boggess 

1991). Given the region’s settlement during both the prehistoric and historic periods, the likelihood of 

cultural resources is considered relatively high (Wiseman et al., 1978). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Seventy-three percent of the land area of the 25,000-acre refuge is located in Catahoula Parish; the 

remainder is in LaSalle Parish. These parishes are strategically situated in central Louisiana, in a 

region known as the crossroads of the state because of its location, which is convenient to all the 

major cities of Louisiana. The nearest major city is Alexandria (population 46,342), roughly 30 miles 

southeast of the refuge (USCB 2000). 

The total population of Catahoula Parish was estimated at 10,615 in 2003 (USCB 2004). This estimate 

reflects a slight decline from the 10,920 people counted during the 2000 Census (USCB 2000). 

Neighboring LaSalle Parish, which contains only 30 percent of the refuge, has a slightly larger population 

of 14,179. Catahoula Parish has a median household income of $22,528, as shown in Table 4. The 

percent of families below the poverty level, 22.6 percent, is higher than the state’s average of 15.8 

percent. Educational attainment measured by percentage of persons over 25 with high school diplomas 

or higher, is 62 percent in Catahoula Parish and 69 percent in LaSalle Parish, lower than the state’s 

average of 74.8 percent. LaSalle Parish has a slightly higher median household income of $28,189 and a 

lower poverty level (14.9 percent) than Catahoula Parish and the state. 

Table 4. Socioeconomic statistics for Catahoula and LaSalle Parishes 

Population 

(2003 

Estimate) 

Median 

household 

income 

Percent 

below 

poverty 

level 

Educational 

attainment (% 

with high 

school 

education) 

Unemployment 

(March 2004) 

Catahoula 10,615 $22,528 22.6% 62% 10.5% 

LaSalle 14,179 $28,189 14.9% 69% 7.4% 

Louisiana 3.4 million $32,566 15.8% 74.8% 5.9% 

Source: BLS 2004; USCB 2000; USCB 2004 

Unemployment rates for both parishes tend to be higher than the state or national averages. In 2004, 

Catahoula Parish had 10.5 percent unemployment rate and LaSalle had 7.4 percent unemployment, 

compared to a state average of 5.9 percent and a national average of 5.7 percent (BLS 2004). 

Forestry dominates the local economic base and International Paper Company is a major employer. 

Other major industries for the parishes and the surrounding region include oil and gas services, 

apparel manufacturing, and agriculture. The leading field crops consist of sorghum (grain), soybeans, 

wheat, corn, and oats (NASS 2004). 

Wildlife-dependent recreation includes fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. Wildlifewatching includes observing, photographing, and feeding fish and wildlife. The 2001 National Survey 

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USCB 2003) quantifies the economic 

impacts of these activities on a state level (Table 5). 
42 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 5. Fishing, hunting, and wildlife-dependent recreation in Louisiana 

Source: USCB. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

The survey estimates 970,000 people participated in fishing in the state, resulting in total 

expenditures of over $700 million dollars. Wildlife watching attracted nearly as many participants, 

with 935,000 participants, but resulted in considerably less expenditure. Hunting resulted in $446 

million in total expenditures from its 333,000 participants. The total from all these activities, including 

trip-related expenses, equipment purchases, and licenses and services amounted to over $1.3 billion 

in 2001 (USCB 2003). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge now totals 25,242 acres, with a current approved acquisition boundary of 28,254 acres. 

The 6,671-acre Headquarters Unit borders nine miles of the northeast shore of Catahoula Lake, a 

26,000-acre natural wetland renowned for its large concentrations of migratory waterfowl. The 

18,571-acre Bushley Bayou Unit, located eight miles west of Jonesville in Catahoula Parish, was 

established in May 2001. The acquisition was made possible through a partnership agreement 

between The Conservation Fund, American Electric Power, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by 

the Service, totaling 3,012 acres. Several of these parcels compromise refuge management due to 

conflicting management purposes and disturbance to wildlife. Acquisition or exchange of these 

parcels would eliminate access issues, improve management options, and tighten some unclear and 

confusing boundary issues. 

Refuge access by the public and staff members is also difficult on the Bushley Bayou Unit of the 

refuge. Expansion of the refuge boundary would greatly increase access by staff and the public and 

would further the refuge’s mission to conserve, restore, and protect migratory birds and threatened 

and endangered species, especially migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, and possibly the 

threatened Louisiana black bear. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. In fiscal year 

2002, people visited refuges (in the lower 48 states) more than 35.5 million times for recreation and 

environmental education. Their spending generated $809.2 million of sales in regional economies. 

As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 19,000 people were employed and $315.2 

million in employment income was generated (Laughland and Caudill 2003). 

Activity # of participants Activity Days Avg. days/ 

partici-pant 

Total expenditures ($1,000) 

Trip-related 

expendi-tures 

($1,000) 

Equipment and 

other 

($1,000) 

Average 

$/ participant 

Average trip 

expendi-ture/ 

day 

Fishing 970,000 12,637,000 13 $703,373 $398,751 $304,622 $743 $32 

Hunting 333,000 6,442,000 19 $446,204 $120,668 $325,536 $1,120 $19 

Wildlife 

Watching 935,000 N/A N/A $168,420 $55,424 $112,996 $180 NA 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

The six priority uses of the refuge are fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

The majority of public use occurs on the Headquarters Unit with some uses on the Bushley Bayou 

Unit (Figures 12 and 13). Facilities on the refuge include an auto tour route, boat ramps, foot trails, 

all-terrain vehicle trails, and an observation tower. There are three Service-owned boat ramps on the 

refuge on Duck Lake and Cowpen Bayou. The state also maintains a boat ramp on the French Fork 

of Little River at Catahoula Lake. 

Fishing 

Fishing opportunities are offered year-round on Cowpen Bayou and the Highway 28 borrow pits of the 

Headquarters Unit. However, Muddy Bayou, Duck Lake, Willow Lake, the Highway 84 borrow pits, and 

all other refuge waters on the Headquarters Unit are opened to fishing from March 1 through October 31. 

At the Bushley Bayou Unit, Dempsey Lake (30 acres) is a quality sportfishing lake. Bushley Bayou, 

which runs the entire length of the unit, offers additional sportfishing opportunities, especially during 

spring high water. Typical game species sought are bluegill, crappie, bass, and catfish. Several 

other lakes, such as Round Lake, Long Lake, and Rhinehart Lake, are too shallow to provide a yearround quality sport fishery; however, during periods of high water these lakes support good 

populations of catfish, carp, and buffalo. Crawfishing is also extremely popular in these lakes and 

other shallow water areas. Recreational fishing and crawfishing are allowed year-round on this unit. 

Motors of 10 horsepower or less are allowed on interior lakes within the Bushley Bayou Unit and on 

all Headquarters Unit waters. There is no horsepower limit on motors used on Bushley Creek, Big 

Bushley Creek, and Little Bushley Creek. 

At the Bushley Bayou Unit, recreational gear (i.e., slat traps, wire nets, and hoop nets) is allowed only by 

refuge special use permits and only in Bushley Creek, Big Bushley Creek, and Little Bushley Creek. 

Trotlines and yo-yos are only allowed on the Bushley Bayou Unit and have the following regulations. 

Trotlines must be tended at least once every 24 hours and reset when exposed by receding water 

levels, and must be attached with the length of cotton line that extends into the water. Trotlines must 

be removed when not in use. Yo-yos must be attended, and may be used during daylight hours only. 

Commercial fishing and commercial crawfishing are not allowed on refuge waters. 

All fishing and hunting are in accordance with state regulations and require a valid state hunting or 

fishing license. In addition hunters and fishermen must comply with refuge regulations. 

All-terrain vehicles are allowed on designated refuge trails at the Bushley Bayou Unit. Some of these 

trails are open year-round for fishing and hunting access. The remainder, which does not lead to any 

fishing areas, is closed from March 1 through August 31. 

Hunting 

Hunting is the next most popular recreational activity. Over 18,000 acres are open to hunting on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit and over 6,000 acres on the Headquarters Unit. On the Headquarters Unit, the 

refuge holds a short small game season in October for rabbit and squirrel. Hunters are allowed to 

access the refuge two hours before official sunrise and are required to exit the refuge no later than 

two hours after official sunset. Hunters are allowed access to the Headquarters Unit for deer, 

squirrel, and rabbit hunting. The Bushley Bayou Unit is open to deer, squirrel, rabbit, rails, gallinule, 
44 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 12. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Unit 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Figure 13. Visitor services on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit 
46 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

snipe, woodcock, and waterfowl hunting. Archery hunting is open the entire state season. On the 

Bushley Unit, there are three big game hunts for deer, including 5 days of gun hunting, 7 days of 

muzzleloader hunting, and 100+ days of archery hunting. These hunts are non-quota and require 

only a signed refuge hunt regulation brochure, which is available at the refuge office, at sign-in 

stations located at most major entrances, and at some local hunting/fishing stores. Deer hunters are 

allowed to take only one deer per day and are not required to check them in. However, they must 

sign in and out for each hunt. Squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, and feral hogs may be taken during the 

archery hunt. Hogs and raccoons may be taken during all refuge hunts. 

The state permits duck hunting on Catahoula Lake. The refuge allows duck hunting four days a week 

on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays until noon, during the state season only on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit, except in the 160-acre no-hunting zone in the minnow pond area. Other 

migratory bird hunting for woodcock, snipe, and rails is open during state seasons only on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit. Boats, decoys, and portable blinds must be removed at the end of each day. 

No permanent blinds are allowed. A youth waterfowl hunt in the East Zone is allowed until noon of 

the state youth waterfowl season. No waterfowl or migratory bird hunting is permitted on the 

Headquarters Unit. Hunters under the age of 16 must have completed a hunter education course and 

be accompanied by an adult 21 years of age or older. Hunting is in accordance with state regulations 

and requires a valid state hunting license. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

There are many opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography on the refuge, which currently has 

two designated hiking trails, an observation tower, and a 9-mile wildlife auto drive on the 

Headquarters Unit. Other units provide more trails, roads, and diverse habitats. 

The most popular facility on the refuge for wildlife observation is the observation tower, which 

overlooks a lake that draws a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors. The wildlife 

drive parallels Cowpen Bayou that provides a chance to see varied bird species, alligators, turtles, 

otters, and other wildlife. Much of the wildlife drive takes visitors through a bottomland hardwood 

forest where bobcat, white-tailed deer, and feral hogs can be seen. There is also some bird watching 

along the dirt roads on the Bushley Bayou Unit. 

Although no photo blind is provided, visitors may use various haul roads to get into the woods or 

close to Duck Lake, which provides a close-up view of the birds using the refuge. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Along the auto tour road on the Headquarters Unit, there are many opportunities to stop at the 

observation tower or to take a half-mile walk along the nature trail. There is an open-air kiosk with an 

interpretive display, which needs to be updated, on the Headquarters Unit. Most of the entrances to 

the refuge have hunter sign-in/sign-out boxes that include a kiosk with refuge information. 

Environmental education programs are not available on-site because facilities do not allow for such 

programs. However, the refuge provides environmental programs for schools and community 

organizations when requested. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Catahoula Refuge includes three full-time staff members: refuge manager, GS-0485-11; office 

assistant, GS-0303-07; and engineering equipment operator, WG-5710-10. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

The refuge has earth-moving, vegetation control, and water management machinery and equipment that 

is vital to pursuing its purpose. The equipment is kept at the maintenance compound, which is located on 

the Headquarters Unit. However, much of this equipment is outdated and in need of replacement. 

The annual budget of the refuge varies, but has averaged $271,000 over the past 5 years. 

Access to the Bushley Bayou Unit is from State Highway 126, which runs through the northern portion 

of the refuge, from State Highway 8 on the western side of the refuge, and U.S. Highway 84 to the 

south. The only public access to the refuge lands that does not require crossing private land is by 

State Highway 126. Access to the Headquarters Unit is from Highway 28 and Highway 84. 

There are 13.68 miles of gravel roads and 4.4 miles of dirt roads on the Headquarters Unit. There 

are roughly 7 miles of gravel roads, 5.65 miles of dirt roads, and 21.6 miles of all-terrain vehicle trails 

on the Bushley Bayou Unit. 
48 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

III. Plan Development

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input and 

assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state 

agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting 

the management direction for the refuge. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, 

are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. 

The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and 

waters administered by the refuge. 

Initial planning began in October 2004, with a pre-planning meeting of Service personnel. Early in the 

process of developing the plan, the planning team identified a list of issues and concerns that were 

likely to be associated with the conservation and management of the refuge. Also, in preparation for 

developing the plan, a wildlife and habitat (biological) review was conducted on the refuge during the 

week of October 20-22, 2004, by a team of Service biologists, managers, foresters, and non-Service 

managers and biologists. A report for the biological review was completed in February 2005. A 

Visitor Services Review was completed in December 2004. 

Public input to the development of the plan was initiated through a notice of intent published in the 

Federal Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10109), and a public scoping meeting held on 

March 22, 2005. At the meeting, interested stakeholders were able to register their concerns to 

ensure that they would be considered during the development of the plan. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and 

wildlife population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and 

refuge administration. Key issues include invasive plants and nuisance animals, wintering waterfowl 

distribution and use of the refuge, breeding waterfowl, forest breeding birds, all-terrain vehicle use 

and access, and hunt programs. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state 

mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the 

process of obtaining public input through a public scoping meeting, which was held on March 22, 

2005, at the Jena Elementary School in Jena, Louisiana. The meeting was publicized by a press 

release in the local papers in Jena, Jonesville, and Alexandria. 

There were 34 attendees at the meeting, and 7 meeting attendees provided public comment. Seven 

citizens sent comment letters to the refuge. The following is a summary of comments from the public 

scoping meeting and letters. 
50 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife 

Population Management 

y Provide better control of the beaver causing flooding on 

nearby lands and impacting timber. 

y Control the hog problem with an extended archery or 

small-caliber rifle season. 

y Introduce wild turkeys on the refuge. 

y Wintering waterfowl use and distribution. 

Habitat Management y Provide maintenance for water control structures and 

pump stations. 

y Provide canal maintenance. 

Visitor Services y Allow boats and gear to be left on the refuge within 

guidelines. 

y Ban shallow water drive motors, which disturb wildlife. 

y Prohibit hunting. 

y Allow hunting with dogs. 

y Allow deer hunters to leave their stands in place with time 

restrictions (4 comments). 

y Restrict vehicle access during hunting season. 

y Provide a youth hunt on Bushley Bayou Unit and a 

primitive hunt on the Headquarters Unit. 

y Allow duck and deer hunting on the same day. 

y Provide better access to the Bushley Bayou Unit by 

replacing the bridge. 

y Open the trail to Long Lake. 

y Bushhog the old road along the woods leading to 

Dempsey. 

y Allow horseback riding. 

y Allow more all-terrain vehicle access, especially near Long 

Lake and the new ponds, and keep trails open all year, not 

just for wildlife-dependent activities. 

Refuge Administration y Provide protection against trespassers, for wildlife, and 

against littering and dumping, as well as for hunting and 

fishing compliance checks. 

y Increase refuge staff. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues important to the 

public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team has 

considered all issues that were raised through this planning process, and has developed a plan that 

attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those 

issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary 

of the significant issues follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Nuisance and Invasive Species 

An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is (1) nonnative (or alien) to the ecosystem under 

consideration, and (2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). Invasive species can be plants, animals, 

and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Deliberate or inadvertent human actions are the primary 

means of invasive species introductions. 

Several nuisance and invasive species occur on the refuge. Some of the more prominent and 

obvious wildlife are nutria, beaver, and feral hogs. These species were either accidentally released 

and became acclimated to living in the wild, were intentionally released for sport or trade, or have 

expanded their range. 

It is often necessary to monitor and sometimes necessary to control certain wildlife species, such as 

nutria, beaver, and feral hogs, to protect native habitats and wildlife in order to maintain healthy 

wildlife populations and to provide safety for visitors. Feral hogs have been sporadically controlled by 

allowing hunters to take them as incidentals. 

A commenter would like to see beaver controlled on the refuge. Beaver, a resident wildlife species, 

has become a serious pest by building dams that hold water on trees, causing die-offs of mature 

bottomland hardwoods. Trapping could be allowed by special use permit, recreationally by refuge 

hunting permit, by USDA Wildlife Services, or by some other entity hired to trap the beaver in order to 

keep their population in check. 

Some of these nuisance and invasive plants, including Chinese tallow tree and native black willow, have 

been spreading extensively on the refuge, as has American lotus, which has at times covered Duck Lake. 

These species are overtaking and displacing other native vegetation. Control of these nuisance and 

invasive plant species has been opportunistic and sporadic, using both herbicides and mowing. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals are important 

responsibilities delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Several federal threatened 

and endangered species are thought to use, or could use, Catahoula Refuge, including the bald eagle 

and the Louisiana black bear. 

Resident Wildlife 

While the Service’s and the Refuge System’s priority is the protection of federal trust species (e.g., 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fishes and marine mammals), the 

Refuge System’s mission clearly states that refuges should also provide for other wildlife, such as resident 

species. In other words, by acquiring refuge lands, the Service also assumes responsibility for managing 
52 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

the resident wildlife that may be dependent on refuge resources, but not to the exclusion or detriment of 

the purpose for which the refuge was established. A variety of wildlife species indigenous to the MAV 

inhabit Catahoula Refuge. Some of the more notable are those easily seen by the general public, such as 

white-tailed deer and cottontail rabbits. Many of these species are also available to the public for hunting 

opportunities, which elevates their importance to the public and land managers. 

A commenter suggested that another upland game species, wild turkey, be introduced on the refuge 

and possibly serve as brood stock for surrounding lands where they may be hunted. 

Migratory Birds 

A major priority for the refuge is migratory birds. Providing high-quality wintering habitat that meets 

feeding, resting, and breeding needs of waterfowl guides a majority of the operation and management 

actions on the refuge. Providing undisturbed waterfowl sanctuaries while providing quality hunting 

opportunities is another significant issue. 

Peak spring migration for shorebirds occurs from March to mid-May. Habitat for northbound 

shorebird migration seems to be sufficient with the possible exception of the Minnow Ponds on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit. Southbound fall migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, 

and tapers off toward winter, usually lasting until at least the end of October. Shallow-flooded or 

mudflat habitats in late summer and fall are critical for quality habitat. The already established 

management regime provides excellent habitat in copious amounts and existing shorebird 

management practices should be continued. 

Forest Breeding Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds are of special management concern. The biological review results 

outlined that the current condition of the mature forest on the refuge is mid-successional and 

considered to be of poor quality for most priority songbirds. The refuge will need to work toward 

opening the canopy to develop vertical and horizontal structure in the mature forest and maintaining 

vertical and horizontal diversity in the Bushley Bayou Unit as the forests mature to improve habitat for 

forest breeding birds. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

The refuge is situated within the physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). 

The MAV was once a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that extended along both sides of the 

Mississippi River from Illinois to southern Louisiana. The extent and duration of annual flooding from 

the Mississippi River fluctuated annually and served to recharge aquatic systems, creating rich, 

dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. 

As civilization pushed westward, the highest, least flood-prone lands were cleared and converted to 

rich farmland. With success in agriculture and an expanding human population, more land was being 

cleared and additional flood control measures were implemented. Today, the MAV is dissected by 

levees and a myriad of flood control projects and supports less than five million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests. The fish and wildlife resources have mirrored the decline in the forest. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Although reforestation is the obvious “fix” for the vast forests that have been converted to row-crop 

agriculture, it must always be remembered that hydrology (i.e., flooding) drives the ecological system 

in the valley. It is imperative that managers remember that reforestation is only part of the solution. 

Restoring or mimicking a natural hydrologic cycle in conjunction with reforestation is needed. 

Large areas have been reforested on the refuge. Currently, there are 8,599 acres of maturing 

bottomland hardwood forest and 13,868 acres of reforestation. The refuge will continue to manage 

and enhance these areas with the goal of providing a diverse habitat for waterfowl, neotropical 

migratory birds, and resident wildlife species. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Pollution Prevention 

There were ongoing oil and gas operations on the refuge when it was established in 1958. While the 

Federal Government owns the surface rights, private parties own the sub-surface mineral rights. 

State law allows these private owners to use usual and customary methods to access those minerals. 

These methods include establishing road beds, well head and tank farm pads, and pipeline rights-ofway through the refuge. These activities typically have, as a part of their operations, characteristics 

that are not compatible with refuge purposes, such as noise and wildlife disturbance and harassment. 

In addition, operations are also often associated with oil spills; dust/erosion/hydrological 

alteration/loss of habitat from oil field roads; loss of habitat; erosion on pipeline rights-of-way; and air, 

water, soil, sediment, and biota pollution. 

Refuge management needs to work with operators to remedy risks of spills, as well as to reduce 

noise, air, soil, and water pollution from oil and gas operations on the refuge. The refuge needs to 

monitor operations on the refuge and incorporate the special use permit system into all phases of oil 

and gas management where possible. Special permit conditions should allow clear communications 

to operators concerning refuge requirements and should serve as references in the event of future 

disputes. Special permit conditions should also establish a fair and uniform set of rules for all refuge 

oil and gas operators. 

Refuge Expansion Needs 

There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by 

the Service. Several of these compromise refuge management due to conflicting management 

purposes and disturbance to wildlife. Refuge access by the public and staff members is also difficult 

on the Bushley Bayou Unit of the refuge. 

The refuge plans to work with “inholding” landowners to acquire or exchange lands that would eliminate 

unwanted access across the refuge and improve access for employees and the public. Acquisition or 

exchange of these parcels would eliminate access issues, improve management options, and resolve 

some unclear and confusing boundary issues. In addition, expansion of the refuge boundary within 10 

percent of the current acquisition boundary would also greatly increase refuge access. 

Cultural Resources 

With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal Government recognized the 

importance of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to protect archaeological sites and 

historic structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by the United States. The body of 

historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. The National Historic Preservation Act 
54 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

of 1966 and its Section 104 have a particular bearing on all federal agencies. Several themes recur 

in the laws and the promulgating regulations. They include: (1) Each agency is to systematically 

inventory the “historic properties” on their holdings and to scientifically assess each property’s 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; (2) Federal agencies are to consider the impacts 

to cultural resources during the agencies’ management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate 

adverse impacts; (3) The protection of cultural resources from looting and vandalism is to be 

accomplished through a mix of informed management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; 

and (4) There is an increasing role for consultation with groups, such as Native American tribes, to 

address how a project or management activity may impact specific archaeological sites and 

landscapes deemed important to those groups. 

Refuge management needs to conduct a comprehensive archaeological survey of all refuge lands and 

develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer on the archaeological and historic sites for use in 

planning. In addition, the refuge should seek to develop a partnership with the Jena Band of Choctaw 

Indians for interpreting the significance of refuge sites to Native Americans and the general public. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority Public Use 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 has established six priority public uses on 

refuge lands when they are compatible and desirable for that specific refuge. These priority uses are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Hunting and Fishing 

As expressed in the public scoping meeting, hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge are of 

great public interest. Public comments expressed interest in enhancing hunting opportunities by 

holding special youth hunts and by providing youth hunt blinds in the Minnow Ponds on the Bushley 

Bayou Unit. Other comments included providing for handicap-accessible hunts, a three-day weekend 

hunt, not closing the waterfowl season during the gun hunt for deer on the Bushley Bayou Unit, and 

allowing hunters to leave gear in the field during the hunting season. 

Most waterways within the refuge have been altered, allowing natural stocking of desirable gamefish 

into these waters only during periods of high water. In addition, sedimentation, contaminants, and 

access have been some of the issues hindering the development of a quality fishing program. 

Concerns about mercury contamination were discussed at the public scoping meeting. The refuge 

will continue to work with the state to monitor the situation and to post public health advisories on fish 

consumption when needed. 

Some commenters would like to see fishing opportunities at the refuge maintained and expanded by 

improving the fishery on Willow Lake, Duck Lake, and Cowpen Bayou. Others would like the refuge 

to consider not closing fishing on the Bushley Bayou Unit during deer gun season and improving 

crawfishing on the Minnow Ponds. 

To improve refuge access to the public for these priority uses, both to and within the refuge, 

commenters expressed a desire for a new boat ramp on Rhinehart Lake, for more clearly marked 

trails for hunting and hiking, and for clearing new trails. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Use of all-terrain vehicles on the refuge is limited. These vehicles are allowed on designated refuge 

trails at the Bushley Bayou Unit. Some of these trails are open year-round for fishing or hunting 

access. Some commenters would like the refuge to consider some all-terrain vehicle use during deer 

season and use for visitors who are 59 and over to make it easier to retrieve downed animals. 

Comments were also received on allowing horseback riding on the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography/Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge’s visitor services program has focused on “traditional” recreational uses, primarily hunting 

and fishing, as well as wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Due to limited staff, there has 

been less emphasis on interpretive and educational activities. The refuge wants to continue to 

expand its visitor services to include emphasis on these historically “non-traditional” uses (e.g., 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) without 

alienating the more “traditional” visitors. 

Currently, there is an observation tower on the Headquarters Unit, which provides opportunities for 

viewing wildlife, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors. At times, the number and 

variety of these birds create a spectacular sight. There are a number of opportunities for expanding 

wildlife observation and photography, including the development of additional trails. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing 

Biological and public use review teams, as well as the public, identified a need for additional staff. 

The biological review identified a need to add seven positions in order to adequately manage 

waterfowl, habitat, public use, and law enforcement objectives. 

Wilderness 

The wilderness review is a required component of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

The Wilderness Act defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management, at the time of review; 

5. is a roadless island; and 

6. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historic 

value. 

There are no designated wilderness areas on Catahoula Refuge. 
56 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats and considers the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. A 

requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified the following 

six priority wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. These uses are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Described below is the comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the next 15 

years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to 

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered in the Draft CCP/EA: Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative), Alternative B (Proposed Alternative), and Alternative C (No Management). Each 

of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives’ section of the Environmental Assessment, which 

was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Service chose Alternative B as the preferred management direction. 

Under Alternative B, management efforts will focus on achieving the refuge’s primary purposes and 

will also provide greater enhancement and management of habitats and associated plant 

communities for the greater benefit of wildlife. Extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory 

activities will be initiated to obtain the biological information needed to implement management 

programs on the refuge. The refuge will improve migratory waterfowl habitat, the wood duck nest box 

program, habitat to support breeding pairs of wading birds, and migration habitat for southbound and 

northbound shorebirds. 

Habitat management activities will focus on providing healthy bottomland hardwood forests, moist-soil 

units, and grasslands needed to achieve wildlife population objectives. Forested habitat will be 

managed to promote and maintain structural and plant species diversity and support key species of 

migratory and resident species, moist-soil quality will increase, and habitat for grassland birds will be 

improved. A summary of the current acreages by habitat type can be found in Chapter II. 

The refuge will inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate 

invasive plants. It will focus the control of nuisance wildlife on those having the greatest negative 

impact on native habitat and wildlife and will include trapping and control of furbearing species. 

An archaeological survey to identify potential cultural resources will help in planning for land 

protection. The refuge will work closely with partners to acquire or exchange lands with willing 

inholding landowners and to expand the current acquisition boundary by 1,835.2 acres in order to 

improve access for refuge staff and the public and to increase wildlife benefits (Figure 14). 
58 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 14. Proposed acquisition expansion boundary on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

The refuge will continue to work with the state and production operators to identify and eliminate potential 

spill risks from oil and gas activities, continue the special use permit system, and provide monitoring for 

first alert in spill events. In addition, as a step towards reducing pollution, refuge staff will work with the 

Service’s Division of Ecological Services to establish protocols for baseline air, soil, and water 

contamination, and to better determine the source of contaminants, such as pesticides and mercury. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities will be improved (Figures 15 and 16). Youth hunts, handicap/youth 

accessible blinds, improved access for bank fishing, addition of a new observation tower, and 

supporting environmental-based curricula in the local schools are some of the improvements planned. 

In addition, the current office facility will be expanded to accommodate environmental education and 

an interpretive display. 

Additional staff will include a biologist, forester, assistant manager, maintenance worker, park ranger 

(law enforcement officer), engineering equipment operator, and a park ranger (interpretive) to 

accomplish objectives for establishing baseline data on refuge resources, managing habitats, and for 

adequate protection of wildlife and visitors. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in well-organized, long-term management plans for 

improving refuge resources for wildlife, while providing additional opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Law 

enforcement protection will also be enhanced to assist in meeting refuge purposes. 

VISION 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge will provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and other migratory 

birds through management of bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil habitats. Management of 

these habitats will enhance protection of endangered species and increase wildlife diversity. The 

refuge will manage fish and wildlife resources to enhance public use opportunities while working in 

partnership with others. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are 

presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. The Service 

intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 
60 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 15. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Headquarters Unit 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Figure 16. Current and proposed visitor facilities on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Bushley Bayou Unit 
62 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1: Conserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migratory 

birds and other indigenous fish and wildlife. 

Background: The primary purpose of the refuge is to serve as a wintering area for migratory waterfowl. 

Refuge lands include bottomland hardwood forests, reforested areas, cypress sloughs, moist-soil units, 

and open fields and grassland areas, which provide feeding, nesting, and loafing habitat for thousands of 

wintering ducks and geese and nesting habitat for wood ducks. Non-game waterbirds using the refuge 

include shorebirds, wading birds, and marshbirds, as well as a large variety of neotropical migratory birds. 

In addition, many species of mammals, fish, and other wildlife use these areas. 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals are important 

responsibilities delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. Several federally listed 

threatened and endangered species are thought to use, or could use, the refuge lands, including the 

Louisiana black bear, the bald eagle, and the ivory-billed woodpecker. 

While the Service and the Refuge System’s priority is the protection of federal trust species (e.g., 

migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals), 

the mission clearly states that refuges should also provide for other wildlife, such as resident species, 

although never to the exclusion or detriment of the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

A variety of wildlife indigenous to the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) inhabits the refuge. Some of 

the more notable wildlife is those easily seen by the general public, such as white-tailed deer and 

cottontail rabbits. The refuge sport fisheries and crawfish populations provide sustainable 

recreational fishing opportunities. 

Objective 1-1: Wintering Waterfowl. Support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) and Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) step-down objectives by providing 

habitat in the waterfowl sanctuary and moist-soil areas. 

Discussion: The refuge is located in the western edge of the MAV, which is a critical ecoregion for 

migrating and wintering dabbling ducks, wood ducks, and geese in North America (Reinecke et al., 

1989), as well as southern breeding populations of wood ducks. 

Flooded cropland is an important component of wintering waterfowl habitat because agricultural 

seeds provide high amounts of energy (i.e., hot foods) for waterfowl. While flooded cropland can be a 

valuable habitat source for high-energy foods, waterfowl satisfy many of their needs for protein by 

foraging on aquatic invertebrates in natural wetlands. 

Two natural wetland habitats that ducks have historically used in the MAV are bottomland hardwood 

forests and moist-soil habitats (i.e., early successional grass, sedge, and other herbaceous vegetated 

wetlands). Both bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil habitats are rich in high-energy natural 

seeds (e.g., acorns, grass and sedge seeds, roots, and tubers in moist-soil areas) and aquatic 

invertebrates. Indeed, wintering waterfowl satisfied their nutritional and other physiological needs in 

these wetlands before large-scale conversion of the MAV to agriculture. 

Working under the direction of the NAWMP, the LMVJV strives to provide habitat for over-wintering 

waterfowl in the MAV and West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Regions. Based on a “stepdown” process, the LMVJV established habitat objectives for dabbling ducks that link continental 

waterfowl populations to on-the-ground habitat objectives. Habitat objectives are apportioned among 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

three categories: public managed; private managed; and naturally flooded lands within each state (in 

the LMVJV administrative boundaries). Each national wildlife refuge is responsible for contributing to 

some portion of the habitat objectives. This step-down process has been completed for the MAV and 

for the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The objectives are currently under review and will be updated due to 

additional information and research results related to data used in the step-down process. 

Strategies: 

y Devise and Implement a Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan by 2009, which includes refugespecific waterfowl inventory and monitoring protocols, standardized routes, and computerized 

databases. 

y Continue and improve water management activities on Catahoula Lake as described in the triparty agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries (USCOE et al., 1969). 

y Maintain waterfowl sanctuary and improve moist-soil areas on both the Headquarters and 

Bushley Bayou Units. 

Objective 1-2: Nesting/Resident Waterfowl. Provide 100 wood duck nesting boxes and conduct 

banding activities to support objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council. 

Discussion: Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forest lands of the United States, including 

the refuge. Preferred habitats include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined 

rivers, streams, sloughs, and beaver ponds. Wood ducks seek food in the form of acorns, other soft 

and hard mast, weed seeds, and invertebrates found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps, and 

along stream banks. They loaf and roost in more secluded areas and dense shrub swamps. 

Wood ducks are cavity nesters, seeking cavities in trees within a mile of water. Brood survival is higher 

when nests are close to water. Urban sprawl, agriculture, forestry practices, and competition for nest sites 

from a host of other species cause reproduction to be limited because of the lack of natural cavities. As a 

result, nest boxes are commonly used to supplement natural cavities and increase local production of 

wood ducks. Nest boxes require cleaning and repair at least annually. Wood duck production can be 

increased by more frequent checks and cleaning, but this must be weighed with other time constraints. 

Box checks are conducted prior to and after the nest season at a minimum, and checks during the nest 

season are typically conducted to better estimate the number of broods, nest success, and productivity. 

The refuge currently has 123 wood duck boxes with an 85 percent use rate. 

A recent publication, Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding on 

USFWS Refuge Lands (Southeast Region) (USFWS 2003), provides guidelines for the use of wood 

duck nest boxes that should be used to guide the nest box program at the refuge. 

Because wood ducks are fairly secretive birds, it is extremely difficult to estimate populations and 

survival rates. Therefore, regional banding quotas, which are stepped down to individual states and 

stations to distribute banding throughout the range of the wood duck, have been established to 

determine harvest and survival rates. The refuge has an annual preseason banding quota of 100 

wood ducks, including 13 adult males, 22 adult females, 27 immature males, and 38 immature 

females. The refuge has a history of reaching its banding quota and it is essential that this practice 

continue so that this important resource can be managed. 
64 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Maintain and monitor a minimum of 100 wood duck nest boxes following Increasing Wood 

Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding. 

y Continue to meet or exceed the preseason wood duck banding quota of 100 wood ducks, by 

age and sex. 

Objective 1-3: American Woodcock. Develop and implement forest management plans that provide 

moist mid-story and groundstory vegetation (i.e., thickets) in the forested lands for daytime cover and 

foraging habitat in moist grassland habitats for nighttime foraging by American woodcock to 

significantly contribute to the American Woodcock Management Plan (USFWS 1990). 

Discussion: Woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the 

eastern United States. Nationally, woodcock have decreased for the past decade and are still below 

flyway goals. Hunting seasons have become more restrictive, but a majority of biologists feel that the 

key limiting factor is habitat (primarily breeding but also high-quality migration and wintering). 

Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush and understory, especially 

when found in close association with agricultural fields. 

In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan was completed, setting an objective to protect 

and enhance wintering and migration habitat on public lands to increase woodcock carrying capacity. 

The plan also set objectives to inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management 

demonstration areas. 

Forest conditions on the refuge are generally characterized by a closed canopy, with little to no 

groundstory or mid-story. Bushley Bayou Unit reforested areas currently provide fairly high-quality 

nocturnal habitat, which will degrade as the trees mature. Willow Lake, a 95-acre old field, definitely 

has the potential to be nocturnal habitat for woodcock, but likely needs a fire or some other 

disturbance to provide an open ground layer. 

Strategies: 

y Inventory suitable woodcock wintering habitat, monitor abundance, and coordinate with LDWF 

to implement banding or other important monitoring methodologies. 

y Develop a Habitat Management Plan, which includes improving diurnal habitat, particularly on 

ridges, with forest management activities. 

y Promote warm-season grasses and incorporate burning to provide an open ground layer on 

the Willow Lake Field for woodcock. 

Objective 1-4: Marshbirds. Provide emergent vegetation for breeding marshbirds by 2012. 

Discussion: Most of the recommendations for waterbirds other than waterfowl are derived from the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Shorebird Conservation Plan (Wilson et al., 2000) and the Southeast U.S. 

Waterbird Conservation Plan (Hunter and Golder, In prep.). 

While it is likely that yellow rail (and possibly black rail) occur at the refuge, they would be in early 

stages of reforestation, which is readily available at the present time across the MAV. All the other 

priority marshbirds that could be found at the refuge require tall emergent vegetation as part of their 

habitat. All are breeding species, except American bittern. Breeding populations of pied-billed grebe 

and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest, even though wintering 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

populations are considered secure. Of the marshbirds of greatest conservation interest, king rail is of 

highest concern, followed by least bittern and purple gallinule. 

The Minnow Ponds on the Bushley Bayou Unit presently support about 150 acres of tall emergent marsh. 

The possibility exists for more habitat along the moist-soil units in Duck Lake depending on drawdown 

schedules. Most areas are drawn down at about the same time in early July, which is probably too late to 

support nesting king rails, least bitterns, or purple gallinules, and given priorities, this is not likely to 

change. Extensive spraying of American lotus may limit the availability of habitat during late summer. 

Most waterfowl-oriented management, especially for wintering populations, is geared away from 

promoting tall emergent vegetation. Tall emergent vegetation, including cattail, big bulrush, and other 

species, can be aggressive and take over impoundments without careful control. Wetlands that are taken 

over by tall emergent vegetation exclude the growth of important necessary “hot foods” required to 

support waterfowl populations and fulfill the purposes of the refuge. However, the number of species that 

require tall emergent vegetation (and the apparent severity of king rail decline) suggests that specialized 

management is required to cover the needs of both waterfowl and priority marshbirds. 

Opportunities to identify potential sites for marshbird management would be in the Minnow Ponds on 

the Bushley Bayou Unit. Such focus will require maintaining micro-topography within the 

impoundments (no laser leveling of any kind). Opportunities may exist along sloughs and also on the 

Bushley Bayou Unit, where shallow but more permanent water, with low incidence of fluctuations 

during breeding season, is needed. Where there is good wood duck brooding habitat there should be 

opportunity to support more tall emergent wetlands, but this will be a long-term process. 

Integrating the needs of breeding marshbirds in with wood duck brooding habitat and other wintering 

waterfowl habitat requirements is an important recommendation from review teams, as is conducting 

spot checks using call-back protocols to determine if these smaller patches are used by king rail and 

least bittern during the breeding season. 

Strategies: 

y Focus specific attention to promoting tall emergent vegetation in a way that would support a 

sizeable breeding king rail (i.e., 50 pairs or more) and least bittern populations spread across 

the refuge by 2020. 

y Spot-check habitat patches to determine use by priority species. Especially focus survey 

efforts at the Minnow Ponds, using marshbird call-back survey points and contribute to 

ongoing secretive marshbird survey data. 

y Initiate marshbird surveys to establish baseline data and monitor use of managed sites 

targeting breeding rails, bitterns, grebes, gallinules, and coots. This will aid in the 

management of the preferred habitats for these species. 

y Track incidental use of impoundments by marshbirds during shorebird surveys. 

Objective 1-5: Long-Legged Waders. Provide for both secure nesting sites and ample foraging 

habitat by 2010. 

Discussion: Generally, there is plenty of habitat available for nesting long-legged wading birds. 

However, the key to protecting this species is consideration of how much disturbance these nesting 

birds can tolerate. 
66 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Species of conservation interest in the MAV include little blue heron, tricolored heron, yellow-crowned 

night-heron, wood stork, and white ibis. Daily observations of these species, their numbers, use of 

impoundments, and the condition and management of these impoundments would provide valuable 

information for guiding management decisions, again in line with what is needed for brood rearing 

wood duck and later use by migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

y Locate nesting sites for colonial waterbird species each year and determine if special 

measures are needed to reduce disturbance. 

y Determine incidental use of managed wetlands and lake beds during post-breeding periods by 

long-legged waders, concurrently with southbound shorebird surveys. 

Objective 1-6: Shorebirds. Provide for both northbound and especially southbound shorebird 

foraging sites by 2010. 

Discussion: Where opportunities exist, refuge management of shorebird habitat should be focused 

on both northbound and southbound movement periods. It is clear that a combination of Catahoula 

Lake and the refuge (i.e., Duck Lake Impoundment) is critically important for southbound and 

northbound migratory birds in the MAV. With emphasis on southbound migratory birds (when habitat 

is generally unavailable in most areas), the currently established regime of initiating gradual 

drawdowns from early July through to early October provides excellent habitat in copious amounts. 

Additional habitat for northbound migratory shorebirds can possibly be provided in the Minnow Ponds 

on the Bushley Bayou Unit in concert with other management priorities (e.g., marshbirds and 

waterfowl). Coordination and use of established protocols to monitor shorebird use of actively 

managed wetlands are essential. 

Present LMVJV step-down objectives for the refuge call for 200 acres during southbound 

migration. Northbound migration habitat should be made available in concert with moist-soil 

management for waterfowl. 

For southbound migration, specific measures need to be employed for shorebirds. There are 

generally two peaks: one for adults in July and early-August and one for juveniles from September to 

late-October. One approach would be to hold water in some impoundments into July and then 

gradually draw down. Flooding other impoundments will be necessary for drawing down water in 

August and September. September habitat would overlap needs of southbound migrating bluewinged teal and northern pintail. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to draw down water from early July through October at Duck Lake Impoundment and 

see if opportunity exists to provide northbound habitat from late-March to late-May on other 

areas of the refuge. 

y Continue to support LMVJV Shorebird Survey protocol and conduct regular surveys using 

International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocol in coordination with the South Atlantic Migratory 

Bird Initiative. 

Objective 1-7: Grassland Birds. Provide 95 acres of native grassland-dominated habitat in the 

Willow Lake Unit to support priority grassland birds by 2009. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Discussion: The Willow Lake Unit currently supports a field of 95 acres maintained specifically to 

provide habitat for wintering grassland species. Priority grassland species such as Henslow’s and 

LeConte’s sparrows, northern harriers, and possibly short-eared owls have been seen. When MAV 

grassland bird objectives are established, the refuge will consider the importance of this site in 

contribution towards these objectives. 

Strategies: 

y Work with NRCS on an experimental process for the establishment of warm-season native 

grasslands. 

y Conduct grassland bird surveys to determine species use and abundance during winter and 

breeding seasons. 

Objective 1-8: Forestbirds. Work with partners in the Saline source population objective area 

(SPOA) to contribute to the creation of a 20,000-acre forest block to provide sufficient habitat to 

support 500 breeding pairs of both Swainson’s and prothonotary warblers, as well as other high 

priority species in the PIF bird conservation plan (Twedt et al., 1999). 

Discussion: The refuge presently supports 8,599 acres of mature forested wetlands on Headquarters 

and Bushley Bayou Units. In addition, 13,868 acres have been reforested within the last ten years on 

the refuge. The Saline SPOA is one of the few areas that the forest patch objective has been met. 

Much of the presently mature forest is in mid-successional (e.g., densely stocked, low vertical, and 

horizontal structure) condition, which is generally considered poor for most priority songbirds. Refuge 

management will work towards opening the canopy through thinning and where appropriate, patch 

cuts to develop vertical and horizontal structure. Wetter areas will require larger openings to provide 

for this condition; however, it is the drier areas that will be most important for supporting breeding 

habitat for understory species requiring cover, including Swainson’s warbler, Kentucky warbler, and 

wood thrush, as well as diurnal habitat for American woodcock. 

Substantial planning will be required for maintaining vertical and horizontal diversity in the Bushley 

Bayou Unit as forests mature there during the next 20 years in order to avoid having uniform midsuccessional conditions across this unit. 

Strategies: 

y Survey refuge and determine baseline populations for neotropical migratory birds. 

y Establish point-count stations to determine species response to management. 

y Work in conjunction with state wildlife management areas, universities, and other federal 

refuges to monitor productivity and survival. 

Objective 1-9: Threatened and Endangered Species. Provide for secure nesting and roosting sites 

for bald eagles and support ivory-billed woodpecker recovery efforts. 

Discussion: The bald eagle is listed as a federally threatened species and the Southeast 

Regional Management Guidelines should be followed where nests are established until national 

guidelines are established. 
68 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

The ivory-billed woodpecker has been recently rediscovered in the MAV and efforts are underway to 

establish recovery plans. The refuge will have an opportunity to work with local, state, federal, and 

non-governmental entities to contribute to this species recovery. 

Strategies: 

y Implement the most current approved Bald Eagle Management Guidelines around any known 

nest or roost sites when discovered. 

y Work with local, state, federal, and non-governmental entities to support recovery efforts for 

ivory-billed woodpeckers. 

Objective 1-10: Threatened and Endangered Species. Continue to provide habitat to support 

Louisiana black bear recovery efforts. 

Discussion: The reasons for listing the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act were habitat reduction and declining 

populations. Bears once occurred throughout southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and eastern Texas. 

Habitat modification, particularly clearing for agriculture, has reduced suitable habitat by more than 80 

percent. Good black bear habitat consists of diverse forests with stable and varied food supplies, 

suitable denning sites, and escape cover with minimal human contact. 

Due to the lack of any documented breeding population near the refuge, management priorities for 

the black bear in the near term are not high priority. With repatriation efforts ongoing to the southeast 

on Lake Ophelia Refuge and Red River/Three Rivers Wildlife Management Areas, management will 

stay up-to-date on bear movements associated with these activities. Bears could possibly move 

through the refuge or actually take up residence, which would change priorities in regard to bears. 

Strategies: 

y Participate on the Louisiana Black Bear Committee and keep up-to-date on research activities 

associated with repatriation efforts. Document sightings of bears on the refuge and the 

surrounding area. 

y Timber management promoting diversity, while providing a hard mast component and 

retaining den trees on the refuge, will improve habitat conditions for bears. 

Objective 1-11: Mammals-Wildlife Diversity/Resident Wildlife. Maintain and develop diversified 

habitats and promote management actions that will support healthy populations of endemic wildlife 

species such as deer and rabbits. 

Discussion: The refuge supports a variety of habitats typical of central Louisiana and, consequently, 

hosts the full range of wildlife species common to the area. The refuge is managing for hardwood 

diversity and a healthy mast-producing stand with the goal of having positive impacts on resident 

mammal populations. Continued attention and periodic inventories and surveys will allow managers 

to continue to manage forest resources for resident wildlife. 

White-tailed deer are the largest mammals on the refuge and are well adapted to the habitats found 

there. Ordinarily, healthy animals can tolerate the endemic parasites and diseases. However, in 

situations where the deer population exceeds carrying capacity, deer can have a major impact on the 

habitat, resulting in such poor condition for the entire herd that parasites and diseases affect the 

deer’s health, potentially controlling the numbers of deer found there annually. Unfortunately, when 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

deer have adversely impacted their habitat, it often takes years for the habitat and the herd to 

recover, with the result that the population is subject to broad swings in numbers over time (i.e., a 

“boom and bust” situation). 

Deer numbers should be reduced annually to minimize both the impact on the habitat and problems 

caused by parasites/diseases within the deer herds. With no predators controlling deer population, 

hunting provides recreational opportunity and is the preferred method to control the deer population. 

Turkey establishment is possible with the help of LDWF. These birds may be able to serve as brood 

stock for surrounding lands, where they may be hunted, but they would be protected on the refuge. 

Hydrology, quantity, and quality of turkey habitat on the refuge should be evaluated. 

Two species of rabbits, cottontail and swamp, are found on the refuge in abundance. Even though 

many predators prey on these rabbits, population numbers are thought to be high and at carrying 

capacity. Annual harvesting of rabbits from the refuge would have no negative impact on the 

population and would allow the opportunity for recreational hunting of these under-utilized species. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain a diversity of wetland and non-wetland habitats that support healthy populations of 

resident wildlife. 

y Continue to use hunting as a tool to manage wildlife populations where it is compatible with 

other refuge purposes and activities. 

y Initiate browse survey working with LDWF to determine deer population index. Continue to 

conduct spotlight surveys or other surveys to estimate deer densities and buck-to-doe-to-fawn 

ratios. 

y Coordinate with the state on other resident wildlife issues, such as turkey establishment. 

Objective 1-12: Invasive Nuisance Species. Control certain wildlife and plant populations, especially 

predators, exotics, and invasive species, as needed, to achieve habitat and population objectives that 

will provide healthy populations of native wildlife and their ecosystem. 

Discussion: In some situations, it is necessary to monitor and control populations of selected wildlife 

species in order to protect and benefit native habitats and other wildlife, maintain healthy wildlife 

populations, and provide for the safety of visitors. Wild pigs are a feral species that cause significant 

damage to wetlands and habitat (Barrett et al., 1988). Nutria are exotic herbivores that can cause 

significant damage to marsh habitats when populations become elevated, an event referred to as an 

“eat out.” Nutria are such a problem, damaging habitat and levees in some areas, that the State of 

Louisiana has begun administering a new program to pay an incentive payment for each nutria killed. 

Beavers can plug water control structures, making water management for waterfowl impoundments 

and farming operations difficult. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor and control the beaver, nutria, and raccoon populations to keep numbers under 

control and minimize habitat impacts on refuge and adjacent lands caused by elevated 

populations. 

y Conduct furbearer scent station surveys and general observation surveys to get baseline 

index on predator numbers. 
70 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

y Monitor and control feral hog populations to keep numbers under control and minimize habitat 

impacts caused by this species. 

y Monitor and control invasive nuisance plant species. Develop strategies for control in 

association with habitat management plans. 

Objective1-13: Amphibians and Reptiles. Encourage research and partnering with cooperators to 

assess species occurrence and habitat associations of amphibians and reptiles on the refuge. 

Discussion: Amphibians and reptiles are experiencing worldwide population declines (Collins and 

Storfer 2003; Gibbons et al., 2000) and there is an urgent need to develop strategies for managing 

and conserving these two taxonomic groups. An essential step in this process is to inventory federal 

lands to determine which species occupy a given area, and to characterize the habitat occupied by 

amphibians and reptiles so that suitable habitat may be restored, enhanced, and sustained. 

Most amphibians occupy both aquatic and terrestrial habitats at various points in their complex life 

cycle; many reptiles utilize both types of habitat as well. Thus, management plans for these two 

taxonomic groups need to address the aquatic habitat needs of totally aquatic amphibians and 

reptiles, as well as the requirements for successful larval growth and metamorphosis of amphibians. 

As a group, amphibians have generally attracted more attention than have reptiles, because of the 

recent plethora of well-documented cases of their decline around the world. The terrestrial 

environment is vital habitat both for completely terrestrial amphibians (e.g., some lungless 

salamanders of the family Plethodontidae), as well as for species that breed in aquatic sites, the 

adults of which live in the surrounding terrestrial habitat within 200 m during the nonbreeding season 

(Madison 1997; Semlitsch 1998). Studies indicate that many terrestrial caudate amphibians (e.g., 

salamanders) are best adapted to conditions associated with late stages of forest succession 

(deMaynadier and Hunter, 1995). Thus, many amphibians are sensitive to intensive forestry 

practices, such as clear-cutting, that eliminates shading and leaf litter, thus increasing soil surface 

temperature and reducing leaf litter moisture (Petranka 1998). Several studies demonstrate that 

salamander populations, in particular, either decline following clear-cutting or are less abundant in 

young stands than in mature forest stands (Petranka 1998). 

For pond-breeding amphibians, recent studies have demonstrated that the extent of canopy cover 

over breeding ponds (Skelly et al., 2002; Halverson et al., 2003) and the composition of leaf litter in 

the pond basin (Rubbo and Kiesecker 2004) may play a strong role in the distribution and abundance 

of some species. These studies underscore the potentially important influence of the structure and 

composition of vegetation in the terrestrial environment on the successful reproduction and 

recruitment of amphibians in the aquatic habitat. Such factors (e.g., canopy closure and forest 

composition) may therefore be important to consider in management plans designed to promote 

amphibian diversity. However, these studies need to be replicated in the southeastern United States, 

using native vegetation and amphibians, to determine whether similar trends might exist in our region. 

At a broader level, Semlitsch (Semlitsch 2000) outlined three critical factors that need to be 

considered in a management plan for amphibians, all related to the ecological connectivity of 

amphibian metapopulations. These are: (1) the number or density of individuals dispersing from 

individual wetlands; (2) the diversity of wetlands with regard to hydroperiod (length of time a water 

body retains water); and (3) the probability of dispersal among adjacent wetlands or the rescue and 

recolonization of local populations. The effects of these activities need to be considered in designing 

an effective management plan for amphibians. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies 

y Conduct amphibian and reptile surveys using a diversity of methods to quantify key 

characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat (e.g., the hydroperiod of aquatic sites; 

canopy closure, vegetational structure, and composition of terrestrial habitat surrounding 

aquatic sites). 

y Examine possible effects of anthropogenic activities (e.g., oil and gas activity; contamination 

from lead and herbicides) on species diversity and richness of amphibians and reptiles in 

coordination with the research community. 

Objective 1-14: Fisheries. Enhance 500-1,000 acres of fish habitat and maintain self-sustaining 

sport fish and crawfish populations through management, monitoring, and law enforcement. 

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes fishing as one of 

the six priority public uses of the refuge system. The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Strategic Plan for 

the Southeast Region is a Service management document promulgated in 1997. The plan, reviewed by 

the refuge program prior to dispersal, recognizes fisheries and aquatic resource management as 

important Service activities both on and off refuges and lists several goals in pursuit of these endeavors. 

Goal 5 of this plan directs the Service to “Provide for sustainable recreational fishing opportunities in the 

Southeast adequate to meet public needs.” Objective F under this goal states, “Provide and maintain 

recreational fishing opportunities on FWS lands” and lists several tasks in conjunction with this pursuit, 

including “establish new recreational fishing opportunities...,” “increase access to recreational fishing sites 

on and across FWS lands,” and “develop methods for integrated management of migratory bird 

populations, other animals and plants, and recreational fisheries on FWS lands.” 

The recently formed Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, modeled after the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, is comprised of 16 states, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal Commissions and Councils, and others. The group commitment is 

“Working cooperatively we can attain the desired goals of healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems 

that support sustainable public use.” Under the six key focus areas, first listed is public use with the 

intent to “Increase recreational fishing and other sustainable uses of aquatic resources by the public.” 

Based on the plans described above, the refuge will enhance measures for sport fish and the red 

swamp crawfish, Procambarus clarkia. The focus for fish will be providing adequate water level, 

which protects against summer and winter temperature extremes and retards excessive rooted plant 

populations. Excessive rooted plants rob nutrients from an algal-based fish food web, contribute to 

oxygen depletions, and encumber effective bass predation. 

Strategies: 

y Provide water depths of 6 feet or more to maintain sport fish populations in Duck Lake, 

Cowpen Bayou, and impoundments and lakes in the remainder of the refuge during the 

summertime. 

y Monitor fish populations using of a variety of methods to determine survival in relation to 

management actions. 

y By 2010, manage one or more of the Bushley Bayou Unit ponds to improve crawfishery. 
72 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal 2: Restore, manage, and enhance the functions and values associated with diverse 

bottomland hardwood forest, open wetlands, and grassland habitats in order to achieve 

refuge purposes and wildlife population objectives. 

Background: About 80 percent of the forest lands in the MAV have been cleared and converted to 

other land uses, leaving only remnant forested tracts. Fish and wildlife resources have been 

seriously impacted, leaving remnant populations that must be managed to meet the refuge’s purpose 

and to achieve the maximum potential. To address this issue, reforestation has been the refuge’s 

major forest management activity. Wetlands are valuable loafing and feeding habitat for wintering 

waterfowl and the refuge grasslands provide habitat for priority grassland species. 

Objective 2-1: Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Provide a diverse bottomland hardwood forest to meet 

the various needs of many wildlife species, including waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, and 

resident species. 

Discussion: Currently, the refuge consists of approximately 8,599 acres of maturing bottomland 

hardwood forest and 13,868 acres of reforestation. Of the 8,599 acres of maturing bottomland 

hardwood forest, 3,399 acres are located in the Bushley Bayou Unit and 5,200 acres are located in 

the Headquarters Unit. Forest management on the refuge should be rotated between the two 

management units to spread habitat improvements throughout the refuge and not concentrate them 

in a given unit or area. 

Forest conditions on the Headquarters Unit can be broken down as follows: 

y Maturing bottomland hardwood forest = 3,200 acres 

y Swamp privet-dominated shrub-scrub = 2,000 acres 

y Reforestation = 464 acres 

There has been very little forest management activity conducted on the Headquarters Unit since its 

original purchase in 1958. In the 1980s, a Forest Management Plan was written for this area, but was 

only partially implemented due to staffing constraints. Lack of consistent forest management activity on 

this unit has led to the development of many forest timber stands into single canopy conditions with limited 

mid-story and understory layers. To improve habitat conditions, the refuge will adopt forest management 

activities that open the forest canopy and allow sunlight to reach the forest floor to stimulate development 

of understory and mid-story vegetation. General Guidelines for Hardwood Forest Management to 

Improve Wildlife Habitat, written by Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey personnel in 2003, 

and other forest habitat management plans of neighboring refuges with similar habitats, such as Bayou 

Cocodrie and Tensas, will be used to guide forest management actions. 

In general, the long-term objective of management activities is to improve forest habitat for priority 

species, such as forest breeding birds, by developing a structurally diverse forest in terms of species, size 

class, and growth forms (e.g., trees, shrubs, vines, and forbs) within a heterogeneous forest canopy. 

Additionally, to support the needs of wildlife that are dependent on hard mast (e.g., black bear, squirrels, 

and turkey), regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species (e.g., oaks) must be ensured. 

To meet these objectives, general guidelines for timber harvest should include a combination of 

thinning, cutting small groups of trees (<1 acre), and harvesting patches between 1 and 3 acres. This 

harvest strategy is intended to (1) release remaining trees for development of canopies and dominant 

trees that will eventually become super-emergent trees; (2) encourage development of ground and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

mid-story structure; and (3) increase the amount of light reaching the forest floor in areas large 

enough to support regeneration of shade-intolerant tree species. 

The 2,000 acres of swamp privet-dominated scrub-shrub offers a different challenge for forest 

management. This habitat type has an abundant mid-story dominated by swamp privet, with little 

overstory and understory. To encourage overstory development, openings should be created, 

mechanically or chemically, in the privet and seedlings of desired tree species planted in the openings. 

Reforested areas on the Headquarters Unit are too young for management at this time, except the 

40-acre area that was planted in 1976. This 40-acre reforestation area should be considered part of 

the maturing bottomland hardwood forest area. The biggest management concern for these other 

reforestation areas will be maintaining firebreaks to prevent wildfires from damaging the young trees. 

Forest conditions on the Bushley Bayou Unit can be broken down as follows: 

y Maturing Bottomland Hardwood Forest = 3,399 acres 

y Reforestation = 13,404 acres 

Acquisition of the unit was not completed until 2001. Thus, timber management activities were under 

private control. Recommendations for management of this unit should follow the recommendations 

given for the Headquarters Unit. 

Strategies: 

y Perform a forest inventory to assess forest and habitat conditions found on the refuge. 

y Develop a Forest Management Plan to include dividing the refuge into management 

compartments and managing a rotation schedule and monitoring system to assess 

management activities. 

Objective 2-2: Open Wetland Habitats. Provide and monitor quality moist-soil habitat to meet 

Louisiana step-down objectives and maintain waterfowl sanctuary. 

Discussion: Duck Lake provides a valuable refuge for wintering waterfowl that also use the adjacent 

Catahoula Lake and area agricultural lands. Most of these areas have intense hunting (gun) pressure, 

and the refuge provides quality loafing and feeding habitat. Refuge managers should continue to keep 

this lake as a protected place and to manage the present available acreage for moist-soil habitats. 

Preventing further encroachment of woody vegetation along the lake perimeter also should be a goal, 

along with continuing ground surveys of waterfowl and monitoring of disease outbreaks. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to manage and monitor the moist-soil areas in Duck Lake for the production of 

moist-soil plants (e.g., sprangletop) by continuing to control lotus, preventing further 

encroachment of woody vegetation along the lake perimeter, and maintaining a 3-year 

mowing/discing schedule. 

y Until foraging habitat goals are “re-calculated” by the LMVJV, continue to maintain moist-soil 

areas as they are at present. If more acreage is deemed necessary, additional subdivision of 

Duck Lake could be reevaluated or more intensive management of Minnow Ponds on Bushley 

Bayou Unit could be incorporated. 

y Maintain summer pool stage in Duck Lake to ensure early water on the refuge. 
74 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

y Drill water wells or engineer alternate water source on Bushley Bayou Minnow Ponds. 

Although not critical for intensive moist-soil management, these sources will still provide 

waterfowl benefits while being managed specifically for crawfish, wading birds, and 

shorebirds. 

y Cooperate with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the LMVJV Office to 

assess the feasibility of a more comprehensive/coordinated survey and inventory of waterfowl 

in the West Gulf Coast Plain Joint Venture and LMVJV area. 

y Develop water management plan for moist-soil areas to include monitoring and management 

to better ensure sites have good food production. 

y Using established protocol, monitor disease outbreaks, especially when high numbers of 

waterfowl concentrate in the refuge. 

y Maintain and monitor current sanctuary to not exceed waterfowl disturbance thresholds that 

could significantly impact refuge sanctuary/loafing availability during key wintering periods. 

Objective 2-3: Grasslands. Provide 95 acres of grass-dominated habitat in the Willow Lake Unit for 

supporting priority grassland birds by 2009. 

Discussion: Willow Lake Unit presently supports a field of 95 acres maintained specifically to provide 

habitat for wintering grassland species. As mentioned previously in this section, in the future, when 

MAV grassland bird objectives are established, the refuge management will consider the importance 

of this site in contribution towards these objectives. 

Strategies: 

y Develop habitat management plan for this unit. Consider splitting up the unit into thirds for 

establishing a disturbance schedule on a 3-year cycle but with understanding of the 

distribution within the field of priority species. 

y Pursue opportunities to establish warm-season native grasses working with the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal 3: Conserve natural and cultural resources through partnerships, protection, and land 

acquisition programs. 

Background: Over 90 percent of the land in the MAV is privately owned, making private land a critical 

part of any landscape conservation initiative. The Service can provide technical and financial 

assistance to private landowners interested in protecting, restoring, or managing fish and wildlife 

habitats on their property. In addition, purchase of lands within the refuge acquisition boundary is 

critical to the achievement of the refuge vision. 

The Service often uses conservation tools (i.e., conservation easements, partnership agreements, 

and technical assistance) to protect, restore, manage, and acquire high-priority habitats within this 

area. These priorities consider the existing threats to these habitats, their linkages to other protected 

habitats, the value of these habitats to trust species, their accessibility, and their potential in providing 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent environmental education and recreation. Refuge staff also can 

help deliver land protection and conservation assistance in concert with other federal, state, and 

private agencies. Providing assistance to private landowners is a critical element in achieving the 

landscape habitat initiatives in the MAV. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Objective 3-1: Land Protection. Work with adjacent landowners to enhance and restore habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds through hydrology restoration and reforestation. 

Contact landowners every five years to determine interest in cost-share assistance programs. 

Discussion: The vast majority of land in the MAV is privately owned. Due to loss of habitat and forest 

fragmentation, refuges and state lands are isolated by large acreages that have been converted to 

row-crop agriculture and provide little or no habitat for species of concern. The cooperation of private 

landowners in restoring habitat adjacent to the refuge maximizes the land base available to migratory 

birds and helps ensure the success of national and regional plans, such as the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, and the 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 

The Service established the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to provide technical and financial 

assistance to private landowners interested in improving wildlife habitat on their property. In the 

MAV, this primarily consists of hardwood reforestation and wetlands restoration on their property. 

Landowners are limited to $25,000 per year for restoration practices. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides cost-share assistance to private landowners through 

agencies such as the NRCS and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The NRCS administers the 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), which promotes hydrology restoration on eligible cropland through 

the implementation of water control structures and reforestation practices. Permanent and 30-year 

conservation easements are used to protect these wetlands for future use. Currently, five areas 

totaling 3,620 acres on the refuge and seven properties adjacent to the refuge have been enrolled in 

the WRP program. Other programs, such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), provide cost-share assistance for improving water 

quality and wildlife habitat through practices such as establishing riparian forest buffers and upland 

hardwoods, and implementing water control structures. 

FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which provides annual payments on 

eligible cropland through 10- to 15-year contracts to reforest highly erodible croplands to protect 

water quality and prevent soil erosion. The continuous CRP sign-up provides assistance for 

protecting water quality by implementing riparian and conservation buffers. 

Strategies: 

y Work with the local NRCS district conservationist to contact landowners owning property 

adjacent to the refuge. Explain available programs, indicating which ones specifically apply to 

their property and implement these programs as requested. 

y Implement conservation buffers such as filter strips to reduce the impact of possible 

contaminants coming into Duck Lake from adjacent agricultural lands, thus minimizing the 

impact on amphibian and invertebrate species. 

y Establish land protection priorities within the current refuge acquisition boundary based upon 

the habitat values and the threats to existing resources. Work with private, state, and federal 

partners to protect high-priority lands 

y Initiate contact with all landowners within the current refuge acquisition boundary and adjacent 

to the refuge to determine their interest in conservation easements, partnerships, technical 

assistance, or selling their land for inclusion in the Refuge System (where applicable). 

y Develop partnerships with conservation organizations and agencies such as The 

Conservation Fund and the Army Corps of Engineers to support land acquisition needs. 
76 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 3-2: Refuge Expansion Needs. Work with inholding landowners to acquire or exchange 

lands that would eliminate unwanted access across the refuge, improve access to the refuge by the 

public and employees, and expand the current refuge acquisition boundary by 1,835.2 acres. 

Discussion: The refuge was established in 1958 with 5,308 acres purchased from the Louisiana 

Delta Hardwood Lumber Company. Since then, the acquisition boundary has been increased several 

times as described in Chapter II. 

There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by 

the Service. Several of these compromise management due to conflicting purposes and disturbance 

to wildlife. Acquisition or exchange of these parcels would eliminate access issues, improve 

management options, and tighten some unclear and confusing boundary issues. 

The acquisition boundary expansion approved in 2001 for the addition of the Bushley Bayou Unit 

included 3,012 acres of inholdings within the approved acquisition boundary to be acquired by fee 

title, cooperative agreements, or conservation easements. However, when the acquisition boundary 

was drawn out, it neglected to allow for legal access routes into the unit. Access routes used by 

previous owners and users were through private property and no legal access routes were developed 

or identified. In fact, there is currently no legal access to any of the lands owned by the refuge in feetitle. Access is through American Electric Power Company property, which the refuge manages 

under a memorandum of agreement. Refuge access by the public and staff members is difficult on 

the Bushley Bayou Unit of the refuge. Expansion of the refuge boundary by 1,835.2 acres would 

greatly increase refuge access by the staff and the public (Figure 14 and Appendix VIII). 

The Conservation Fund combined two grants—a North American Wetlands Conservation Act grant 

and a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant through Wal-Mart’s Acres for America Program—to 

facilitate the purchase of 6,052 acres of Amercian Electric Power Company land in Fiscal Year 2006. 

The Conservation Fund then donated these acres to the Service to be used as part of the Catahoula 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Approach landowners with property within the existing refuge boundary to determine level of 

interest in selling land to the Service. 

y Determine areas of greatest access need on the Bushley Bayou Unit and Headquarters Unit, 

and complete the appropriate minor expansion plans to increase the refuge acquisition 

boundary. Once plans are approved, approach landowners to determine level of interest in 

selling lands to the Service. 

y Locate a realty specialist in close proximity to the refuge. A local realty specialist would be 

available to help with refuge realty questions and be able to respond quickly, with on-theground knowledge of each refuge within their area of responsibility. 

Objective 3-3: Oil and Gas. Protect and restore habitat for fish and wildlife on refuge lands through 

oil and brine water spill prevention, response, and restoration. 

Discussion: The refuge has 8 active wells, 49 inactive wells, 6 tank batteries, and numerous 

pipelines associated with oil and gas extraction that are in constant need of monitoring by refuge 

personnel. There were ongoing oil and gas operations on the refuge when it was established in 

1958. Although the Federal Government owns the surface rights to the refuge, private parties own 

the subsurface mineral rights and state law allows those mineral rights owners to use “usual and 

customary” methods to access those minerals. This includes establishing road beds, wellhead and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

tank farm pads, and pipeline rights-of-way through the refuge. Those operations typically include 

characteristics that are not compatible with refuge purposes: noise; wildlife harassment; dust, erosion, 

hydrological alteration, and loss of habitat from oil field roads; loss of habitat and erosion on pipeline 

rights-of-way; and air, water, soil, sediment, and biota pollution. 

Spill threats to the refuge exist from on-refuge facilities and off-refuge sources. The amount of oil 

recovered during the typical spill response usually amounts to less than 10 percent. Therefore, 

efforts would be better invested in spill prevention rather than spill response. Planning is a critical 

component in spill prevention. Maintenance and compliance of existing facilities is another important 

aspect of spill prevention. When spills cannot be prevented, a timely and effective response is in 

order, followed by a comprehensive natural resources damage assessment and restoration. 

In August 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly Government Accounting 

Office) issued the report entitled, “National Wildlife Refuges: Opportunities to Improve the 

Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands.” GAO found shortcomings 

and inconsistencies within the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Service’s management and 

oversight of oil and gas exploration and extraction activities. 

In response to this report, the Service has developed a handbook on oil and gas activites. The purpose of 

this handbook is to address the GAO recommendation that the Service provide refuge personnel with 

consistent guidance to effectively and consistently manage and oversee oil and gas activities. 

Strategies: 

y Utilize the Service's Oil and Gas Handbook to oversee all oil and gas activities on the refuge. 

y Work with on-refuge oil and gas operators to amicably remedy all risks of spills, improve the 

visual experience of refuge users, and reduce noise, air, soil, sediment, and water pollution. 

Foster a cooperative theme that puts wildlife protection in areas of oil and gas operations a 

tier higher on refuges than in an equivalent operation off refuge. 

y Provide refuge monitoring of oil and gas operations to provide first-alert services in the event 

of spills or potential threats of spills from accidents, non-compliant facilities, and faulty 

operations. In the event of an unavoidable spill or natural resources injuries from oil and gas 

operations, a cooperative Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration action 

should be pursued consistent with Department of the Interior guidance. This process is to 

include all interested state and federal agencies, as well as the responsible party. If 

warranted, criminal enforcement procedures can be used in coordination with the Office of 

Law Enforcement and the U.S. Attorney's Office. 

y Incorporate the refuge special use permit system into all phases of oil and gas management 

on the refuge where possible. Special conditions within each permit will allow clear 

communications to operators regarding refuge requirements for wildlife. These conditions will 

serve as a reference in the event of disputes and establish a fair and uniform set of rules for 

all refuge oil and gas operators. 

y Develop timelines and procedures with operators to remove derelict oil and gas machinery 

and materials from the refuge at the end of its useful life or at the end of production at each 

location. Where machinery and materials are determined to be abandoned, work with 

Service, EPA, and state programs for their removal. 

y Collect soil, sediment, tissue, and water quality samples to develop baseline data on oil-andgas-related hydrocarbon, metals, and saltwater contamination for the purposes of long-term 

ecological monitoring and Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration. 
78 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

y Seek potential funding sources and partnerships of a conventional and/or innovative nature to 

procure mineral rights from willing sellers, such as legislative action, Natural Resources 

Damage Assessment and Restoration settlements, criminal settlements, corporate or nongovernmental organization partnerships, and other sources yet to be developed. 

y Consolidate pipeline rights-of-way where practical to eliminate habitat loss by pipeline right-ofway footprints and to limit spill risks. Disallow all new pipeline rights-of-way as they are 

incompatible with refuge purposes. 

y Develop a Geographical Information System program to track refuge pipeline rights-of-way, 

facilities in need of removal, wells to be plugged and abandoned, and spill management. 

Objective 3-4: Pollution Prevention. Identify and prevent injury to refuge natural resources from 

pollution. 

Discussion: The greatest contaminant threats to the refuge are related to pesticides, on- and off-site 

oil and gas spills, and mercury. 

Much of the watersheds and areas surrounding the refuge is in timber, row crops, and livestock 

production. Some of the pesticides proposed or used for row crops, particularly cotton, such as 

Carbofuran, could have impacts on the refuge as they accumulate in the watershed and flow 

through the refuge or other surrounding water bodies. Carbofuran has killed more birds than any 

other pesticide. It is five to ten times more toxic to waterfowl than to other birds. Carbofuran is 

also toxic to mammals. Humans are advised not to enter treated fields for 48 hours after 

application. Airborne contaminants could find their way into refuge ponds. Biosolids may 

contribute heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants that survive the furnace or other 

methods of sanitization of the material from human waste treatment plants. Atrazine, which may 

be the most widely used herbicide in corn, sorghum, and some sugar cane production, has 

recently been recognized as causing deformities in amphibians. 

Mercury is a common topic in both freshwater and saltwater fish contamination. Most of the 

mercury is from atmospheric depositions, some naturally occurring, some from man-caused 

sources like coal-burning power plants, incinerators, and gas well manometers, etc. But for the 

mercury to become effectively toxic it must be methylated and, in Louisiana, that typically 

requires backwater areas with high sulfur compounds, low pH, and the right bacteria. Two other 

factors needed include the presence of organic matter located in the sediments and water 

column, which provides a nutrient rich environment for bacterial activity and a reduction in oxygen 

levels within the backwater areas. This oxidation reduction potential is the best indicator of the 

chance for mercury to be methylated (Piehler 2006). Long-lived carnivorous fishes are typically 

the targets of concern for mercury pollution. Fish cannot purge their body burdens of mercury like 

birds and mammals, so they bio-accumulate the mercury in their organs and flesh, especially the 

fillets (e.g., muscle tissue) typically consumed by man. In fresh water, the largemouth bass is 

usually the focal species of methyl mercury contamination. Catahoula Lake has a mercury 

advisory posted by the State of Louisiana for fish consumption. The source of that mercury is 

unknown. The lake is also listed by the EPA as a 303(d) impaired water body for oil and grease, 

salinity, total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates. 

The refuge is threatened by off-refuge oil operations on the surface of Catahoula Lake and 

surrounding watersheds. Catahoula Lake is fed from the north by Little River and Castor Creek. 

Those waterways run through numerous oil fields of the Tullos-Urania area that are the most out 

of compliance in the state. Most of these wells are “stripper wells,” requiring the recovery of over 

a hundred barrels of saltwater for every barrel of oil recovered. This saltwater is usually injected 

back underground, but in many cases it is illegally released to surface waters. Saltwater releases 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

in the area are virtually constant, with numerous oil spills. By the time these contaminants reach 

the lake, they are well entrained into the water column and generally not visible at the surface, 

thus not posing a direct acute threat to waterfowl and water birds from oiling, but posing a 

considerable concern for water quality and chronic impacts to the supporting ecosystems for 

refuge trust resources. 

Strategies: 

y Work with the contaminants personnel at the Ecological Services Field Office in Lafayette, 

Louisiana, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to establish and implement 

sampling protocols to determine baseline and episodic air, soil, sediment, tissue, and water 

quality contamination. Seek funding from the National Contaminants On and Off Refuge 

Investigations Program, U.S. Geological Survey, and other sources. 

y Coordinate closely with the Ecological Services Contaminants Specialists at the Service’s 

Regional Office and its Louisiana Field Office on pesticides used on the refuge. Comment on 

EPA’s Emergency Exemptions posted in the Federal Register for the use of toxic chemicals in 

croplands with drainage into the refuge. 

y Develop a Geographical Information System program to determine refuge pollution risks from 

contributory watersheds and backwater flooding events. 

y Implement an investigation into the source of mercury involved in the current fish 

consumptions and post current advisories on refuge informational boards/kiosks and in refuge 

publications. 

y Investigate partnership opportunities within the Little River and Lower Ouachita River 

Watersheds to decrease pollution. 

Objective 3-5: Cultural Resources. Protect cultural and historic resources from disturbance or 

inadvertent damage that could occur as a result of refuge activities. 

Discussion: Cultural resource and historic preservation laws outline several considerations, 

including: (1) inventory of “historic sites” by each agency and assessment of the site’s eligibility 

for the National Register of Historic Places; (2) consideration of impacts to cultural resources 

during implementation of the agency’s management activities; (3) protection of cultural resources 

from looting and vandalism; and (4) consultation with groups, such as Native American tribes and 

African American communities, to address how management activities might impact 

archaeological sites deemed important to those groups. 

A key objective for the refuge is a comprehensive archaeological survey of all refuge lands. 

However, there has been no comprehensive survey of the refuge properties, so no properties on 

the refuge have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties 

(NRHP). Nevertheless the refuge follows standard NHPA Section 106 procedures to protect the 

public’s interest in preserving its cultural and historic legacy. The standard is that whenever 

construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment 

like tractors, graders, and bulldozers, such as for the development of moist-soil units, the refuge 

will contract with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological 

survey of the subject property. The results of this survey will be submitted to the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) as well as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 

which in Louisiana is an official within the Division of Archaeology of the Louisiana Department of 

Cultural Recreation, Office of Cultural Development (Williams 2005). The SHPO reviews the 

surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any 
80 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources are 

actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge must notify the SHPO immediately. 

Strategies: 

y Secure funding and develop a comprehensive archaeological survey of all refuge lands. 

y Develop a Geographic Information System layer for the refuge’s archaeological and historic 

sites. 

y Develop a partnership with the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to interpret the significance of 

the refuge’s archaeological sites to Native Americans and the general public. 

y Comply with all regulations and policy set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act, 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Native American Grave Protection and 

Repatriation Act. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal 4: Visitors and local communities will value the refuge and balanced wildlife-dependent 

recreation, leading to a greater appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. 

Background: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation), and will receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. Other 

uses will be permitted only when it is determined that they are legally mandated, they provide benefits 

to the Service, they occur due to special circumstances, or they facilitate one of the priority wildlifedependent recreational uses (See 605 FW 1, General Guidance, and 603 FW 1, Appropriate Refuge 

Uses). Where conflicts do not exist with the refuge purpose (e.g., migratory bird management, where 

applicable), refuge properties should be open for priority, wildlife-dependent public uses of the 

refuges as listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Objective 4-1: Hunting. Provide quality and safe hunting opportunities, such as squirrel, deer, and 

waterfowl, in support of the refuge’s established purposes, wildlife and habitat management 

objectives, and state rules and regulations. 

Discussion: The refuge currently allows hunting of white-tailed deer, squirrel, rabbit, rail, gallinule, 

snipe, woodcock, and waterfowl. Additionally, feral hog and raccoon may be taken as incidentals. 

The deer hunts are separated into archery, muzzleloader, and modern gun, depending upon 

specific dates. 

Strategies: 

y Build handicap-accessible blinds and have an annual handicap hunt and/or youth hunt. 

y Increase capacity of parking areas as needed or use parking bumpers to increase efficiency of 

current parking areas. 

y Manage hunt program to achieve population and wildlife habitat objectives. 

y Enhance existing access to allow for improved hunt program. 

y Monitor wildlife populations via surveys, harvest data, and periodic health checks. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Objective 4-2: Fishing. Provide a quality fishing program consistent with sound biological principals 

for 10,000 visitors carried out in accordance with state regulations. 

Discussion: Fishing and crawfishing opportunities are offered year-round on Cowpen Bayou, 

Highway 28 borrow pits of the Headquarters Unit, and the Bushley Bayou Unit. However, Muddy 

Bayou, Duck Lake, Willow Lake, Highway 84 borrow pits, and all other Headquarters Unit waters are 

only opened to fishing from March 1 through October 31. 

Strategies: 

y Provide fishing safety information, rules, and regulations to increase public awareness and 

experience. 

y Develop and improve handicap parking spots and approach at the fishing pier on Cowpen 

Bayou and at the handicap dock on Duck Lake. 

y By 2010, provide ample opportunities for public use of the aquatic resources. The tasks in 

order of importance are to (1) improve sport fishery in Duck Lake; (2) continue to allow fishing 

from March 1 to October 31 each year; and (3) allow crawfishing by the public from March 1 to 

June 15 or at the time of dewatering for moist soil each year. 

y Improve public access to bank fishing areas, such as Willow Lake, Duck Lake, and 

Bushley Creek. 

y Evaluate logistics and safety considerations in creating suitable boat ramp sites on Bushley 

Creek and other appropriate areas. 

y Update and implement Sport Fishing Management Plan in consultation with state and federal 

partners to ensure a quality fishing experience. 

y Develop a pond on Bushley Bayou Unit as a place for annual kids’ fishing day. 

Objective 4-3: Wildlife Observation and Photography. Improve access and opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography refuge-wide with emphasis on the Headquarters Unit. 

Discussion: As described in Chapter II, the refuge Headquarters Unit provides several opportunities 

for wildlife viewing and photography, including two designated hiking trails, an observation tower, and 

the auto tour drive. Other units provide opportunities along trails, roads, and diverse habitats. 

The observation tower overlooks Duck Lake, which draws a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 

birds, and raptors. The wildlife drive parallels Cowpen Bayou, which provides a chance to see other 

bird species, alligators, turtles, otters, and other wildlife. Much of the wildlife drive takes visitors 

through a bottomland hardwood forest, where bobcat, white-tailed deer, and feral hogs can be seen. 

With over 200 species of birds recorded on the refuge, birding is one of the most popular forms of 

wildlife observation on the refuge. Viewing wintering ducks and geese, looking for spring and fall 

migratory birds, and seeking songbirds or unusual species, such as the wood stork, painted bunting, 

or bald eagles are common practices for local and traveling “birders.” 

Visitors may also see other common forms of wildlife, such as hawks and owls, white-tailed deer, 

raccoon, squirrel, snakes, turtles, beavers, and a variety of songbirds. 
82 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Create short trails (one or two) to Duck Lake on west side of Wildlife Drive and designate nohunting zones around these trails. 

y Add a spotting scope and interpretive panel to newly remodeled observation tower. 

y Develop pull-offs on Wildlife Drive at key wildlife viewing spots and create view windows in the 

vegetation at these spots. Widen Wildlife Drive to allow for two-way traffic. 

y Develop an observation platform and boardwalk at end of the nature trail. 

y Work with local photographers to determine a good spot for a photo blind at Duck Lake. 

y Work with NRCS to develop native grasses in the Willow Lake Unit and develop a birding trail 

through the grassland area. 

y After establishing wading bird and shorebird habitat on Bushley Bayou Unit, determine if it is 

appropriate for a trail and observation platform. 

Objective 4-4: Environmental Education. Initiate and develop a community- and curriculum-based 

environmental education program with LaSalle and Catahoula Parish schools and local 

conservation groups. 

Discussion: The refuge does not have a facility that is appropriate for groups to meet in for education 

programs. There is no outdoor classroom area at the refuge, but there is a large area in the shop that can 

be used if necessary. Presentations and tours are provided to groups if requested. The refuge averages 

less than 10 requests per year for on-site presentations. Most of the environmental education programs 

for the refuge are done off-site. Office assistant Kim Randall provides presentations to 4-H Clubs, local 

elementary schools, home school groups, and library groups on topics including Louisiana mammals, 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, endangered species, and wetlands. 

The refuge has not developed an outreach plan for specific issues, such as Catahoula Lake 

Partnership, reforestation, migratory birds, hunting and fishing opportunities, and other partnerships. 

The primary audiences identified by the staff include: hunters, anglers, birders, local farmers, and 

refuge neighbors. The refuge includes messages about the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System in its outreach materials and programs. 

The main outreach tools utilized are news releases, information exhibits at special events, and the 

refuge’s Internet site. The refuge has a good working relationship with the local news media but more 

should be done to develop proactive opportunities to utilize the media. Special events include 

Migratory Bird Day at the Alexandria Zoo, special events at neighboring refuges, Kids Fishing Day, 

and Jena Community Event. In addition to special events, the refuge also provides presentations to 

groups such as local retirement homes and civic clubs. 

Strategies: 

y Work with local teachers to ensure that activities associated with refuge critter crates meet the 

Louisiana educational standards of learning. 

y Focus education to off-site events, present or display at other organizations’ events, and 

develop strategies to maximize off-site education. 

y Host annual teacher workshop to promote environmental education-based curriculum in local 

schools. 

y Develop outdoor classroom, possibly on Headquarters Unit, to support environmental 

education-based curriculum in local schools. 

y Increase involvement in and update local public on refuge activity. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Objective 4-5: Environmental Interpretation. Develop interpretive program that will increase 

awareness of habitat features, wildlife values, and management programs on the refuge. 

Discussion: The primary themes for the refuge are bottomland hardwoods, reforestation, native 

wildlife, endangered species, migratory waterfowl, wetlands, and mammals. Currently, when 

requested, the staff will provide guided walks or give nature talks to groups. There are few 

interpretive panels on any of the trails. The limited information available in the reception area of the 

office and at the headquarters kiosk needs to be updated. The general brochure, which provides 

information about the Duck Lake area, needs to be updated to include the Bushley Bayou Unit. The 

refuge has developed a portable exhibit with images of the refuge and various species. This exhibit is 

used at special events. 

Strategies: 

y Update the general brochure to include the Bushley Bayou Unit information. 

y Update the six-panel kiosk at the Headquarters Unit. 

y Expand the office to incorporate an interpretive display and develop interpretive panels for the 

reception area of the office. 

y Develop interpretive panels for the observation tower. 

y Develop interpretive panels, more benches, and directional areas for the nature trail. 

Objective 4-6: Facilities and Support. Improve access, facilities, and program support to promote 

year-round wildlife-dependent recreation within five years of the plan. 

Discussion: Outreach and biological monitoring are supported only by volunteer efforts. Volunteer 

management will involve prioritizing staff time to orient and manage volunteers and guide them as 

they provide needed services to supplement current refuge programs. The refuge does not have a 

friends group and there is no community interest in forming such a group at this time. 

Strategies: 

y Develop volunteer program to help meet needs of refuge such as disabled hunters’ hunt, 

wood duck nest box project, off-site education, and trail maintenance. 

y Consider having a youth conservation corps (YCC) program, including an adult leader. 

y Expand office facility to include environmental education and interpretive displays. 

y Construct a visitor and environmental education center, possibly on the Headquarters Unit. 

y Develop a Visitor Services Plan by 2010. 

y Consider utilizing the recreational fee program to maintain and enhance visitor facilities and 

programs. 

y Place a composting toilet at headquarters kiosk. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal 5: Provide administrative support to ensure that the goals and objectives for refuge fish 

and wildlife populations, habitats, land conservation, and visitor services are achieved. 

Background: The administrative functions associated with a refuge include a wide array of activities 

that are critical to the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose of each refuge. These functions 

include staffing, training, budgeting, planning, refuge access, law enforcement, facilities, community 
84 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

relations, partnering, and maintenance. Refuges must have appropriate staff, facilities, equipment, 

and funding in order to accomplish their overall goals and objectives. 

Objective 5-1: Staffing and Budget Needs. Work with the Regional Office to identify critical staffing 

and budget needs that are realistically possible within the next 10 to 15 years. 

Discussion: Currently, there are only three employees dedicated to the management of the refuge. 

The staffing level limits the refuge’s ability to meet its waterfowl and habitat management objectives, 

public use objectives, and law enforcement objectives. The refuge is predominately bottomland 

hardwood forest in need of management, and a refuge biologist and forester will allow the refuge to 

provide quality habitat for waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, and Louisiana black bear. One fulltime law enforcement officer will help protect the resources. Funding of seven new positions will 

substantially increase the refuge’s ability to meet its management obligations. 

Strategies: 

y Develop staffing plan with the Regional Office, which will include biologist, forester, park 

ranger (law enforcement), engineering equipment operator, assistant refuge manager, 

maintenance worker, and park ranger (interpretive). 

y Acquire budgetary resources to purchase and replace fundamental equipment necessary to 

perform wetland and waterfowl management objectives, such as dozer, motor grader, disc, 

mower, and farm tractor. 

Objective 5-2: Law Enforcement. Maintain highly trained and effective law enforcement 

personnel to ensure trust resource protection, visitor safety, and enforcement of all refuge-related 

acts and regulations. 

Discussion: Protecting the natural resources of the refuge and ensuring the safety of its visitors are 

fundamental responsibilities of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Catahoula Refuge is 

accomplishing this responsibility with one dual-function officer. As crime continues to increase in 

rural America, refuges face a larger and more complicated enforcement problem. In addition to over 

10,000 natural resource violations, other serious felonies (e.g., homicides, rapes, assaults, and acts 

of arson) are occurring on refuges every year. 

Strategies: 

y Add one full-time park ranger (law enforcement) and maintain current dual-function officer. 

y Provide up-to-date training and equipment to all full-time and dual-function officers. 

y Develop memorandums of understanding with state and parish law enforcement agencies to 

facilitate cooperation and assistance in law enforcement activities. 

y Provide education and outreach programs in the local community as part of a preventive law 

enforcement effort. 

y Provide assistance to service special agents and state conservation officers for off-refuge 

activities as requested. 

Objective 5-3: Partnerships. Expand and create new partnerships for the refuge that will help 

support its mission. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Discussion: Partnerships with state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and interested 

volunteers is an integral part of maintaining and expanding local and regional associations that can 

help in the activities of the refuge. 

Strategy: 

y Continue to collaborate with all existing partners and look for opportunities to expand 

cooperation with existing and new partners. 
86 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation 

of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and not wholly dedicated to recreational uses. Priority 

projects emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, 

but considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for recreation and 

environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this plan for Catahoula National 

Wildlife Refuge, this section identifies projects and a cost summary, funding and personnel needs, 

volunteers, partnership opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive 

management plan, and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the project summaries and their associated costs for baseline data collection and 

interpretation, exotic species control, habitat restoration and management, land protection, facility 

development and maintenance, and staffing over the next 15 years. This project list reflects the 

priority needs identified by the public, the planning team, and refuge staff based upon available 

information. These projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and 

strategies. The primary linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each 

summary. Table 6 presents a summary of these projects and costs. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project 1: Science-based Inventory and Monitoring of Plant and Animal Populations 

Science-based inventories and monitoring of plant and animal populations are critical to ensuring the 

biological integrity of the refuge. Information collected will serve as the basis for developing habitat 

management plans and will influence all refuge management activities. A systematic inventory and 

monitoring program will enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable 

long-term contributions to national and regional objectives for waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, 

shorebirds, wading birds, wintering forest and scrub/shrub birds among others, and resident wildlife. 

Standardized census and survey techniques will be employed and all data compiled into databases, 

including GIS for spatial analysis. This information is critical to formulating management actions and 

evaluating wetland restoration and other refuge programs. All data will be shared with appropriate 

state and federal partners in an effort to further ecosystem management. This project will add a 

wildlife biologist position to support this annual inventory and monitoring effort. The estimated firstyear cost for this project is $135,000, with a recurring cost of $60,000 per year. (Linkage: Goal 1, 

Objectives 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11,1-12, 1-13, 1-14.) 

Project 2: GIS and Spatial Technology 

A GIS will enable the refuge to generate the high-quality maps needed for presenting information on 

habitat and natural and cultural resource databases required for evaluation of land protection plans 

and pollution risks from off-refuge activities, and for presenting information on archaeological sites 
88 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

and historic resources. Census and survey data will be compiled into GIS databases for spatial 

analysis. This information is critical to formulating management actions and evaluating restoration 

and other refuge programs. These systems will also be useful for analyzing baseline data on 

contaminants from contributory watersheds and backwater flooding events. The estimated cost for 

this project is $20,000. (Linkage: Goal 1, Objective 1-4)

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project 3: Bushley Bayou Unit Minnow Pond 

Abandoned minnow ponds will be configured to allow for management of ponds as moist-soil 

impoundments for shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl and impoundments with emergent 

vegetation for rail habitat. A partial underground water delivery system is in place and two centrifugal 

pumps have been obtained. Connections to the existing underground pipes, installation of a new 

underground system on the south side of Flat Creek, a new deep-water well to provide water to either 

of the ponds on the north or south side of the creek, and two power units to run the centrifugal pumps 

are needed. Several new water control structures are also needed to allow for better handling of 

water. An estimated cost for this project is $125,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000 per year. 

(Linkage: Goal 2, Objective 2-2.) 

Project 4: Forest Habitat 

An active forest management program will become increasingly important if the refuge is to contribute 

to regional and national goals for migratory birds and the Louisiana black bear. A forest inventory has 

been conducted by contract foresters and Service staff via continuous forest inventory (CFI) plots. 

CFI plots will be resampled in the future to track the forest composition and species diversity changes 

in response to time and management practices. A one percent timber cruise has been completed by 

another contract forester covering the forested acreage of the refuge in order to provide information 

needed for the updating of the forest management plan. The development and implementation of a 

forest management plan is critical to creating spatially diverse forests to support source populations 

of migratory and resident wildlife. Included in this project is a forester position to plan and implement 

forest management and inventory. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $145,000, with a 

recurring cost of $74,000 per year. (Linkage: Goal 2, Objective 2-1.) 

Project 5: Heavy Equipment

This project will complete essential rehabilitation work on over 21 miles of gravel roads, 9 miles of dirt 

roads, 23 miles of all-terrain vehicle trails, and 4 miles of levees. It will include the hiring of one 

engineering equipment operator; replacing numerous collapsed culverts; graveling of damaged 

sections of roads; installing or replacing water control structures; building or repairing of levees; 

purchasing essential heavy equipment to complete rehabilitation and development projects; and 

removing of woody vegetation from road and levee shoulders. This work, along with the needed 

heavy equipment, is critical for restoring the refuge’s hydrology and enhancing its accessibility to the 

public. Necessary equipment includes an excavator with tree cutter attachment ($230,000); a gravel 

trailer ($35,000); a 16-yard pull-behind dirt scraper ($25,000); a boom-axe with tractor ($50,000); a 

truck and trailer ($125,000); and a 120 hp tractor with bushhog mower and disk ($120,000). The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $685,000, with an annual recurring cost of $100,000. 

(Linkage: Goal 1, Objective 1-4.) 

Project 6: Invasive and Exotic Species Control 

The refuge’s biological integrity is threatened by a variety of invasive species. This project will 

develop and implement an integrated pest management program to control invasive and nuisance 

plants and animals. Invasive plant occurrence will be mapped and quantified. Appropriate integrated 

pest management strategies will be used to control water hyacinth, American lotus, and buttonbush in 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

all water bodies; alligator weed, sesbania, cocklebur, and Johnsongrass in moist-soil units; and 

Chinese tallow trees in reforestation areas. Strategies will include chemical, mechanical, and 

biological control techniques. Invasive animal species, such as feral swine, utilize virtually every 

component of the habitat and directly compete with native wildlife, reducing the habitat’s carrying 

capacity and adversely affecting reproduction and recruitment. Feral swine are compromising the 

refuge’s efforts in wetland restoration, reforestation, and species recovery. This project will add a 

maintenance worker position ($53,000), a tractor mounted, PTO-driven spray rig ($1,500), and covers 

training, medical monitoring, and certifications required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Department policy. 

Increased use of volunteers will be promoted, along with biologist, to investigate opportunites to 

establish partners’ projects with adjacent landowners whose properties are often sources of 

infestation. The estimated cost is $100,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000 per year. (Linkages: 

Goal 1, Objectives 1-7, 1-12, 1-14; Goal 2, Objectives 2-1, 2-2, 2-3; Goal 4, Objective 4-1.) 

Project 7: Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire is an important tool in the management of refuge habitats. Fire is useful in the control 

of unwanted brush and woody species. The estimated cost is $10,000, with a recurring cost of 

$6,000 per year. (Linkage: Goal 2, Objective 2-3.) 

Project 8: Grassland Rehabilitation 

A 95-acre open area will be managed for grassland bird species through a series of management actions, 

including burning, mowing, discing, and seeding of native grasses and forbs. The estimated cost of this 

project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000 per year. (Linkage: Goal 2, Objective 2-3.) 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project 9: Boundary Lines Survey-Bushley Bayou Unit 

Several portions of the current refuge boundary have not been surveyed and other portions have 

inadequate field points that preclude accurate boundary delineation. Registered surveys provide a 

legally defensible boundary line that is critical to resource protection and public relations, especially 

with regard to adjacent landowners. This project will fund surveys for approximately 40 miles of 

boundary line at an estimated cost of $5,000 per mile. The total cost of this project is $200,000, with 

a recurring cost of $3,000 per year. (Linkages: Goal 3, Objectives 3-1, 3-5; Goal 4, Objective 4-1.) 

Project 10: Refuge Acquisition Boundary Expansion 

The refuge is proposing a minor expansion with the addition of 1,835.2 acres. This expansion is 

important to the refuge and the public because it allows for more and better access to portions of the 

refuge previously hard to reach, and it increases the refuge’s ability to manage the habitats for wildlife 

in a more consistent fashion. Land would be purchased only from willing sellers. The estimated cost 

of this project is between $2 and $4 million to expand the current refuge acquisition boundary by 

1,835.2 acres. (Linkages: Goal 3, Objective 3-2; Goal 4, Objectives 4-1, 4-2.) 

Project 11: Land Protection within Approved Refuge Boundary 

Through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and leases, cooperative agreements, 

and conservation easements with willing landowners, the Service will continue to purchase interest in 

the remaining 3,012 acres within the existing refuge boundary. The Service will acquire sufficient 

interest in the identified lands to prevent conflicting land uses and to provide the management 

flexibility required to protect and manage the habitat as a national wildlife refuge. Additionally, this 

project will eliminate numerous small inholdings and consolidate refuge boundaries, eliminating many 

administrative and public access issues. The acquired lands will be made available to the public for 

additional wildlife-dependent recreation. All acquisitions will be made from willing sellers. Potential 
90 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

funding sources for this project include the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, carbon sequestration, and cooperative efforts with various Service partners. The 

estimated cost of this project is $4 to $6 million. (Linkage: Goal 3, Objectives 3-1, 3-2.)

 

Project 12: Contaminants Survey 

The greatest contaminant threats to the refuge are from pesticides, on- and off-site oil and gas spills, 

and mercury. An initial step in reducing and preventing future contamination is to hire an assistant 

refuge manager whose duties will be to establish and implement sampling protocols for determination 

of baseline and episodic air, soil, sediment, tissue, and water quality contamination levels. This 

baseline information will enable the refuge to monitor and evaluate the extent of the contaminant 

issues affecting refuge fish and wildlife resources, including amphibian and invertebrate species, and 

to develop measures for minimizing these impacts. The estimated first-year cost of this program is 

$243,000, with a recurring cost of $100,000 per year. (Linkage: Goal 3, Objectives 3-3, 3-4.) 

Project 13: Archaeological Survey 

A comprehensive archaeological survey of Catahoula Refuge will be conducted. This project is essential 

to meet federal cultural resource mandates and will provide the baseline information needed for protection 

of existing resources and resource/public use development activities. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $123,000, with a recurring cost of $3,000. (Linkage: Goal 3, Objective 3-5.)

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project 14: Wildlife Observation

This project would improve the current boardwalk and trail and hiking trails, create handicapaccessible photo blinds, new observation tower and boardwalk incorporating wildlife observation and 

interpretation to sites at Duck Lake, on the Headquarter's Unit. Each site would include parking, 

maintained trails with boardwalks, foot bridges (when necessary), interpretive panels, and 

observation blinds or platforms. Informational brochures and interpretive panels would describe the 

area’s natural and cultural resources, refuge management programs, and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The estimated cost of this project is $283,000, with a recurring cost of $13,000. 

(Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 4-3.)

Project 15: Roads 

The primary access roads to the refuge’s water control structures in the Minnow Ponds waterfowl 

management area and the west side of the Bushley Bayou Unit are constructed of dirt. These dirt 

roads are used on a daily basis to transport equipment, monitor the water management system, and 

perform associated maintenance activities. The roads become impassable during wet weather and 

hinder refuge management. Upgrading them would consist of shaping the road beds, adding 

culverts, and applying 6 inches of gravel. This project would ensure dependable all-weather access 

to perform critical refuge operations and allow the development of compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation in an area of the refuge that is presently closed to vehicular access. The estimated firstyear cost of this project is $1.8 million, with a recurring cost of $6,000. (Linkages: Goal 4, Objective 

4-6; Goal 5, Objective 5-1.)

Project 16: Duck Lake Sport Fishery Improvement 

Duck Lake, a 1,200-acre impoundment, at one time was a popular recreational fishing destination for 

people in central Louisiana. However, during the drawdown for the replacement of the water control 

structure, Duck Lake went dry, the native fishery was wiped out, and a variety of invasive and exotic 

vegetation, including American lotus and buttonbush, infiltrated the lake. This project will restore the 

sport fish population in Duck Lake to a level that will sustain a recreational fishing program. 

Strategies will include control of invasive and exotic plant species through chemical, biological, or 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

mechanical techniques, enhanced water management capabilities, and construction of a canal from 

the water control structure to Little Lake Slough, as per guidelines set by the Baton Rouge Fisheries 

Resource Office. The estimated cost is $150,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000 per year. 

(Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 4-2.) 

Project 17: Visitor Service Program Support 

Currently, Catahoula Refuge offers only limited opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation due, 

primarily, to a lack of facilities and availability of staff to plan and implement a visitor services 

program. This project will add a park ranger (interpretive) to organize and implement an overall 

visitor services program that will include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation and include expansion of the headquarters office 

area. Directional and interpretive signs will be developed and placed throughout the refuge to 

accommodate all types of wildlife-dependent visitation. Programs and tours will be developed and 

provided to schools and other interested groups. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$425,000, with a recurring cost of $129,000. (Linkages: Goal 4, Objective 4-5; Goal 5, Objective 5-1.)

Project 18: Fishing Access Improvement

Fishing is a popular recreational activity on the refuge. However, inadequate public use facilities and 

inadequate access to fishing areas limit the public’s opportunity to enjoy Bushley Creek and other 

places on the refuge. This project will provide directional signs, an interpretive kiosk, accessible trails 

and fishing pier, a parking area, boat launch on Bushley Creek, and restrooms at the existing boat 

ramp site. Minimum public use standards will be met at this site. The estimated total cost for this 

project is $211,000, with a recurring cost of $8,000. (Linkage: Goal 4, Objective 4-6.)

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project 19: Equipment Replacement 

Refuge operations, maintenance, and law enforcement depend on reliable vehicles capable of travel 

both on- and off-road. The refuge uses a combination of trucks, vans, all-terrain vehicles, and boats 

for access. These vehicles are subjected to rough terrain and severe duty that effectively shorten 

their serviceable condition to less than five years. The refuge needs to replace, on average, at least 

one vehicle and one all-terrain vehicle per year to maintain a safe and dependable vehicle fleet. The 

total estimated cost of this project is $467,000: vehicle ($30,000); all-terrain vehicle ($6,000); 

outboard motor and boat ($10,000); bushhog mower ($18,000); disk ($18,000); road grader 

($160,000); backhoe ($75,000); and bulldozer ($150,000); with a recurring cost of $36,000 per year. 

(Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 5-1.)

Project 20: Construct shop and fenced compound on Bushley Bayou Unit

Currently, the refuge does not have a shop or fenced compound on the Bushley Unit. Equipment 

must be transported from the Headquarters Unit 10 miles away. This takes up valuable time and 

resources. Also, when equipment is left on the refuge, it is unprotected. Equipment, boats, and other 

important materials are stored in areas accessible to the public. The refuge is in urgent need to 

construct a shop and fenced compound to maintain equipment and keep it safe. The estimated cost 

of this project is $250,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 5-1.) 

Project 21: Construct pole barn at Headquarters Unit 

Currently, refuge maintenance fleet and Service vehicles are unprotected at the headquarters shop. 

Equipment, boats, and other important materials are stored in areas exposed to the elements. The refuge 

is in urgent need to construct a pole barn to maintain equipment and keep it safe. The estimated cost of 

this project is $150,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 5-1) 
92 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 22: Law Enforcement 

The refuge currently receives over 2,500 hunter visits and 4,500 fishing visits annually, and 

increased visitation is expected as this plan is implemented. Catahoula Refuge currently has only 

one dual-function law enforcement officer, covering two units of the refuge and nearby Catahoula 

Lake, which is insufficient to meet the demands of resource protection and visitor safety. This 

project will add one full-time park ranger (law enforcement) to the refuge, with shared 

responsibilities among neighboring refuges. First-year cost of this project is $140,000, with a 

recurring cost of $80,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 5-2.) 

Project 23: Position Upgrade 

Catahoula Refuge currently has a GS-0485-11 refuge manager covering 25,000+ acres of 

Service-managed lands and operating the water control structure on the 26,000-acre state-owned 

Catahoula Lake, which is insufficient to meet the demands of increased staff and management 

complexity associated with implementation of this plan. This project will upgrade the refuge 

manager position to a level commensurate with accretion of duties. The estimated cost of this 

project is $15,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000. (Linkage: Goal 5, Objective 5-2.)

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Currently, a staff of three permanent positions has been approved for the refuge. To complete the 

extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and conduct the necessary 

inventorying and monitoring, management, and visitor services activities, more staff is required to 

enable the refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies within a reasonable time. The annual 

cost (including salaries and benefits) will be $1.05 million. 

VOLUNTEERS 

Volunteers can provide valuable assistance to refuge staff. Currently, there are two volunteers at the 

refuge who are primarily involved in assisting staff with surveys and outreach activities. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan is to establish partnerships with 

landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate 

vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, elementary and 

secondary schools, and community organizations, such as the Loose Association of Birders and the 

Rapides Wildlife Association. At regional and state levels, partnerships might be established with 

organizations such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bayou State Bowhunters, 

The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, National Audubon Society, 

Ruffed Grouse Society, and National Wild Turkey Federation. American Electric Power and 

Environmental Synergy, Inc., are two of our corporate partners responsible for the carbon 

sequestration projects. 

The refuge volunteer program and other partnerships generated will depend upon the number of staff 

positions the Service provides the refuge. As staff and resources are committed to the refuge, 

opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop partnerships will be enhanced. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Table 6. Summary of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

projects 

Project # Description First-year Cost 

$ 

Recurring 

Annual Cost 

FTE 

Additional 

Staff 

FTE’s* 

1 

Science-based Inventory and 

Monitoring of Plant and Animal 

Populations 

$135,000 $60,000

1 

2 GIS and Spatial Technology $20,000 $2,000 

3 Bushley Bayou Unit Minnow Pond $125,000 $10,000 

4 Forest Habitat $145,000 $74,000 1 

5 Heavy Equipment $685,000 $100,000 1 

6 Invasive and Exotic Species Control $80,000 $63,000 1 

7 Prescribed Fire $10,000 $6,000 

8 Grassland Rehabilitation $20,000 $2,000 

9 Boundary Lines Survey – Bushley 

Bayou Unit $200,000 $3,000

10 Refuge Acquisition Boundary 

Expansion $2-4,000,000** **

11 Land Protection within Approved 

Refuge Boundary $4-6,000,000** **

12 Contaminants Survey $243,000 $100,000 1 

13 Archaeological Survey $123,000 $3,000 

14 Wildlife Observation $283,000 $13,000 

15 Roads’ Projects – Roads, All-Terrain 

Vehicle Trail, and Bridge $1,800,000 $6,000

16 Duck Lake Sport Fishery 

Improvement $150,000 $15,000

17 Visitor Service Program Support $425,000 $129,000 1 

18 Fishing Access Improvement $211,000 $8,000 

19 Equipment Replacement $467,000 $36,000 

20 Construct Shop and Fenced 

Compound (Bushley Bayou Unit) $250,000 $5,000

21 Construct Pole Barn (Headquarters 

Unit) $150,000 $2,000

22 Law Enforcement $140,000 $80,000 1 

23 Position Upgrade $15,000 $15,000 

Grand Total $5,677,000.00 $732,000.00 7 

* Full-time equivalents. Currently there are 3 FTEs. The CCP includes the addition of 7 FTEs. 

** Costs not included in Grand Total due to fluctuating land acquisition costs. 
94 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. 

Before some of the strategies and projects can be implemented, detailed step-down management plans 

will need to be prepared or updated. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, the 

refuge staff will develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations. These plans (Table 7) will be 

developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification and 

evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 

Table 7. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans* 

Plan Completion Date

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 2009 

Habitat Management 2008 

 Moist-soil/Water Management 2007 

 Forest Management 2008 

Integrated Pest Management 2012 

 Nuisance Animal Control 2011 

 Exotic/Invasive Plant Control 2012 

Fire Management 2008 

Visitor Services 2010 

 Environmental Education 2010 

 Fishing 2009 

 Hunting and Trapping 2009 

 Wildlife Observation and Photography 2010 

Law Enforcement 2013 

*Note: Plans are shown in sequence according to goals and objectives listed in Chapter IV. 

Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (develop), completion 2009: This plan will describe inventory 

and monitoring techniques and time frames. All plant communities and associations in the refuge, as 

well as all trust species (e.g., migratory birds including songbirds, neotropical migratory birds, and 

waterfowl), listed species (e.g., federal and state threatened, endangered and species of concern), 

and key resident species, will be inventoried, and population trends will be monitored. These data 

are essential to guide the management of wildlife populations, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public 

use on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Habitat Management Plan (develop), completion 2008: This plan will describe the overall desired 

future habitat conditions needed to fulfill refuge purpose and objectives. The plan will include three 

sections dealing with moist-soil/water management units, and forests. Procedures, techniques, and 

timetables for achieving desired future conditions will be developed into an overall plan. 

y Moist-soil/Water Management Plan (update), completion 2007: This plan will describe the 

strategies and procedures (e.g., timing and duration of flooding and disturbance) for 

manipulating the refuge’s water management units to meet habitat management objectives. 

y Forest Management Plan (update), completion 2008: This plan will describe strategies for 

meeting refuge forest management objectives. It will include direction on reforestation, stand 

improvement, and harvest. Also, scrub/shrub habitat management will be addressed. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (develop), completion 2012: This plan will address the complex 

issue of bringing exotic and nuisance plants and animals to a maintenance control level on the refuge. It 

will cover chemical pesticide use (aerial and ground application), mechanical eradication, and biological 

controls. The Nuisance/Exotic Animal and Plant Control plans will be sections of this plan. 

y Nuisance Animal Control Plan (develop), completion 2011: This plan (as part of the 

Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring 

techniques for both terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic animals (vertebrate and 

invertebrate). Feral swine and beaver control will be included in this plan. 

y Exotic/Invasive Plant Control Plan (develop), completion 2012: This plan (as part of the 

Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring 

techniques for both terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic plants. 

Fire Management Plan (update), completion 2008: This plan will describe wild and prescribed fire 

management techniques that will be employed on the refuge. Wildfire control descriptions will include 

initial attack strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

Visitor Services Plan (update), completion 2010: This plan will describe the refuge’s wildlifedependent recreation, and environmental education and interpretation programs. Specific issues or 

items that will be addressed include facility requirements, site plans, and handicapped accessibility. 

The Environmental Education, Fishing, Hunting, and Sign Plans will be sections of this plan. 

y Environmental Education Plan (develop), completion 2010: This plan (as part of the Visitor 

Services Plan) will reflect the objectives and strategies of the comprehensive conservation 

plan and address environmental education guidelines following Service standards. 

y Fishing Plan (update), completion 2009: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will 

address specific aspects of the refuge’s fishing program. It will define season structures, fish 

areas, methods, handicapped accessibility facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

y Hunting and Trapping Plan (update), completion 2009: This plan (as part of the Visitor 

Services Plan) will address specific aspects of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define 

species to be hunted/trapped, season structures, hunt areas, methods, all-terrain vehicle use, 

handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific hunting regulations. 
96 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

y Wildlife Observation and Photography Plan (update), completion 2010: This plan (as part of 

the Visitor Services Plan) will describe the refuge’s strategy for informing visitors via signage. 

It will incorporate Service guidelines. 

Law Enforcement Plan (update), completion 2013: This plan will provide a reference to station 

policies, procedures, priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and non-target species or communities, then alterations to the management projects 

will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan will be revised. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. 

A revision will occur if and when conditions change or significant information becomes available, such 

as a change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The approved plan will be 

augmented by detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies 

in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the plan and the step-down 

management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Appendices 97

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions 

outlined within the comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of 

the outcome of project implementation helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as is or whether it should 

be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and 

the desired future condition. 

Approved Acquisition A project boundary which the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Boundary approves upon completion of the detailed planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur. 

Biological Integrity The biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 

and community levels comparable with historic conditions including the 

natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities. 

Code of Federal The codification of the general and permanent rules listed in the 

Regulations (CFR) Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the 

Federal Government. 

 

Community An interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a 

common location. 

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use on a refuge that 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Service or the purposes of the refuge. 

Comprehensive A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge 

Conservation Plan and specifies management actions to achieve refuge goals and the 

(CCP) mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Community A distinct assemblage of plants that develops on sites characterized by 

particular climates and soils, and the species and populations of wild 

animals that depend on the plants for food, cover, and/or nesting. 

Cooperative Agreement A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by 

either party. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily 

become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
98 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Corridor A route that allows movement of individuals from one region or place to 

another. 

Cover Type The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resources The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of the past. 

Cypress and Tupelo A swamp found in low-lying areas that holds water several months, 

Swamp if not all of the year. Large hollow trees are used as bear den sites. 

Ecological Succession The orderly progression of an area through time in the absence of 

disturbance from one vegetative community to another. 

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, 

Approach structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all 

components are interrelated. 

Ecosystem Management Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Ecotone Edge or transition zone between two or more adjacent but different 

plant communities, ecosystems, or biomes. 

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Environmental A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result 

Assessment (EA) in a significant effect on the quality of the environment. 

Extirpation The localized extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality 

or country, but still exists elsewhere in the world. 

Federal Trust Species All species for which the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction, 

including federally threatened or endangered species, migratory birds, 

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

Fee-title The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. There is a 

total transfer of property rights with the formal conveyance of a title. 

While a fee title acquisition involves most rights to a property, certain 

rights may be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, mineral 

rights, or use reservation (the ability to continue using the land for a 

specified time period, or the reminder of the owner’s life). 
Appendices 99

Finding of No A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Significant Impact Environmental Policy Act and supported by an environmental 

assessment that briefly presents why a Federal action will have no 

significant effect on the human environment and states that an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared. 

Floodplain Woods/ Forests consisting of hardwood species adapted to heavy clay 

Bottomland Hardwood soils and frequent/seasonal inundation. Such forests occur 

Forests naturally in the alluvial flood plains of rivers and streams in the 

southeastern United States but millions of acres (up to 90 percent) have 

been cleared primarily for agriculture in the Mississippi River Alluvial 

Valley. 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches; 

the disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. 

Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions. 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and reproduction. 

Historic Conditions The composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting 

from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional 

judgment, were present prior to substantial human-related changes to 

the landscape. 

Inholding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

Mississippi Alluvial Plain A conspicuous band of alternating Pleistocene and Holocene deposits 

that characterizes the broad, flat alluvial plain of the Mississippi River 

embayment, its tributaries to the west, and coastal Texas. 

Moist-soil Management The technique of using water management structures in seasonally 

flooded impoundments to stimulate the production of natural plant 

species on exposed mudflats by regulating the timing of water removal 

in the spring. 

National Environmental A Federal law that requires all agencies, including the 

Policy Act of 1969 Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in 

the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate policy documents to facilitate better environmental decision 

making. 

National Wildlife Refuge A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
100 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

National Wildlife All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the 

Refuge System Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife 

management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Neotropical Migratory A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexican border 

Bird and winters primarily south of that border. 

Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome or goal. 

Objectives are more specific, and generally more measurable, than 

goals. 

Planning Area An area that may include lands outside existing planning unit 

boundaries that are being studied for inclusion in the unit and/or 

partnership planning efforts. It may also include watersheds or 

ecosystems that affect the planning area. 

Planning Team A planning team prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. A 

team generally consists of the a planning team leader; refuge manager 

and staff biologists; staff specialists or other representatives of Service 

programs, ecosystems or regional offices; and state partnering wildlife 

agencies as appropriate. 

Preferred Alternative This is the alternative determined by the decision maker to best achieve 

the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System 

mission, addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Purpose of the Refuge The purpose of the refuge is specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge and refuge unit. 

Refuge Operating This is a national database which contains the unfunded 

Needs System operational needs of each refuge. Projects included are those required 

to implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

Scoping A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a 

comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant 

issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, state, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and individuals. 

Seral Forest A forest in the mature stage of development, usually dominated by 

large, old trees. 

Sink A habitat in which local mortality exceeds local reproductive success for 

a given species. 
Appendices 101

Source A habitat in which local reproductive success exceeds local mortality for 

a given species. 

Source Population A population in a high-quality habitat in which birth rate greatly exceeds 

death rate and the excess individuals leave as migrants. 

Species A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. In 

taxonomy, a category of biological classification that refers to one or 

more populations of similar organisms that can reproduce with each 

other but is reproductively isolated from – that is, incapable of 

interbreeding with – all other kinds of organisms. 

SPOA Source Population Objective Area. 

Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives. 

Step-Down Management Step-down management plans provide the details 

Plans necessary to implement management strategies and projects identified 

in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Threatened Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered 

Species species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the 

foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in 

the Federal Register. 

Trust Species Species for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary 

responsibility, including most federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, anadromous fish once they enter the inland 

coastal waterways, and migratory birds. 

Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an area. 

Vegetation Type A category of land based on potential or existing dominant plant species 

of a particular area. 

Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system. 

Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, bogs, and streams that are inundated by 

surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year to 

support, and that do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wetland Reserve A voluntary program of the USDA Natural Resources 

Program Conservation Service that provides technical and financial support to 

help landowners and agencies with their wetland restoration efforts. 

Wildlife Living things, especially mammals, birds, and fishes that are neither 

human nor domesticated. 
102 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Wildlife Corridor A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of 

animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation 

functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, including 

frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, and the once-in-alifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are transition habitats and 

need not contain all the habitat elements required by migrants for longterm survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-dependent A use of the refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife 

Recreational Use observation, wildlife photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation, as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Wildlife Diversity A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance. 
Appendices 103

Appendix II. References and Literature 

Citations 

(ABC, No date). American Bird Conservancy. No date provided. Web page. Globally Important Bird 

Areas of the United States. Date Accessed: June 6, 2005. Accessed at: 

http://www.abcbirds.orgn/iba. 

(Bailey, 1995). Bailey, Robert G. March 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 

(BBUCNWF, 2001). Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. Catahoula National 

Wildlife Refuge notes from field office. 

(BLS, 2004). United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Labor Force 

Statistics: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Seasonally Unadjusted. 

February 2004.Accessed at http://data .bls.gov. 

(Boggess, 1991). Boggess, Elizabeth M. 1991. Report on Archeological Investigations, Tensas 

Delta Land Company, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. Unpublished Report 

(Appl. No. CELMK-OD-FE 14-3H26-30). 

(Bookhout, 1994). Bookhout, T.A. 1994. Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and 

Habitats. Fifth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 740 pp. 

(Boundy, 1997). Boundy, J. 1997. Snakes of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. Baton Rouge, LA. 32 pp. 

(Bush, 2005). Office of State Parks, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Baton Rouge, 

LA. May 24, 2005. Personal communication between Kelvie Bush and Kathleen Schmidt. 

Collins and Storfer, 2003). Collins, J.P. and A. Storfer. 2003. Global Amphibian Declines: Sorting 

the Hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9:89-98. 

(Cote et al., 2004), Steeve D. Côté, Thomas P. Rooney, Jean-Pierre Tremblay, Christian Dussault, 

Donald M. Waller. 2004. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 

December 2004, Vol. 35, Pages 113-147. 

 

(deMaynadier and Hunter 1995). deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship 

between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review on the North American literature. 

Environmental Review 3:230-261. 

(Dundee and Rossman, 1989). Dundee, H.A., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and 

reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge, LA. 300 pp. 

(Encyclopedia Louisiana Online, no date provided). Encyclopedia Louisiana Online. No date 

provided. Web page. Web page. State Historical Markers. Date Accessed: May 10, 2005. 

Accessed at: http://www.enlou/markers/ancientanilco.htm. 
104 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

(EPA, 1993). United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Plain English Guide to the Clean 

Air Act, 1993. Washington, DC: EPA 400-K-93-001. 

(Fredrickson and Heitmeyer, 1988). Fredrickson, L.H. and M.E. Heitmeyer. 1988. Waterfowl Use of 

Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: An Overview. Pages 307-323 in M.W. Weller, 

editor. Waterfowl in Winter. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

(GAO, 2003). United States General Accounting Office. August 2003. National Wildlife Refuges 

Opportunities to Improve the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal 

Lands. GAO-03-517. 

(Gibbons et al., 2000). Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. 

Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The Global Decline of 

Reptiles, Déjà vu Amphibians. Bio Science 50:653-666. 

(Halverson et al., 2003). Halverson, J.A., K.K. Skelly, J.M. Kiesecker, and L.K. Freidenburg. 2003. 

Forest mediated light regime linked to amphibian distribution and performance. 

Oecologia 134:360-364. 

(Hammond, 2004). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 21, 2004. Personal communication with 

Andrew Hammond, Refuge Manager, Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

(Harper, 2004) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 6, 2005. Revisions provided by Greg Harper, 

Assistant Refuge Manager, Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

(Hunter and Golder, In prep.) Hunter, C. B., and Golder. In prep. of the Southeast U.S. Waterbird 

Conservation Plan. USFWS, Atlanta, GA. 

(Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, No date). Jena Band of Choctaw Indians. No date provided. Jena 

Band of Choctaw Indians Brief Historical Summary. Date Accessed: May 10, 2005. Accessed 

at: http://www.jenachoctaw.org/history.html. 

(Laughland and Caudill, 2003). Laughland, Andrew, PhD and James Caudill, PhD. September 2003. 

Banking on Nature 2002: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife 

Refuges Visitation. Division of Economics, USFWS, Washington, DC. 

(LDEQ, 1997). Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Late Updated: June 16, 1997. Web 

page. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The Criteria Pollutants. Accessed at: 

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/evaluation/eis/criteria.htm. 

(LDEQ, 1999). Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. 

1999 Court Ordered 303(d) List. 

(LDWF, No date). Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries. No date provided.Date Accessed: 

February 12, 2005. Accessed at http://www.wlf.state.la.us. 

(Lester et. al, 2005). Lester, Gary, D., Stephen G. Sorensen, Patricia L. Faulkner, Christopher S. 

Reid, and Ines E. Maxit. 2005. Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Appendices 105

(LGS, 1990). Louisiana Geologic Survey. 1990. Generalized geology of Louisiana. Information 

obtained from the website http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/lgs/gengeo.html 

(Lichtenberg, et al., 2001). Lichtenberg, J.S., S.C. Walls, J. Leger. and M. Dettling. 2001 Distribution 

and Abundance of Breeding Anurans (Frogs and Toads) of Lake Ophelia National Wildlife, 

Louisiana 2001. Report to Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge, Marksville, Louisiana. 

(Loesch et al., 1994). Loesch, C. R., K. J. Reinecke and C. K. Baxter. 1994. Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture Evaluation Plan. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. 34 pp. 

(Madison, 1997). Madison, D.M. 1997. The emigration of radio-implanted spotted salamanders, 

Ambystoma maculatum. Journal of Herpetology 31:542:552. 

(Messina and Conner, 1998) Michael G. Messina and William H. Conner. 1998. Southern Forested 

Wetlands, Ecology and Management. Boca Ratan, Fl: CRC Press. 

(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. 

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. 722 pp. 

(Moreland, 2005). Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. May 23, 2005. 

Personal communication with Dave Moreland. 

(NASS, 2004). National Agricultural Statistics Service. Field Crops in 2001, Catahoula Parish 

Louisiana. Accessed at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/tables/

CO-EST2003-01-22.xls. Accessed on April 30, 2004. 

(NRCS, 2004). Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture. February 10, 2004. Official Soil Series Descriptions 

[online WWW]. Accessed at http://soils.usda.gov/technical /classification/osd/index.html 

(Online Highways No date). Online Highways. No date provided. Web page. Crossroads Region of 

Louisiana. Date Accessed: May 10, 2005. Accessed at: www.ohwy.com/la/z/zcrossro.htm. 

(Piehler, 2006). Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. April 27, 2006. 

Personal communication with Chris Piehler. 

(Petranka, 1998). Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 

(Ramsar, No date) The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. No date provided. Web page. What is 

the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands? Date Accessed: May 23, 2005. 

Accessed at: http://www.ramsar.org/about_infopack_2ehtm. 

(Reinecke and Loesch, 1996). Reinecke, K. J., and C. R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating research and 

management to conserve wildfowl (Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 

U.S.A. Gibier Faune Sauvage, Game and Wildlife 13:927-940. 
106 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

(Reinecke et al., 1989) Reinecke, K.J., Kaminski, R.M., Moorhead, D.J., Hodges, J.D., and Nassar, 

J.R. 1989. Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering 

Waterfowl in North America. Edited by Smith, L.M., Pederson, R.L. and Kaminski, R.M. Texas 

Tech University Press. Lubbock, TX. 560 pp. 

(Rubbo and Kiesecker, 2004). Rubbo, M.J. and J.M. Kiesecker. 2004. Leaf litter composition and 

community structure: translating regional species changes into local dynamics. 

Ecology 85: 2519-2525. 

(Schmidt, 1993). Schmidt, P.R. 1993. Memorandum – Information request regarding impact of 

hunting on national wildlife refuges. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

(Semlitsch, 2000). Semlitsch, R.D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding 

amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:615-631. 

(Skelly et al., 2002). Skelly, D.K., L.K. Freidenburg and J.M. Kiesecker. 2002 Forest canopy and the 

performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83: 983-992. 

(STATSGO, 1998). State Soil Geographic (STATSCO) Database for CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii in 

BASINS. 1998. Published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

(Tilyou, 2005). Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. June 1, 2005. Personal 

communication with Gary Tilyou, Assistant Administrator, Fisheries. 

(Tullier, 2005). Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. May 23, 2005. Personal 

communication with Miriam Tullier, Environmental Chemical Specialist, Air Analysis Section, 

Baton Rouge. 

(Twedt et al., 1999). Twedt, Daniel, David Pashley, Chuck Hunter, Allen Mueller, Cindy Brown and 

Bob Ford. September 1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley (Physiographic Area #05), Version 1.0. 

(USCB, 2000). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census of Population and Housing 2000 Summary 

File 1. Accessed at: http//factfinder.census.gov. Accessed on April 30, 2004. 

(USCB, 2003). U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. 

(USCB, 2004). U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Table CO-EST2003-01-22 – Annual Estimates of the 

Population for Counties of Louisiana: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003. Release Date: April 9, 2004. 

Accessed at http://eire.census.gov/popest/dta/counties/tables/CO-EST2003-01-22.xls. 

(USCOE, et al., 1969). U.S. Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. August 1969. 

Catahoula Lake Water Level Management Agreement. 

(USDOE, 1999). U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development. 
Appendices 107

(USFWS, 1989). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Forest 

Management Plan. 

(USFWS, 1990). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. 

American Woodcock Management Plan. 

(USFWS, 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Birds of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Accessed at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource.othrdata/chekbird/r4/catahoula.htm. (Version 22 May 98). 

(USFWS, 1995a). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. March 1995. 

Environmental Assessment, Forest Management on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, 

LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes, Rhinehart, Louisiana. 

(USFWS 1995b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. 

Jackson, Mississippi. 52 pp. 

(USFWS, 1999a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 1999. Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan, Proposed Expansion of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

(USFWS, 1999b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 1999. Catahoula National Wildlife 

Refuge Pamphlet. 

 (USFWS, 2002a). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, Division of Planning. 

May 2002. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge. 

(USFWS, 2002b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 10, 2002. Final Lower Mississippi 

River Ecosystem Plan, Version 2.5. Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/lmre/strategic_plan.htm. 

(USFWS, 2003) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds. 2003. Increasing Wood 

Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding on USFWS Refuge Lands 

(Southeast Region). 

(USFWS, 2005). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological Review Information Packet. 

(USFWS, Undated). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Review Information Packet, page 22. 

(Williams, 2005). Louisiana Dept. of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Office of Cultural 

Development, Division of Archaeology. July 15, 2005. Personal communication with Cherokee 

Williams, Staff Archeologist. 

(Wilson et al., 2000). . Wilson et al. 2000. Mississippi Alluvial Valley Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

(Wiseman et al., 1978). Wiseman, Diane, Kathleen G. McCloskey and Richard Weinstein. 1978. 

Cultural Resource Survey of the Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. 

Unpublished Report, (22-590). 
108 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 109

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AUTHORITIES 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the 

primary Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain 

marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is shared with other Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments. 

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. This system 

is the only nationwide system of Federal land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of this system in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 

(Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant 

legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

KEY LEGISLATION/POLICIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and illustrates 

management area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and may be 

adjusted through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and revision. The plan approval 

establishes conservation and land protection goals, objectives, and specific strategies for the refuge 

and its expansion. Compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge have been identified and 

approved by the refuge manager. This plan provides for systematic stepping down from the overall 

direction as outlined when making project- or activity-level decisions. This level involves site-specific 

analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements for decision-making. 

The legal mandates supporting the National Wildlife Refuge System are as follows: 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons and other regulations, including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 
110 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, 

outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several authorities. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical accessibility be made available in any 

facility funded by the Federal Government, ensuring that anyone can participate in any program. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Requires every Federal agency to provide leadership and take action 

to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and to conserve 

the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplain. 

Executive Order 11990: Directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands, and (2) conserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a 

practical alternative exists. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is “To promote the conservation 

of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of 

wetlands and other essential habitat, and for other purposes.” 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species; and requires an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of 

other Federal and State agencies. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from 

Land and Water Conservation Fund monies, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. 

The Act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority 
Appendices 111

Conservation Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an amount equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended: Public Law 93-

205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 act amended the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants depend, both through Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of 

State programs. The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened and 

endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for threatened and endangered wildlife and 

plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations 

that implement it; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to 

arrest and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation issued thereunder. 

 

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a Federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a Federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other Federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: The purpose of this executive order, signed 

May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated 

with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain 

development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains.” 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: This Act was passed to improve the administration of fish 

and wildlife programs. It amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTS INCLUDE: 

y Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011) -- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. This Act established detailed 

requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological 

resources from Federal and Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for 
112 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for any trafficking in 

such resources removed from Federal and Indian lands in violation of any provision of federal 

law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, transported, or 

received in violation of any State or local law. 

y Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold 

value of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made 

attempting to commit an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the landmanaging agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the nation. 

y Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved 

May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174), directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior 

whenever a Federal, federally assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeologic data. The Act authorized use 

of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection, and 

preservation of such data. 

y Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--The Act of 

August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public 

Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971), declared it a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. Among other 

things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of 

January 1989, thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 

y National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for preservation of 

significant historical features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the 

states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants 

under the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved September 28, 1976 (90 

Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed in, or eligible for 

listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. As of January 1989, ninety-one such sites 

on national wildlife refuges are listed in this register. 

y Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948: This Act provides funding through receipts from 

the sale of surplus Federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources of land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations 

from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Appendices 113

y Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as 

amended: The “Duck Stamp Act,” of March 16,1934, authorizes the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting and requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to 

possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in 

a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not 

subject to appropriations. 

y National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat. 3127), Public Law 

101-610, signed November 16,1990, authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several 

provisions are of particular interest to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

y Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires Federal agencies 

and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their 

control or possession. 

y American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A Federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-

25, or in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural 

resources projects which benefit the public or are carried out on federal or Indian lands. To be 

eligible for assistance, natural resource programs must focus on improvement of wildlife 

habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, 

pollution control, and similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty 

level will be paid to participants. A Commission established to administer the Youth Service 

Corps will make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and the Director 

of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

y National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 

83 Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, 

August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424). Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that 

all Federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every 

recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.” The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be 

considered in environmental impact statements, and required that Federal agencies employ an 

interdisciplinary approach in related decision making and develop means to ensure that 

unquantified environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and 

technical considerations. Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality 

from the President to the Congress, and established a Council on Environmental Quality in the 

Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

y National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Administration Act), Public 

Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) 

and provides guidance for management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act 

defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which 

the refuge was established. It mandates that the Refuge System be consistently directed and 

managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife conservation and 

management. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System. It establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 
114 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); these activities are to be promoted on the Refuge System, while all nonwildlife-dependent uses are subject to compatibility determinations. The Act establishes a 

formal process for determining compatibility; a compatible use is one which, in the sound 

professional judgment of the refuge manger, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, 

fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s). The Act 

establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the 

Refuge System; and requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by the year 

2012. As stated in the Act, “The mission of the system is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” The Act also requires development of a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge and that management is consistent with the 

plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making management 

decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other Federal agencies, State fish and 

wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide 

opportunities for public involvement when making a compatibility determination. 

y North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) Public 

Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on Wetlands between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The Act converts 

the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest available without 

appropriation through the year 2006, to carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along 

with an authorization for annual appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to the fines 

and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available funds may be 

expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for payment not to 

exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of wetlands conservation projects in 

Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal 

lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are to go to 

Canada and Mexico each year. 

y Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not 

interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and acquisition of land for incidental fish- and wildlife-dependent 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of 

fees for public uses. 

y Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) Section 401 of the Act of June 15,1935, (49 Stat. 

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) made 

major revisions to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act by requiring that all revenues received from 

refuge products, such as animals, timber, and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be 

deposited in a special Treasury account and net receipts distributed to counties for public 

schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required 

that moneys remaining in the fund after payment be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue-sharing 

system to include national fish hatcheries and Service research stations. It also included in the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to 
Appendices 115

counties were established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the 

basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of 

the net receipts produced from the land; and on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 

percent of net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 

Stat. 2662). This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference 

between the amount in the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The 

stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government within the county which 

suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of Service areas. 

y Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the 

Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres 

and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National 

Park Systems for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
116 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 117

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

Public involvement in the development of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, in La Salle and 

Catahoula Parishes, Louisiana, was sought throughout the planning process. A planning team 

(Appendix IX), composed of representatives from various Service divisions, was formed to prepare 

the Draft CCP/EA. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to 

refuge management. The team met on several occasions from February 2005 to September 2005. 

In preparation for developing the Draft CCP/EA, a Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review was 

conducted on Catahoula Refuge during the week of October 25-27, 2004, by a team of Service 

biologists, managers, foresters, and non-service managers/biologists (Appendix IX). A Visitor Services 

Review was completed in November 2004. Public input in the development of the Draft CCP/EA was 

initiated through a notice of intent published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10109). 

To expand the range of issues and generate potential alternatives, public input was sought through a 

public scoping meeting held on March 22, 2005, at Jena Elementary School, Jena, Louisiana. At the 

meeting, interested stakeholders were able to register their concerns to ensure that they would be 

considered in developing the Draft CCP/EA. The meeting was publicized by a press release in the local 

papers in Jena, Jonesville, and Alexandria. There were 34 attendees at the meeting, with seven 

attendees providing public comments. Seven citizens sent comment letters to the refuge. 

Over a 2-year period, a Draft CCP/EA was developed for the refuge, which outlined a management 

direction for the refuge for a 15-year period. Approximately 120 copies of the Draft CCP/EA were 

made available for public review, beginning April 19, 2007, and ending May 21, 2007. Fifteen 

respondents, consisting of local citizens, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the 

Rapides Wildlife Association (RWA), the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, submitted written comments by mail or email. The Draft CCP/EA comments and 

the Service response to those comments are summarized below. 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSE 

General

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Rapides Wildlife Association reviewed 

the Draft CCP/EA and they support the selection of Alternative B. The Service believes that the 

selection of Alternative B as the preferred action best meets the purpose and goals of the refuge. 

One respondent provided general editorial comments regarding a discrepancy in acreage numbers. 

The Service will incorporate these changes and ensure the accuracy of the information. One 

respondent expresses concern that the Draft CCP/EA cited research from 1967, believed this was 

hardly adequate as the foundation for a plan for 2020, and that it was outdated. The Service uses the 

most stringent science-based research available to make informed decisions. 
118 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

The Rapides Wildlife Association commented that there were possible implications of the on-going 

Catahoula Lake ownership District Court lawsuit on future management of the refuge, Catahoula Lake 

water levels, economic return from hunting and fishing on Catahoula Lake, effects on habitat, and the 

lake’s role as an internationally important migratory bird habitat. The Service notes this comment. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management 

One respondent was opposed to shooting beaver and trapping. On Catahoula Refuge, beavers 

cause an unacceptable degree of damage to the bottomland hardwood forests and habitats on 

adjacent lands. On a landscape scale, considering the historical forest as greatly diminished in size, 

the percent of remaining forest impacted by beavers is much greater than would have occurred 

naturally in an undisturbed setting. Although some beaver-driven habitat is desirable, the current 

level is disproportionate for a diverse, healthy forest. 

Beaver damage on Catahoula Refuge is mitigated by (1) removing dams manually, with explosives, 

and/or heavy equipment; (2) installing excluder devices on water control structures; and (3) 

shooting/trapping by Service employees. The extent of beaver damage is too vast and widespread 

for techniques, such as fencing, tree wrapping, and repellents, to be cost effective when considering 

the amount of required labor and materials. Lethal control is site-specific and intended to remove 

those individuals causing the most serious problems. Within the scope of all beaver control efforts on 

Catahoula Refuge, lethal control is the least used. 

Currently, any trapping of raccoons (the most trapped species) and opossums by refuge staff, is helpful 

in controlling these species’ populations. The extirpation of natural predators in Louisiana, such as 

wolves and cougars, has led to overpopulation of some species. Raccoons and opossums depredate 

bird, mammal, and reptile nests at much higher rates than occurred historically, directly causing 

population threats to some species, such as neotropical migratory birds. 

Habitat Management 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Ecological Services Office in Lafayette commented that the proposed 

budget to control invasive and exotic species was at least 20 percent too low. It also asked for a 

clarification of the budget allocation between exotic plants and feral hogs. The Service reviewed the 

proposed budget, increased the amount, and clairified allocations. 

One respondent suggested including other Forest Habitat Management plans of neighboring refuges 

similar in habitat to Catahoula, such as Bayou Cocodrie and Tensas River Refuges, in addition to 

following the General Guidelines for Hardwood Forest Management. The Service changed the text to 

reflect this inclusion. 

One respondent opposes prescribed fire burning on the refuge. Under the Service’s biological 

integrity policy (601 FW 3), refuges are charged with maintaining and restoring biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health. And, under fire policies (621 FW 1, 621 FW 3), refuges are to 

employ prescribed fire whenever it is an appropriate tool for managing resources. Prescribed burning 

for fuel reduction is considered a Categorical Exclusion, which is a category of actions that does not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and has been found to 

have no such effect in procedure adopted by a federal agency pursuant to National Environmental 

Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 
Appendices 119

The HSUS states “the Refuge is managing habitat for the sole benefit of present and future game 

species while completely ignoring the habitat requirements of non-game species. Moreover, many of 

the proposed habitat management techniques will serve to enhance game species to the known 

detriment of species that are undergoing recognized populations declines”. The HSUS provided 

examples of statements in the Draft CCP/EA related to forest management and decline of reptiles 

and amphibians, that it feels contradict each other and illustrate this point. The Service appreciates 

this review of the text; however, disagrees with the connotation. The Service and various State and 

Federal agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, developed the General Guidelines for 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest Habitat Management, which clearly benefit a host of non-game and 

game species. In fact, during the Catahoula Refuge Wildlife and Habitat Review, experts in the field 

of amphibians and reptiles recognized that the long-term impacts of the proposed forest management 

could be beneficial to these species. The Service ensured the text reflects this clearly in the CCP. 

Resource Protection

The Rapides Wildlife Association commented that the Draft CCP/EA should include discussions of the 

two main watersheds that directly affect Catahoula Refuge and Catahoula Lake, and the Little River and 

Lower Ouachita River Watersheds. The respondent believed including these watersheds was pertinent to 

refuge management in relation to oil field activity, construction of reservoirs on Big Creek, Caster Creek, 

Dugdemona Creek, and Caney Creek Lake, significantly reducing the flow of water to Catahoula Lake, 

and the migration of the Louisiana black bear and cooridor movement. The Service duly notes this 

inclusion as very pertinent to refuge management and included a new figure and discussion of the Little 

River and Lower Ouachita River Watersheds in the CCP. A strategy was added to Goal 3, Objective 3-4, 

to further investigate partnership opportunites related to these two watersheds. 

The Rapides Wildlife Association and another respondent state concern over oil and gas pollution on 

the refuge, Catahoula Lake and surrounding watersheds, human health, wildlife, and amphibians. 

The Service notes this comment and believes this issue is duly addressed in Goal 3, Objective 3-3, 3-

4, and the new partnership objective in Goal 5, Objective 5-3. 

Visitor Services 

Two respondents believed priority management should be for fish and wildlife and recreational use is 

acceptable only if it does not interfere with this. The Service’s Mission Statement supports wildlife 

first and only when compatible, allows wildlife-dependent recreation. One respondent is opposed to 

all forms of hunting and related facilities and petitions management to start charging hunters to use 

the refuge. Two respondents urged the Service to remember that modern firearm and archery 

hunting are very important to the majority of the surrounding community and have a significant 

economic impact. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the 1997 Refuge 

Improvement Act, and hunting has been found to be compatible with the purposes for which 

Catahoula Refuge was established. Hunting of white-tailed deer is necessary to keep deer from 

becoming overpopulated, which leads to disease, starvation, an increase in Lyme disease infections 

in humans, and an increase in vehicle/deer collisions. Studies have shown that hunting of small 

game, such as rabbits and squirrels, does not affect populations of these animals due to their high 

reproductive rate. Overpopulated raccoons depredate bird, mammal, and reptile nests at much 

higher rates than occurred historically, directly causing population threats to some species, such as 

alligator snapping turtles and neotropical migratory birds. Beavers, when overpopulated, kill tens of 

thousands of acres of critical bottomland hardwood forests. 
120 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Thirteen million Americans hunted in 2001 across the country, spending 20 billion dollars. Each year 

nearly 200 million dollars from federal excise taxes on hunting equipment are distributed to state 

conservation agencies to support wildlife management programs and purchase lands for wildlife 

conservation, which directly benefit both game and non-game wildlife. Over five million acres have 

been purchased for the National Wildlife Refuge System using Federal Duck Stamp proceeds. 

Catahoula Refuge is not currently enrolled in the recreational fee program; however, a strategy was 

added under Goal 4, Objective 4-1, to determine the viability of using this option. 

One respondent noted that “on page 46 of the book there is a list of requests that were presented at 

the meeting in Jena in March of 2005. On page 47 it is stated that all comments were considered; 

however SOME issues important to the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made.” The 

respondent felt that “some” was a misnomer and that his requested items were not considered or 

implemented. The Service held a public meeting on March 22, 2005, in Jena, Louisiana. There were 

34 attendees, of which 7 provided public comment. A total of twenty-one comments were submitted 

and are summarized in table format on page 50. Of these twenty-one comments, only seven were 

not implemented, including three comments as follows: 1) Allowing boats and gear to be left on the 

refuge within guidelines; 2) Allow duck and deer hunting on same day; and 3) Leave all trails open 

year-round, not just for “wildlife-dependent” activities. The first comment was not incorporated into 

Alternative B, the preferred action, due to theft and law enforcement issues. The second comment 

was not incorporated due to safety issues, and the third was not incorporated because the refuge 

cannot provide for nor allow non-compatible wildlife-dependent activities on refuge lands. Typically, 

management details, such as these, are addressed in detailed step-down management plans rather 

than within a CCP, which provides a broad overview of refuge management goals, objectives, and 

strategies. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, the refuge staff will develop 

partnerships with local agencies and organizations. These step-down plans will also be developed in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification and 

evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to selection and implementation of 

the preferred alternative. 

One respondent believes all all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use should be banned. Another respondent 

would like clarification of ATV use in Region 4 of the Service and reasons why it is deemed 

compatible. Hunting and fishing are identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act as priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities that should be promoted and 

expanded on refuges. Catahoula Refuge has very limited vehicular access to most portions of the 

refuge. In the early history of the refuge, trails were established for ATV use as a concession to 

limited access. Current all-terrain vehicle trails are located on former dirt field roads and levees that 

existed when the refuge was established. These trails have been crowned to provide drainage from 

the trail surface and are maintained by bushhogging two to three times per year. All-terrain vehicle 

use causes trampling of the mowed vegetation, but rutting and associated soil erosion is minimal. 

Some wildlife disturbance may occur adjacent to the trails, but is believed to be minimal and is 

restricted to primarily the fall and winter months. Any disturbance from ATVs is comparable to regular 

vehicles traveling refuge roads. ATVs are restricted to designated marked trails. 

Use of ATVs does result in some minimal disturbance to wildlife as with any use. Restricting use to 

designated trails routed to avoid sensitive areas, such as major stream crossings or archaeological 

areas, and opening most trails to season use only minimizes overall potential impacts. To facilitate 

hunting and fishing opportunities, a limited system of ATV trails is required to provide access to major 

portions of the refuge and to specific lakes. Without these trails, the public would not be able to 

access major portions of the refuge. ATVs cause much less damage to roads and trails than do 

conventional and four-wheel drive vehicles. Use of ATVs helps distribute hunters, thereby facilitating 

a balanced harvest and reducing hunter crowding. This access enhances the pursuit of wildlife-
Appendices 121

dependent recreation (hunting and fishing) in this resource-rich area. Providing such recreation is a 

refuge objective, and demand for this access is high among users. 

One comment, by the HSUS, is opposed to the Draft CCP/EA and believes “the ccp does not 

adequately address the effects of hunting on the Refuge System at large as such reviews consider 

hunting on the refuge as a foregone conclusion rather than a discretionary activity.” Other comments 

by the HSUS related to hunting are summarized and responded to below. 

The HSUS states it is opposed to the hunt plan and believe it violates the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Comment is noted. 

The HSUS states that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act “retains and 

reemphasizes the compatibility requirements and imposes other sandards that require more, not less, 

biological and ecological evidence to support decisions to open refuges to sport hunting activities,” 

referring to court case The Fund et al. v. Williams et al. The Service notes the comment. 

The HSUS stated that the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act does not “relieve the 

[Service] of its obligations to consider the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the agency’s 

decisions with regard to hunting....” Comment is noted. 

The HSUS states that sport hunting is not compatible with the purposes for which many refuges were 

created. Comment is noted. 

The HSUS states that the Service has not completed the Refuges 2003 Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). The Service notes the comment. 

The HSUS believes that there are adverse impacts by refuge uses for the past few decades and that 

an EIS is needed. The Service notes the comment. 

The HSUS believes the alternatives proposed in the Draft CCP/EA fail to constitute a reasonable 

range of alternatives. The Service notes that three separate alternatives were developed, including 

Alternative C, which evaluates decreasing hunting on the refuge. 

The HSUS states that the Service must complete a Section 7 evaluation. The comment is noted. 

Catahoula NWR completed an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation as part of the Draft 

CCP/EA. The consultation ended informally and since there were no adverse effects of the proposed 

action a formal consultation with an accompanying biological opinion was not required. 

The HSUS states that the Service has compromised the biological integrity of refuges by allowing 

hunting and that the Service does not consider impacts of hunters on non-consumptive users. The 

HSUS also claims that hunting and the number of hunters is decreasing and the Service has not 

capitalized on potential economic gain that would come from non-consumptive users. The Service 

notes these comments. 

The HSUS stated that while the Draft CCP/EA cites the decline in rail species is at least partially due to 

the destruction of tall vegetation, the plan “falls short of acknowledging that one reason behind 

discouraging tall vegetation is that it hinders the line of sight of hunters.” The Service notes this comment. 
122 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

The HSUS states that woodcock, American black ducks, pintail, greater and lesser scaup, and king 

rails should not be hunted because their populations are declining. Comment is noted. The Service 

relies on the Migratory Bird Sport Hunting Frameworks to set hunting regulations of migratory birds 

annually. The Frameworks are based on the best biological information available and the refuge is 

often more conservative in setting regulations. 

The HSUS states that deer overpopulation is not a scientific term and that deer herbivory changes 

plant communities is not necessarily negative. The Service notes the comment. Numerous studies 

have been published on the negative impacts of overpopulated deer on native vegetation and plant 

communities. Based on the best biological information available and refuge staff expertise, the 

Service holds to the view that overpopulated deer have negative impacts on vegetation. 

Refuge Administration 

The Rapides Wildlife Association (RWA) notes the potential for additional partnership opportunities 

with the refuge. The RWA also mentioned other local organizations in relation to oil field pollution, 

such as the Louisiana Audubon Council, Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Louisiana Action 

Network. The Service added an objective under Goal 5, Objective 5-3, to address these and other 

partnership opportunities. 
Appendices 123

Appendix V. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use is 

appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and expands on 

the compatibility determination process, by describing when refuge managers should deny a proposed 

use without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the 

use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the use noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee. This Act provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the 

authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but 

rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and 

“under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses 

that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The Act 

states “. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is 

a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority 

consideration in refuge planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a 

proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity 

should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the 

System receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and 

management within the System . . . .” The law also states “...in administering the System, the 

Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: “... issue regulations to carry out this Act.” 

This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing enhanced consideration of 
124 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to 

provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This Act authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation when in 

his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While the Recreation 

Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and 

includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off-highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 
Appendices 125

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
126 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 127
128 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 129
130 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix VI. Compatibility Determinations 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, all-terrain vehicle use, 

refuge resource research studies, boating, forest management program, and trapping of selected 

furbearers and feral hogs. A description and anticipated biological impacts for each use are 

addressed separately in this appendix. 

 

Refuge Name: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: 1958. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: The refuge was established in 1958 under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which calls for: 

"... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act); 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which calls for: 

"... the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a) (4) “...the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive 

or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956). 

Refuge Purposes: With these establishing authorities, purposes for the Headquarters Unit of 

Catahoula Refuge were further refined as the following: 

y To provide migrating and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall 

objectives of the Mississippi Flyway; 

y To provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species; 

y To manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for a natural wildlife diversity; and 

y To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education for 160,000 visitors annually. 

Purposes for the Bushley Bayou Unit of Catahoula Refuge were further refined in the 1999 

Environmental Assessment, FONSI, and Land Protection Plan, prepared by the Service as the 

following: 

y To provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and woodcock; 

y To provide nesting habitat for wood ducks; 

y To provide habitat for a natural diversity of wildlife; 

y To provide habitat for nongame, neotropical migratory birds; and 

y To provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and environmental 

education. 
Appendices 131

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive 

Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 C.F.R. 

Subchapter C; 43 C.F.R. 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, U.S.C. 668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, C.F.R., Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and 

Policies” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive conservation plan. 
132 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: 

Fishing 

Permit sport fishing on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge of game fish (e.g., largemouth bass, white 

crappie, black crappie, bluegill, redear, and sunfish), and rough fish (e.g., channel catfish, blue 

catfish, flathead catfish, gar, bowfin, carp, freshwater drum, and crawfish). Refuge seasons will fall 

within the framework of the State of Louisiana seasons, which are established by the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Currently, the refuge has one dual-function duty officer. Additionally, personnel from the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist refuge officers when needed. 

The fishing program at the refuge will cost approximately $25,000 annually, which includes costs to 

create and print the hunt brochure, support law enforcement, and create and maintain parking areas 

and all-terrain vehicle trails. Participation in the fishing program is estimated to be 4,500 visitors 

annually. The refuge is not enrolled in the Fee Demonstration Program. 

Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is adequate funding to 

ensure compatibility and to administer the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: No adverse impacts are expected as a result of this use. Seasons 

will be established with the objective of preventing disturbance to migratory waterfowl. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from April 19, 

2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies 

of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment distributed to local 

landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, which published in the 

The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix IV summarizes the 

public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All fishing will be in accordance with State regulations and 

refuge-specific fishing regulations. On the Headquarters Unit, fishing will be permitted from one hour before 

sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. Only pole and line or rod and reel fishing will be permitted. All 

refuge waters except Cowpen Bayou and the Highway 28 borrow pits will be closed to fishing and boating 

from November 1 through February 28, in order to provide a sanctuary area for migrating birds. Boat motors 

may not exceed 10 horsepower in size. No boats may be left on the refuge overnight. Boats on trailers may 

be launched only at designated boat ramps. Dragging boats or driving along road shoulders to launch boats 

is prohibited. On the Bushley Bayou Unit, fishing will be permitted two hours before official sunset until two 

hours after official sunset. Recreational fishing and crawfishing is allowed year-round. Only 10 horsepower 

motors or less are allowed on the interior lakes within the Bushley Bayou Unit. There are no horsepower 

restrictions on Bushley Creek, Big Bushley Creek, or Little Bushley Creek. Recreational gear (e.g., slat 

traps, wire nets, and hoop nets) is allowed only by refuge special use permit and only in designated creeks. 

Trotlines must be tended at least once every 24 hours and reset when exposed by receding water. Trotlines 
Appendices 133

must be attached with a length of cotton line that extends into the water. Trotlines must be removed when 

not in use. Yo-yos must be attended and used only during daylight hours. Bank fishing is prohibited on 

Bushley Creek and all fishing is prohibited on Black, Dempsey, Long, Rhinehart, and Round Lakes during 

deer-gun and deer-muzzleloader hunts and on lakes during waterfowl hunts. Taking, collecting, or 

disturbing any plant or wildlife other than as specified in refuge regulations are prohibited. Law enforcement 

efforts on the refuge will ensure compliance with State laws and refuge-specific regulations. All or parts of 

the refuge may be closed to fishing or crawfishing at any time if necessary for public safety, to provide 

wildlife sanctuary, or for administrative reasons. 

Justification: Fishing is identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an 

activity that should be provided and expanded on refuges. Sport fishing will provide quality, wildlifedependent recreation to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. Providing this 

recreation is a refuge objective. 

 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2022_____

Description of Use: 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Non-consumptive wildlife observation uses, such as birdwatching, auto tour routes, hiking, and nature 

photography, are minimal at this time due to the area’s distance from large metropolitan areas and 

the general lack of access and facilities. It is estimated that 4,200 visits/year are attributed to wildlife 

observation and related activities. 

It is anticipated that an increase in non-consumptive wildlife-dependent uses will occur over the next 

few years as facilities and access are provided and especially as the public and conservation groups 

become aware of the excellent birding/wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Based on a review of the refuge’s budget allocated for this activity, there is 

adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography activities may result in some 

disturbance to wildlife if visitors venture too close to the bird rookeries. Refuge road systems, foot 

trails, photo blinds, boardwalks, and wildlife observation platforms will be located to minimize 

disturbance that could occur in these sensitive areas. If unacceptable levels of disturbance are 

identified at any time, sensitive sites will be closed to public entry. Some minimal trampling of 

vegetation also may occur. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and the upgrading of refuge roads and 

all-terrain vehicle trails will alter small portions of the natural environment. Proper planning prior to 

construction, sediment retention, and grade stabilization features will reduce negative impacts to 

wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern. Impacts, such as 

trampling vegetation and wildlife disturbance by refuge visitors, do occur but are presently not 

significant. Upgrading roads will reduce soil erosion associated with the current dirt roads and trails. 

Other potential negative impacts are caused by visitors violating refuge regulations, such as littering 

or illegally taking plants or wildlife. Refuge roads are maintained for habitat and biological 

management programs and law enforcement. Use of the roads by the public does incur added 

maintenance costs. 
134 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from April 19, 

2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies 

of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment distributed to local 

landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, which published in the 

The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix IV summarizes the 

public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Permits prior to construction will be obtained from local, 

state, and federal regulatory agencies to reduce the possibility of negatively impacting wetlands, cultural 

resources, or protected species. Law enforcement patrol of public use areas will continue to minimize 

violations of refuge regulations. Refuge roads will be closed to the public during extremely wet periods 

such as flooding to prevent road damage and for visitor safety. Public use for wildlife observation and 

photography will be monitored to document any negative impacts. If any negative impacts become 

noticeable, corrective action will be taken to reduce or eliminate the effects on wildlife. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are important and preferred public uses on 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and photography as a priority 

public recreational use to be facilitated on refuges. It is through permitted, compatible public uses 

such as this that the public becomes aware of and provides support for our national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2022_____

Description of Use: 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities which seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology, and land management, as 

well as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. Environmental education/interpretation 

activities have been given only upon request in prior years. In the future, the program will be 

structured around activities conducted by staff or trained volunteers. The staff will develop and 

provide curriculum and support materials to area teachers for use both on and off the refuge. 

Informational kiosks and interpretive panels will be developed at key refuge entrance points, at 

current interpretive sites, and at the new boardwalk and wildlife observation platform as part of the 

environmental education/interpretation program. 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The existing 

staff can administer, manage, and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Construction of facilities, such as boardwalks, kiosks, and observation 

platforms, will alter small portions of the natural environment on the refuge. Proper planning and 

placement of facilities will ensure that wetlands, threatened or endangered species, or species of 

special concern are not negatively impacted. Proper permits through the parish, state, and federal 
Appendices 135

regulatory agencies will be obtained prior to construction to ensure resource protection. The use of onsite, hands-on, action-oriented activities to accomplish environmental education and interpretive tours 

may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these activities. These low-level impacts may 

include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate area. 

Educational activities held off-refuge will not create any biological impacts on the resource. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from April 19, 

2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies 

of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment distributed to local 

landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, which published in the 

The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix IV summarizes the 

public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and enforcing laws will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Through periodic evaluation of trails and visitor contact points, the visitor services program will assess 

resource impacts. If future human impacts are determined through evaluation to be detrimental to 

important natural resources, actions will be taken to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major 

portions of the refuge will remain undeveloped, without public interpretive facilities. 

Justification: Interpretation and environmental education are identified in the 1997 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act as activities that should be provided and expanded on refuges. 

Educating and informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive 

materials, and guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and 

ecosystems will lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 

 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2022_____

Description of Use: 

All-Terain Vehicle (ATV) Use 

Recreational hunting and fishing occurs on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. A large portion of the 

refuge is inaccessible to conventional vehicles due to the lack of improved, all-weather roads. In 

order to disperse hunters and access remote areas for hunting and fishing, refuge users will need to 

utilize ATVs throughout the area. There is an extensive system of old farm roads and levees that will 

be used as ATV trails. 

Considering the topography of the area, the need for limited use of ATVs by certain refuge users is 

apparent. It would be impossible to develop an effective public use program that provides optimum 

consumptive use opportunities without providing for all-terrain vehicle use. 
136 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Service policy pertaining to ATV use requires such use be in conjunction with wildlife-dependent 

activities only, and be confined to designated areas or trails identified for such use; all off-road use is 

restricted to foot travel only. Approximately 23 miles of ATV trails will be available seasonally for 

hunting and fishing access. All ATV trails are shown on refuge brochure maps and designated for 

public use by signs. Some modifications to this initial trail system would be necessary from time-totime as refuge public use patterns change and/or other public use development occurs. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Currently, the complex has one dual-function officer. Additionally, personnel from the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist refuge officer when needed. 

The hunt program at the refuge will cost approximately $35,000 annually, which includes costs to 

create and print the hunt brochure, law enforcement support, and creating and maintaining parking 

areas and ATV trails. Participation in the hunt program is estimated to be 2,500 visitors annually. 

The refuge is not enrolled in the Fee Demonstration Program. 

The fishing program at the refuge will cost approximately $25,000 annually, which includes costs to 

create and print the hunt brochure, law enforcement support, and creating and maintaining parking 

areas and ATV trails. Participation in the fishing program is estimated to be 4,500 visitors annually. 

The refuge is not enrolled in the Fee Demonstration Program. 

Anticipated Biological Impacts of the Use: In the early history of the refuge, trails were established for 

ATV use as a concession to limited access. ATVs were historically used in the area before the refuge 

was established. ATV trails are located on former dirt field roads and levees that existed when the 

refuge was established. These trails have been crowned to provide drainage from the trail surface 

and are maintained by bushhogging two to three times per year. ATV use causes trampling of the 

mowed vegetation, but rutting and associated soil erosion is minimal. Some wildlife disturbance may 

occur adjacent to the trails, but is believed to be minimal and is restricted to primarily the fall and 

winter months. Any disturbance from ATVs is comparable to regular vehicles traveling refuge roads. 

ATVs are restricted to designated marked trails. 

Use of ATVs does result in some minimal disturbance to wildlife as with any use. Restricting use to 

designated trails routed to avoid sensitive areas, such as major stream crossings or archaeological 

areas and opening most trails to season use, only minimizes overall potential impacts. The primary 

compatibility issues of concern are with disturbance to migratory waterfowl, threatened or endangered 

species, and habitat conservation. 

Migratory waterfowl and endangered species are not significantly impacted by ATV use. The refuge 

objective is to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl. Because of seasonal flooding (usually 

November through May), ATV trails are sometimes inaccessible during the winter months and during 

high waterfowl numbers of use. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from April 19, 2007, 

until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment distributed to local landowners, the 

public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, which published in the The Jena Times on 

April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix IV summarizes the public comments. 
Appendices 137

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All-terrain vehicle use is permitted in support of 

hunting and fishing activities where adequate access is not available by maintained vehicular roads. 

The following stipulations would help ensure that the ATV use program is compatible with refuge 

purposes: 

y All persons 16 years of age and older must have a Catahoula Refuge Hunting/Fishing permit 

in order to use an ATV on the refuge. 

y Persons under 16 years of age are not allowed to operate an ATV on the refuge. 

y All-terrain vehicle use is restricted to designated and maintained ATV trails. 

y No off-trail use of ATVs is permitted. 

y All-terrain vehicle tires are restricted to those no larger than 25” X 12” with a maximum lug 

height of 1” and a maximum allowable tire pressure of 7 psi as indicated on the tire by the 

manufacturer. 

y All-terrain vehicles will not exceed the following specifications: weight – 750 lbs., length – 85” 

and width – 48”. 

y All weapons transported on ATVs must be fully unloaded and dismantled or encased. 

y All-terrain vehicle use is permitted only during specified hours and dates. 

Justification: Hunting and fishing are identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act as priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities that should be promoted and 

expanded on refuges. Catahoula Refuge has very limited vehicular access to most portions of the 

refuge. To facilitate hunting and fishing opportunities, a limited system of ATV trails is required to 

provide access to major portions of the refuge and to specific lakes. Without these trails the public 

would not be able to access major portions of the refuge. ATVs cause much less damage to roads 

and trails than do conventional and four-wheel drive vehicles. Use of ATVs help distribute hunters, 

thereby facilitating a balanced harvest and reducing hunter crowding. This access enhances the 

pursuit of wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting and fishing) in this resource-rich area. Providing 

such recreation is a refuge objective, and demand for this access is high among users. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2017_____

Description of Use: 

Refuge Resource Research Studies 

This activity will allow university students and professors, nongovernmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to the refuge’s natural environment to conduct both short-term and 

long-term research projects. The outcome of this research will result in better knowledge of our 

natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect refuge resources. The 

refuge will support Service and U.S. Geological Survey research of neotropical migratory birds, 

waterfowl, woodcock, bottomland hardwood forest restoration, fisheries, amphibians and reptiles, 

bats, and other wildlife species. Efforts will be made to expand partnerships with Louisiana State 

University and other universities. 
138 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Existing 

staff can administer permits and monitor use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: There should be no significant negative impacts from scientific 

research on the refuge. The knowledge gained from the research will provide information to improve 

management techniques and better meet the needs of trust resource species. Impacts, such as 

trampling vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife, will occur but should not be significant. A 

small number of individual plants or animals may be collected for further study. These collections will 

have an insignificant effect on refuge plant and animal populations. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from 

April 19, 2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area 

locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment 

distributed to local landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, 

which published in the The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix 

IV summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research will 

be examined on its individual merit. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why will be asked to 

determine if requested research could contributed to the refuge purposes and could best be 

conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the researcher will be 

issued a special use permit. Progress will be monitored and the researcher will be required to submit 

annual progress reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. These benefits far outweigh any shortterm disturbance or loss of individual plant and animals that might occur. 

 Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2017_____

Description of Use: 

Boating 

The use of non-motorized boats or motorized boats with motors of 10 horsepower or less for 

recreational purposes on the Catahoula Refuge Headquarters' Unit waters; boats with motors of over 

10 horsepower are prohibited, whether or not the motors are used for power. 

The use of non-motorized boats or motorized boats with motors of 10 horsepower or less for 

recreational purposes on the Catahoula Refuge Bushley Bayou Unit interior lakes; there is no 

horsepower limit on motors used on Bushley Creek, Big Bushely Creek, and Little Bushley Creek. 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Existing 

staff can administer permits and monitor use as part of routine management duties. 
Appendices 139

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: All boat usage on the refuge is in conjunction with one of the 

following three principal recreational activities: (1) fishing (over 75 percent); (2) hunting (less than 

25 percent); and (3) wildlife observation (less than 1 percent). The anticipated impacts from the use 

of boats in those activities are considered in the compatibility determinations for those individual 

recreational activities. No independent recreational boating (e.g., party boats, speed boats, and ski 

boats) occurs on the refuge and there are no impacts attributable to this activity. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from April 19, 

2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies 

of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment distributed to local 

landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, which published in the 

The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix IV summarizes the 

public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and enforcement will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Through periodic evaluation of boating effects on wildlife, the visitor services program will assess 

resource impacts. If future human impacts are determined through evaluation to be detrimental to 

important natural resources, actions will be taken to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Major 

portions of the refuge will remain without boating activity. 

Justification: No recreational boating activities occur on the refuge separate from fishing, hunting, 

and wildlife observation. These activities are evaluated in separate compatibility determinations. 

Independent boating does not exist and, therefore, has no impact on the purpose for which the refuge 

was established. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2017_____

Description of Use: 

Forest Management Program 

A forest management program will be initiated on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge in accordance 

with an approved forest management plan targeted for completion in 2008. Forest management, as 

described in the comprehensive conservation plan, will be directed towards protecting, restoring, and 

managing the functions and values of the refuge forest to support viable populations of native flora 

and fauna consistent with sound biological principles. 

The entire refuge forest habitat will be inventoried and mapped as part of the development of a forest 

management plan. This plan will provide a comprehensive forest management prescription to 

achieve forest habitat objectives over a 15-year planning cycle. Forest management prescriptions will 

include timber stand improvement, commercial timber harvest, and reforestation. 
140 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Forest habitat manipulations will be carried out by commercial timber harvests. All harvesting and 

firewood cutting will be conducted by special use permit and carried out in accordance with the 

Service’s Refuge Manual. The sale and disposition of forest products will be carried out by open 

market rules and formal bid solicitations. 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The existing 

staff can administer permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: It is anticipated that forest habitat management will enhance the 

existing forest and help restore the functions and values typically associated with bottomland 

hardwood forests. Forest management operations will be directed at providing more vertical diversity 

(e.g., understory, mid-story, canopy, and super-emergent trees) within each forest block in support of 

the habitat requirements of forest dwelling birds, Louisiana black bears, and other resident wildlife. 

Reforestation will be an important component of the forest management plan with special emphasis 

on creating a core forest that will support area-sensitive species, such as swallow-tailed kites, 

cerulean warblers, and Louisiana black bears. 

Forest management techniques will include the use of commercial timber harvest operations, which, if 

not tightly controlled and supervised, have the potential to adversely affect environmental quality. 

The controls placed on harvesting operations minimize possible adverse effects caused by logging 

equipment, such as excessive defacement and negative impacts on surface water quality. However, 

minimum short-term impacts do occur from harvesting operations, such as actual mechanized 

operation disturbance to wildlife and trampling of the understory vegetation by equipment. The 

understory vegetation usually recovers in one growing season and usually is more beneficial to 

wildlife due to increased density and palatability caused by harvest operations (i.e., decreased 

competition and increased sunlight reaching the forest floor). 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from 

April 19, 2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area 

locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment 

distributed to local landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, 

which published in the The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix 

IV summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial timber harvest operations will not be 

carried out on Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge until a comprehensive forest inventory has been 

completed and a forest management plan prepared. Forest management operations will be directed 

at providing a desired future condition for the overall refuge forest. Individual forest stands will be 

inventoried, timber harvest prescriptions developed, and timber harvest operations carried out in a 

manner that will accomplish the refuge’s forest habitat management objectives for migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and resident wildlife. Timber harvest operations will target 

select trees to be sold and then removed by commercial timber and pulpwood operators. Trees may 

also be removed through timber stand improvement operations or by permittees when commercial 

sales are not feasible. Only trees needing to be removed in order to improve the forest habitat for 

wildlife or to restore the integrity of the forested wetlands ecosystem will be taken. Forest 
Appendices 141

management operations may be conducted throughout the year, but only according to the guidelines 

detailed in a forest management plan. 

Justification: The forest management actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan for 

Catahoula Refuge are in accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management, and 

enhancement of habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. Adherence to a forest management 

plan promotes the enhancement of habitats for both threatened and endangered species, migratory 

birds and resident wildlife species; promotes habitat restoration; protects cultural resources; and 

provides opportunities for public recreation and environmental education. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2017_____

Description of Use: 

Trapping of Selected Furbearers and Feral Hogs 

Beaver, raccoon, and feral hogs are the species upon which management activities may be directed. 

All species are at a sufficiently high level on the refuge to adversely affect ecosystem functions. As 

indicated in the comprehensive conservation plan, beaver activities have caused significant 

deterioration and loss of bottomland hardwoods throughout the refuge, and excessive numbers of 

raccoons can have negative effects on the reproduction of forest breeding birds and wild turkeys. Not 

only do feral hogs compete with native wildlife for food, they are known to destroy turkey nests, kill 

deer fawns, and damage roads and levees. Feral hogs consume hard and soft mast, agricultural 

crops, and managed vegetation, such as moist-soil plant species. In addition, feral hogs may carry 

serious diseases, such as swine brucellosis and pseudo rabies, which are transmissible to domestic 

animals and humans, as well as other wildlife. 

Protection and restoration of bottomland hardwoods and improvements in game and non-game 

populations are central components of the plan. To this end, trapping and/or hunting remain the only 

viable methods to reduce population levels of beaver, raccoon, and feral hogs. The Service would 

issue special use permits to administer a trapping program consistent with sound biology, refuge 

purposes, and conservation of ecosystem functions. 

Availability of Resources: No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. The existing 

staff can administer permits and monitor this use as part of routine management duties. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Targeted removal of beaver, raccoon, and feral hogs from portions of 

the refuge would reduce the negative impacts these species are having on ecosystem functions. 

Control of beaver populations would help ensure the protection of important bottomland hardwood 

forests, including reforestation areas, and minimize beaver problems associated with the operation of 

more than 16 water control structures on the refuge. Regulated trapping of raccoon populations 

would reduce the nest predation this species causes to neotropical migratory birds and wild turkeys. 

Reducing feral hogs on the refuge will ensure that road and levee damage is minimized; that forest, 

re-forested, and managed habitats are not negatively impacted; and that native wildlife species are 

not adversely affected. However, no trapping program, regardless of how well it is designed, can 

prevent the possible take of other species. Trappers would be required to report the incidental take of 

other species. A negligible impact on other wildlife is expected, both short term and long term. 
142 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment from 

April 19, 2007, until May 21, 2007, included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area 

locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment 

distributed to local landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; a news release, 

which published in the The Jena Times on April 25, 2007; and local radio announcements. Appendix 

IV summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: As a trapping program is implemented on the refuge, 

it would be closely monitored to assess the potential adverse effects on other wildlife, as well as the 

benefits to game and non-game species and their habitats. Modifications to the program would be 

implemented as needed to maintain compatibility. All trapping activities would be carried out under a 

refuge special use permit. Trappers would be limited by number, area, and season in order to target 

problem areas and minimize any negative impacts. Each trapper would be required to report the 

number and location of all traps and all wildlife taken. The implementation of a trapping program, 

under controlled conditions, provides an essential population control management tool and is 

compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

Justification: The purposes of Catahoula Refuge emphasize conservation of wetlands and migratory 

birds. Trapping is a wildlife population management tool, which is used to regulate the population of 

certain wildlife species when those species are disrupting ecosystem functions. Beavers, raccoons, 

and feral hogs have been documented to cause negative impacts to forested wetlands and nesting 

birds. When these negative impacts become significant on the refuge, wildlife managers utilize 

trapping as a management tool to control the level of damage. Certainly, beavers and raccoons are 

important components of the ecosystem, but when their populations and negative impacts become 

significant, wildlife managers need a regulated trapping program to reduce their populations to 

acceptable levels. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: _____9/20/2017_____
Appendices 143

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 
144 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix VI. Intra-Service Section 7 

Biological Evaluation 

Originating Person: Andrew Hammond 

Telephone Number: 318-922-5261 

E-Mail: andrew_hammond@fws.gov 

Date: June 13, 2006 

Project Name: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: 

 ___ Ecological Services 

 ___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

 ___ Coastal Wetlands 

 ___ Endangered Species Section 6 

 ___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

 ___ Sport Fish Restoration 

 ___ Wildlife Restoration 

 ___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife 

II. State/Agency: Louisiana/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge by adopting the proposed alternative, Alternative B, which will 

provide guidance, management direction, operation plans, and a minor expansion of the existing 

refuge acquisition boundary. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: The refuge is outside the known breeding 

range of Louisiana black bear (USFWS 1995b); however, it is possible that Louisiana 

black bears will move through or breed on the refuge in the future. 

Bald eagles are occasionally seen during winter months on the refuge. No breeding 

activity has been reported 
Appendices 145

B. Complete the following table. 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Louisiana Black Bear T 

Bald Eagle T 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: 27; Lower Mississippi Valley 

B. County and State: LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes, Louisiana 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): Sec 5, 6, & 7, T8N, R6E; 

Sec 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 56, T8N, R5E; Sec 36, T8N, R4E; Sec 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, T7N, 

R5E; Sec 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, T7N, R4E; Sec 

2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, T6N, R4E. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Ten miles east of Jena, Louisiana 

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Louisiana Black Bear - no documentation of bears using the refuge. 

 Bald Eagle - occasionally observed during winter. No active nests. 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed). 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Louisiana Black Bear No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 

Bald Eagle No negative impacts foreseen, more protection 
146 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Louisiana Black Bear Participate in recovery efforts by becoming an active member on 

Louisiana Black Bear Commission 

Bald Eagle Maintain and expand potential roosting and feeding habitat 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

RESPONSE1

REQUESTED NE NA AA

Louisiana Black Bear X Concurrence to 

implement the 

proposed 

Alternative B, 

which includes the 

Minor Expansion 

of the Current 

Refuge Boundary. 

Bald Eagle X Concurrence to 

implement the 

proposed 

Alternative B, 

which includes the 

Minor Expansion 

of the Current 

Refuge Boundary. 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. 

Response requested is optional but a “concurrence” is recommended for a complete administrative record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response requested is a “concurrence.” 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response requested for 

listed species is “formal consultation.” Response requested for proposed or candidate species is “conference.” 
Appendices 147
148 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix VII. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS 

This species list is based on observations by refuge personnel and visiting ornithologists. 

Total species: 219 

Breeding Species: 42 

Symbols: 

Seasonal appearance 

Sp - Spring - March to May 

S - Summer - June to August 

F - Fall - September to November 

W - Winter - December to February 

Seasonal abundance 

a - abundant: a common species which is very numerous 

c - common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat 

u - uncommon: present but not certain to be seen 

o - occasional: seen only a few times during a season 

r - rare: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years 

* - nests on the refuge 

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Waterfowl

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck - r r - 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck - r r - 

Greater White-Fronted Goose r - o r 

Snow Goose r - o r 

Canada Goose r - r r 

Wood Duck* c c c c 

Gadwall c r c c 

American Wigeon c r c c 

American Black Duck r - r r 

Mallard c o a a 

Mottled Duck u u u r 

Blue-winged Teal o r c o 

Northern Shoveler o r c c 

Northern Pintail c r c c 

Green-winged Teal o r c u 

Canvasback u r o u 

Redhead r - o r 

Ring-necked Duck c r c a 
Appendices 149

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Waterfowl (Cont’d)

Greater Scaup r - r r 

Lesser Scaup u r u u 

Bufflehead - - r r 

Common Goldeneye - - r r 

Hooded Merganser o r o o 

Common Merganser o - - - 

Ruddy Duck r - o o 

Turkeys and New World Quail 

Wild Turkey r r r r 

Northern Bobwhite* r r r r 

Grebes 

Least Grebe - - r r 

Pied-billed Grebe* c u c c 

Horned Grebe - - r r 

Pelicans 

American White Pelican o r u u 

Cormorants, Anhingas 

Double-crested Cormorant c o u a 

Anhinga* c c o o 

Herons and Bitterns 

American Bittern o r o - 

Least Bittern r o r - 

Great Blue Heron* c c c c 

Great Egret* c a u o 

Snowy Egret u c c o 

Little Blue Heron u c c o 

Tricolored Heron r o o r 

Cattle Egret c a a u 

Green Heron* u c c r 

Black-crowned Night-Heron - o o - 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron - c u - 

Ibises 

White Ibis r u u r 

Glossy Ibis - r r - 

White-faced Ibis - - o o 

Roseate Spoonbill - o r - 

Storks 

Wood Stork - u o - 
150 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

American Vultures 

Black Vulture u u u u 

Turkey Vulture c c c c 

Hawks and Harriers 

Osprey r r r r 

Mississippi Kite o o - - 

Bald Eagle o r o u 

Northern Harrier u - u u 

Sharp-shinned Hawk - - r r 

Cooper's Hawk r r r r 

Red-shouldered Hawk* c c c c 

Broad-winged Hawk r r u r 

Red-tailed Hawk c u c c 

Golden Eagle r - r r 

Falcons 

American Kestrel u - u c 

Merlin - - r r 

Peregrine Falcon - - r r 

Rails, Gallinules, Coots 

King Rail r r r r 

Sora r - r r 

Purple Gallinule r r r - 

Common Moorhen r r r - 

American Coot c r u c 

Plovers 

Semipalmated Plover o r o - 

Killdeer* c c c c 

Stilts and Avocets 

Black-necked Stilt o u o - 

American Avocet - - - r 

Sandpipers 

Greater Yellowlegs o o o o 

Lesser Yellowlegs o c c o 

Solitary Sandpiper o o o - 

Spotted Sandpiper o r o - 

Upland Sandpiper u u o - 

Sanderling - - o o 

Semipalmated Sandpiper o - o - 

Western Sandpiper o - o o 

Least Sandpiper u o u u 

Pectoral Sandpiper o r o - 

Dunlin r - - r 

Short-billed Dowitcher r - r o 
Appendices 151

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Sandpipers (Cont’d) 

Long-billed Dowitcher - - - r 

Common Snipe c - c c 

American Woodcock o r u u 

Gulls, Terns and Allies 

Bonaparte's Gull - - r r 

Ring-billed Gull o - o o 

Herring Gull - - o r 

Gull-billed Tern - - - r 

Caspian Tern r r r - 

Royal tern - - - r 

Forster's Tern - - o r 

Pigeons and Doves 

Rock Dove o o o o 

Mourning Dove* c c a a 

Common Ground-Dove - - r r 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed Cuckoo r - r - 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* c c - - 

Greater Road Runner r r - - 

Owls 

Barn Owl o o o o 

Eastern Screech-Owl* u u u u 

Great Horned Owl u u u u 

Barred Owl* c c c c 

Nightjars and Swifts 

Common Nighthawk o u u - 

Chuck-will's-widow o o r - 

Whip-poor-will r - r - 

Chimney Swift o o o - 

Hummingbirds 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird o o o - 

Kingfishers 

Belted Kingfisher c o u c 

Woodpeckers 

Red-headed Woodpecker u u u u 

Red-bellied Woodpecker* c c c c 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker c - u c 

Downy Woodpecker* c c c c 

Hairy Woodpecker* u u u u 
152 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Woodpeckers (Cont’d) 

Northern Flicker* c u u a 

Pileated Woodpecker* c c c c 

Flycatchers 

Eastern Wood-Pewee u u u - 

Acadian Flycatcher c c u - 

Eastern Phoebe u o o c 

Vermilion Flycatcher - - r o 

Great Crested Flycatcher* o o - - 

Eastern Kingbird u u o - 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher - - r r 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead Shrike u u u u 

Vireos 

White-eyed Vireo* c c c r 

Yellow-throated Vireo r o r - 

Red-eyed Vireo r u r - 

Jays and Crows 

Blue Jay* c c c c 

American Crow* c c a a 

Fish Crow u u u u 

Larks 

Horned Lark o - r o 

Swallows 

Purple Martin* c c u - 

Tree Swallow c - c - 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow c c c r 

Barn Swallow u o u - 

Titmice and Chickadees 

Carolina Chickadee* c c c c 

Tufted Titmouse* c u u c 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch - - - - r 

White-breasted Nuthatch u - - u 

Creepers 

Brown Creeper u - u u 

Wrens 

Carolina Wren* c c c c 

House Wren r - r o 
Appendices 153

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Wrens (Cont’d) 

Winter Wren o - r u 

Sedge Wren r - r - 

Marsh Wren r - r - 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

Golden-crowned Kinglet c - o c 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet c - o c 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher u c u r 

Thrushes 

Eastern Bluebird* c c c c 

Veery r - r - 

Gray-cheeked Thrush r - r - 

Swainson's Thrush r - r - 

Hermit Thrush o - o u 

Wood Thrush* c c c - 

American Robin a u u a 

Mockingbird and Thrashers 

Gray Catbird u - u r 

Northern Mockingbird* a a a a 

Brown Thrasher* c c c c 

Starlings 

European Starling c c c c 

Pipits 

American Pipit r - r o 

Sprague’s Pipit - - - r 

Waxwings 

Cedar Waxwing o - o o 

Wood Warblers 

Golden-winged Warbler - - r - 

Tennessee Warbler r - r - 

Orange-crowned Warbler r - r o 

Nashville Warbler - - - r 

Northern Parula* u u o - 

Yellow Warbler o - u - 

Magnolia Warbler o - - - 

Yellow-rumped Warbler u - - c 

Black-throated Green Warbler - - o - 

Blackburnian Warbler o - - - 

Yellow-throated Warbler u u u - 

Pine Warbler - - o r 
154 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Wood Warblers (Cont’d) 

Cerulean Warbler o r o - 

Black-and-white Warbler o o o - 

Prothonotary Warbler* c c c r 

Worm-eating Warbler r - r - 

Louisiana Waterthrush - - - r 

Kentucky Warbler o o r - 

Common Yellowthroat u u o o 

Hooded Warbler r o r - 

Yellow-breasted Chat* r o r - 

Tanagers 

Summer Tanager* c c u - 

Scarlet Tanager r - - - 

Emberizids 

Eastern Towhee u u u u 

Chipping Sparrow u u u u 

Field Sparrow u u u u 

Vesper Sparrow r - r o 

Lark Sparrow - - - r 

Savannah Sparrow - - r r 

Henslow’s Sparrow - - - r 

LeConte’s Sparrow - - - c 

Fox Sparrow - - - r 

Song Sparrow c - - - 

Lincoln’s Sparrow - - - r 

Swamp Sparrow r - r u 

White-throated Sparrow r - u c 

White-crowned Sparrow - - r r 

Dark-eyed Junco - - u c 

Cardinals and Allies 

Northern Cardinal* a a a a 

Blue Grosbeak u - - u 

Indigo Bunting* c c u - 

Painted Bunting* c c u - 

Dickcissel* o o - - 

Blackbirds 

Bobolink - r - - 

Red-winged Blackbird* c c c c 

Eastern Meadowlark* c c c c 

Rusty Blackbird r - r o 

Brewer's Blackbird c - - c 

Common Grackle* c c c c 

Brown-headed Cowbird* c c c c 

Orchard Oriole c c u - 

Baltimore Oriole c c u - 
Appendices 155

COMMON NAME Sp S F W

Cardueline Finches 

Purple Finch r - - r 

House Finch - - - r 

American Goldfinch u - - u 

Old World Sparrows 

House Sparrow* o o o o 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

(USFWS 1993) 

(Harper 2004) 

Mammals* 

White-tailed Deer* 

Fox and Gray Squirrels 

Swamp Rabbit* Cottontail Rabbit* 

Armadillo 

Beaver* 

Bobcat 

Coyote 

Opossum 

Raccoon 

Nutria* 

Muskrat 

Mink 

Opossum 

River Otter * 

(USFWS 2005) 

(USFWS 1999b) 

Fish 

Largemouth Bass* 

Spotted Bass 

Black Crappie 

White Crappie 

Bluegill 

Redear Sunfish 

White Bass 

Channel Catfish* 

Blue Catfish* 

Flathead Catfish* 

Alligator Gar 

Bowfin 

Largemouth Buffalo 

Smallmouth Buffalo 

Freshwater Drum 

Shad 

(USFWS Undated) 
156 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Possible Species List 

Amphibians** Reptiles*-Turtles and 

Crocodilians Reptiles**-Lizards and Snakes 

Bronze Frog 

Bullfrog 

Eastern Narrow mouth Toad 

Gray Treefrog 

Green Treefrog 

Northern Cricket Frog 

Pig Frog 

Southern Leopard Frog 

Spring Peeper 

Upland Chorus Frog 

Eastern Newt 

Woodhouse’s Toad 

Eastern Box Turtle 

Red-eared slider* 

Eastern Mud Turtle 

Stinkpot 

Spiny Softshell Turtle 

Green Anole 

Five-lined Skink 

Broad-headed Skink 

Ground Skink 

Racer 

Rat Snake 

Mud Snake 

Green Water Snake 

Yellow-bellied Water Snake 

Banded Water Snake 

Diamond-backed Water Snake 

Brown Snake 

Western Ribbon Snake 

Rough Earth Snake 

Copperhead 

Cottonmouth 

* Known to occur on the refuge. 

** No amphibian or reptile surveys have been conducted on the refuge. The species listed are from surveys taken in similar 

habitats. 
Appendices 157
158 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix VIII. Land Protection Plan 

Acquisition boundaries are administrative lines delineating areas in which the Fish and Wildlife 

Service may consider negotiations with willing owners for acquisition of an interest in land. Lands 

within a refuge acquisition boundary do not become part of the refuge unless and until a legal interest 

is acquired through a management agreement, easement, lease, donation, or purchase. Lands 

within an acquisition boundary are not subject to any refuge regulations or jurisdiction unless and until 

an interest is acquired. Land interests are acquired from willing sellers/owners only. Any landowner 

that is within an approved acquisition boundary, even though the surrounding parcels may have been 

purchased by the Service, retains all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land 

ownership. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to access, hunting, vehicle use, control of 

trespass; the right to sell the property to any other party; and the responsibility to pay local real estate 

or property taxes. 

Within approved acquisition boundaries, the Service would be able to enter into negotiations for the 

protection of environmentally sensitive lands. The most urgent needs for acquiring an interest in 

these lands are as follows: 

y Primary refuge access by staff and public 

y Bottomland hardwood forest restoration 

The proposed expansion area (Figure 1) encompasses approximately 1,835.2 acres and lies 

immediately adjacent to the Headquarters and Bushley Bayou Units of the refuge and acquisition 

boundary. Approval of this proposed 1,835.2-acre expansion would bring the total area within the 

approved acquisition boundary to approximately 31,078 acres. 

This proposed expansion area is comprised of bottomland hardwood forests, agricultural and open 

fields, pastures, and minnow ponds, interspersed with residential areas. A majority of the area has 

been cleared. 

The proposed expansion area is necessary to restore and protect critical bottomland hardwood 

habitats in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. To this end, expansion of the acquisition boundary would 

further the refuge’s mission to conserve, restore, and protect migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species, especially migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, and possibly the 

threatened Louisiana black bear. 

Expansion of the boundary to include the subject parcel would not only protect and conserve critical 

bottomland hardwood forests but would provide a valuable access to the refuge and increase the 

available areas for migratory bird, wading bird, and marsh bird habitats. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

To date, there have been two comprehensive archaeological surveys on the refuge; however, no 

properties have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural 

resource surveys within the refuge have focused on the eastern shore area of Catahoula Lake 

(Wiseman et al., 1978; Boggess 1991; See Appendix II for references). Given the region’s settlement 

during both the prehistoric and historic periods, the likelihood of cultural resources being present is 

considered relatively high (Wiseman et al., 1978; See Appendix II for references). 
Appendices 159

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 14 of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act require the Service to evaluate the effects of any of its actions 

on cultural resources (e.g., historic, architectural and archaeological) that are listed or eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with these regulations, the Service has 

coordinated the review of this proposal with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office. 

The Service believes that the proposed acquisition of lands will have no adverse effect on any known 

or yet-to-be identified National Register of Historic Places-eligible cultural resources. However, in the 

future, if the Service plans or permits any actions that might affect eligible cultural resources, it will 

carry out appropriate site identifications, evaluations, and protection measures as specified in the 

regulations and in Service directives and manuals. 

All tracts acquired by the Service in fee title would be removed from local real estate tax rolls because 

Federal Government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service 

makes annual payments to local governments in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of 

the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands 

acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the 

lands acquired in fee title. The estimated annual revenue-sharing payment that would be made to 

Catahoula or LaSalle Parishes, depending on the amount of acreage acquired in fee title, would 

range from $3 to $300. 

No actions would be taken that would lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for 

the protection of the environment. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Service proposes to acquire, protect, and manage through fee title purchases, leases, 

conservation easements, and/or cooperative agreements from willing sellers. All lands and waters 

acquired would be managed by the Service as the Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. The 

objectives of the proposed expansion would be to: (1) provide migrating and wintering habitat for 

migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall objectives of the Mississippi Flyway; (2) provide 

nesting habitat for wood ducks; (3) provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered 

species; and (4) manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for natural wildlife diversity. 

It is anticipated that funding for this proposal would be provided through the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authority for the use of these 

funds for land acquisition is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Land and Water 

Conservation Act; however, funding would likely come from the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Committee and The Conservation Fund via carbon sequestration credits placed on the agricultural 

portion of the property. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION POLICY 

The Service acquires lands and interests in lands, such as easements, and management rights in 

lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other congressional 

guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlifedependent public use for recreational and educational purposes. These lands include national wildlife 

refuges, national fish hatcheries, research stations, and other areas. 

The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means, 

such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. When 
160 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

land is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the 

minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full 

consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the 

impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. 

The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of 

condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however, 

requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing 

sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the 

property’s appraised market value, as set out in an approved appraisal that meets professional 

standards and federal requirements. The acquisition methods that could be used by the Service 

under this alternative are described as follows: 

1. Leases and Cooperative Agreements 

Potentially, the Service can protect and manage habitats through leases and cooperative 

agreements. Management control on privately owned lands could be obtained by entering into longterm renewable leases or cooperative agreements with the landowners. Short-term leases could be 

used to protect or manage habitat until a more secure land protection method could be negotiated. 

2. Conservation Easements 

Conservation easements give the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their fish and wildlife 

habitat values. Such management precludes all other uses that are incompatible with the Service's 

management objectives. Only land uses that would have minimal or no conflicts with the 

management objectives are retained by the landowner. In effect, the landowner transfers certain 

development rights to the Service for management purposes as specified in the easement. 

 

Easements would likely be useful when: (1) most, but not all, of a private landowner's uses are 

compatible with the Service's management objectives, and (2) the current owner desires to retain 

ownership of the land and continue compatible uses under the terms set by the Service in the 

easement. Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement 

include: 

y Development rights (e.g., agricultural and residential); 

y Alteration of the area's natural topography; 

y Uses adversely affecting the area's floral and faunal communities; 

y Private hunting and fishing leases; 

y Excessive public access and use; and 

y Alteration of the natural water regime. 
Appendices 161

3. Fee Title Acquisition 

A fee title interest is normally acquired when (1) the area's fish and wildlife resources require 

permanent protection not otherwise assured; (2) land is needed for visitor use development; (3) a 

pending land use could adversely impact the area's resources, or (4) it is the most practical and 

economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. 

Fee title acquisition conveys all ownership rights to the Federal Government and provides the best 

assurance of permanent resource protection. A fee title interest may be acquired by donation, 

exchange, transfer, or purchase. 

The Service’s proposed alternative, Alternative B, would result in the acquisition of up to 1,835.2 

acres of wildlife habitat as an expansion of Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. This would be 

accomplished through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and less-than-fee 

interests (e.g., conservation easements and cooperative agreements) from willing sellers. The 

Service believes these are the minimum interests necessary to conserve and protect the fish and 

wildlife resources in the proposed area. 

The private property has been prioritized for acquisition using the following criteria: 

y Biological significance; 

y Existing and potential threats; 

y Significance of the area to refuge management and administration; and 

y Existing commitments to purchase or protect land. 

Three categories of land acquisition have been established, with the highest priority being the Priority 

I lands. A description of the lands within each of the three priority groups is given below. Table 8 

summarizes the Service’s land protection priorities and proposed methods of acquisition. 

Priority Group I

The most important resource within this proposal is lands that provide direct access to key parts of 

the refuge for management purposes and public use access. These lands also provide critical areas 

for bottomland hardwood restoration. 

Priority Group II

This group represents areas adjacent to Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge that provide access to 

very important parts of the refuge for access and management purposes. These lands also provide 

important areas for bottomland hardwood restoration and/or management for migratory birds, resident 

wildlife, and species of special concern. 

Priority Group III

This group represents smaller parcels of land that would make the refuge more accessable to the 

staff and the public. 
162 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 8. Protection priorities for the proposed expansion and recommended methods of 

acquisition 

Priority Group No.of Landowners Approx. Acreage Type of 

Acquisition(minimum 

interest

I 10 910.5 Fee Title 

II 7 748.5 Fee Title 

III 2 176.2 Fee Title 
Appendices 163

INTERIM RECREATION ACT FUNDING ANALYSIS 

Refuge Name: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1958 

Purpose(s) for which the refuge was established: The refuge was established in 1958 under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which calls for: 

"... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act); 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which calls for: 

"... the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ..." 16 U.S.C. § 742f (a) (4) .”..the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive 

or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (b) (1) 

(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

Recreational uses evaluated: (1) Recreational hunting of resident game and migratory birds (e.g., 

waterfowl, woodcock, snipe, mourning doves, and gallinules) in accordance with federal and state 

regulations; (2) recreational fishing of freshwater fish species (e.g., largemouth bass, bream, catfish, 

and crappie) in accordance with state regulations; (3) trapping of furbearing animals in accordance 

with state regulations; and (4) wildlife observation/photography. 

Funding required to administer and to manage the recreational use: Minimal funding in the amount of 

$10,000 will be made available to implement initial protection, hunting program, data collection, and 

non-consumptive uses. 

Based on a review of the refuge budget allocated for recreational use management, I certify that 

funding is adequate to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage the recreational uses. 
164 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix IX. List of Preparers 

The Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation planning process involved a wide 

variety of participants, including federal, state, and local governments; universities and other researchers; 

private nonprofit groups; and local residents. The diversity and input of participants helped guide 

development of the CCP. A core planning team led the process, a biological and habitat review team 

helped develop wildlife and habitat needs, a visitor service team helped develop public use needs, and 

the public contributed to the process during the scoping period. Chapter III describes the public 

involvement and input into this planning process. 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The core planning team involved staff from Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Key 

tasks of the team involved defining and refining the vision; identifying, reviewing, and filtering issues; 

defining the goals; and outlining the alternatives. The team members included: 

y Andrew Hammond, Refuge Manager, Catahoula NWR 

y Greg Harper, Refuge Manager, Catahoula NWR 

y David Hayden, Wildlife Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

y Tina Chouinard, Natural Resource Planner, Central Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Kathleen Schmidt, Project Manager, Mangi Environmental Group 

y Julia Yuan, Environmental Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group 

y Rebecca Whitney, GIS Specialist, Mangi Environmental Group 

y Pam Sarlouis, Document Manager, Mangi Environmental Group 

y Jill Hacker, Editor, Jill Hacker, LLC 

BIOLOGICAL AND HABITAT REVIEW TEAM 

The Biological and Habitat Review Team consisted of Service staff and invited participants. The 

invited participants included local and regional experts, researchers, and individuals with intimate 

knowledge of and expertise in the biological resources of the refuge. Members of the review team 

included: 

y Andrew Hammond, Refuge Manager, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Greg Harper, Refuge Manager, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Tina Chouinard, Natural Resource Planner, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Pat Stinson, Wildlife Biologist, Forester, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Charles Guillory, Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

y Steve Cruse, State WRP Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

y John Pitre, State Biologist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

y Buddy Dupuy, Forester, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

y Chuck Hunter, Regional Refuge Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Susan Walls, Amphibian Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey 

y John Forester, Fish Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Scott Durham, Waterfowl Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

y John Dickson, Private Land Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service 
Appendices 165

y Buddy Goatcher, Contaminants Specialist, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y John Simpson, Forester, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y David Hayden, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM 

The Visitor Services Review Team consisted of staff from the Service’s Southeast Regional Office, 

Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and White River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Members of the review team included: 

y Garry Tucker, Visitor Services and Outreach, FWS Regional Office 

y Ray Paterra, White River NWR 

y Tina Chouinard, Central Louisiana NWR Complex 
166 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix X. Budget Requests – Refuge 

Operating Needs 

Table 9. Catahoula NWR operating and maintenance needs. 

Project Number 

CCP Project 

Description 

Number 

Project Description 

Cost Estimate 

($1000’s) 

Fish and Wildlife Populations 

RONS 02007 1/6 Control beaver populations 

25 

RONS 96006 1 Implement Adaptive Management 

(Biologist Position) 139 

Habitats 

RONS 02004 1/6 Improve moist-soil management on 

minnow ponds 98 

RONS 00004 10 Implement Management on 

Bushley Bayou Expansion Area 

(Refuge manager) 139 

RONS 96003 4 Restore Understory vegetation and 

diversity 59.5 

RONS 00005 6 Implement management on 

Bushley Bayou Area 119 

RONS 02008 6 Control noxious water locus 30 

RONS 02003 3/5 Improve moist-soil management 

capabilities 90 

RONS 00002 4 Implement Forest Management 

Plan 139 

Resource Protection 

RONS 02005 9 Boundary Survey 260 

RONS 00005 9/10 Boundary Survey of New Tracts 75 
Appendices 167

Visitor Services 

RONS 00001 14-18 Improve Visitor Facilities 22 

RONS 02001 14 Improve wildlife viewing 

opportunities 242 

RONS 00010 17 Implement outreach program and 

activities 128 

RONS 96009 17 Provide restrooms and visitor 

facilities 25 

RONS 00011 15 Improve visitor parking areas 71 

RONS 00009 15 Improve refuge Wildlife Drive 504 

RONS 96012 15 Provide Access Road System 22 

Refuge Administration 

RONS 00003 22 Increase Resource Protection 

(Refuge Officer) 129 

RONS 01001 1/4 Protect and Evaluate Bushley 

Bayou Unit (Biologist) 128 

RONS 02006/02002 20/21 Improve Maintenance and 

Resource Protection with Secure 

Shop and Compound 406 
168 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix XI. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes, Louisiana, through the Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. An 

Environmental Assessment was prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental 

consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Catahoula National 

Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, 

the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and 

a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be 

found in the Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alternatives 

In developing the CCP for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

evaluated three alternatives: Alternative A (no action), Alternative B (active management), and 

Alternative C (minimal management). 

The Service adopted Alternative B, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the CCP for guiding the direction of 

the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in the CCP is that wildlife 

conservation assumes first priority in refuge management and wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative A represents no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, 

existing refuge management practices and uses would continue. All refuge management actions would 

be directed towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes, which include: (1) to provide migrating 

and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl consistent with the overall objectives of the Mississippi 

Flyway; (2) to provide nesting habitat for wood ducks; (3) to provide habitat and protection for 

threatened and endangered species; and (4) to manage bottomland hardwoods and provide habitat for 

a natural wildlife diversity. Management programs would continue to be developed and implemented 

with limited baseline biological information. Active habitat wetland management would be implemented 

by continuing water level manipulations for moist soil. Grassland and forest management actions, 

designed to provide diversified foraging, resting, and breeding habitat requirements for a variety of 

species, would be implemented only when resources are available. Land would be acquired from 

willing sellers within the current 28,254-acre acquisition boundary. Oil and gas operations would 

continue under current special use permits, with little opportunity to prevent potential risks of spills. 

There would be no water quality surveys or pollution prevention measures for improving or providing 

increased protection of refuge lands and water. Hunting and fishing would continue to be the major 

focuses of the public use program, with no expansion of current opportunities. 

Alternative B, the proposed alternative, was considered to be the most effective management action 

for meeting the purposes of the refuge. It would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to 

provide greater enhancement and management of habitats and associated plant communities for the 

greater benefit of wildlife. Extensive wildlife and plant census and inventory activities would be 

initiated to obtain the biological information needed to implement management programs on the 

refuge. The refuge would improve migratory waterfowl habitat, the wood duck nest box program, 
Appendices 169

habitat to support breeding pairs of wading birds, and migration habitat for southbound and 

northbound shorebirds. Habitat management activities would focus on providing healthy bottomland 

hardwood forests, moist-soil units, and grasslands needed to achieve wildlife population objectives. 

Forested habitat would be managed to establish a multilayered canopy that promotes and maintains 

structural and plant species diversity and ultimately support key species of migratory and resident 

species. To improve habitat for grassland birds, the refuge would work with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service to replant the 95-acre Willow Lake area with native warm-season grasses. The 

refuge would inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate 

invasive plants. An archaeological survey to identify potential cultural resources would help in 

planning for land protection. The refuge would work closely with partners to acquire or exchange 

lands with willing in-holding landowners and to expand the current acquisition boundary by 1,835.2 

acres in order to improve access for refuge staff and the public. The refuge would continue to work 

with the state and oil producers to identify and eliminate potential spill risks from oil and gas activities, 

to continue the refuge special use permit system, and provide monitoring for first alert in spill events. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities would be improved. Youth hunts, handicap-accessible blinds, improved 

access for bank fishing, replacement of the observation tower and an additional tower, and supporting 

environmental-based curricula in the local schools are some of the improvements planned under 

Alternative B. In addition, the current office facility would be expanded to accommodate an 

environmental education display and an interpretive display. Additional staff would include a 

biologist, forester, park ranger (law enforcement), engineering equipment operator, maintenance 

worker, assistant refuge manager, and park ranger (interpretive) to accomplish objectives for 

establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, and for adequate protection of 

wildlife and visitors. 

The primary focus under Alternative C would be to maximize endemic bottomland hardwood forests 

with minimal management. Under this alternative, there would be no active management of refuge 

resources. Grasslands would be left fallow and moist-soil units would not be actively managed. 

Bottomland hardwood forests would be left to mature with no active management. Wood duck nest 

boxes would be left in place and banding quotas would not typically be met. There would be no 

active management of marshbird, long-legged wader, shorebird, or forest breeding bird habitat. The 

refuge would continue to support Bald Eagle Management Guidelines when nests are encountered. 

The refuge would continue to attempt to acquire land from willing sellers within the current 28,254-

acre acquisition boundary, but would plan no additional active management of these lands. Oil and 

gas operations would continue under current special use permits, with little opportunity to prevent 

potential risks of spills. There would be no water quality surveys or pollution prevention measures for 

improving or providing increased protection of refuge lands and water. An archaeological survey to 

determine if there are any cultural resources present would be used in planning for land protection. 

A limited amount of deer, duck, and small game hunting would continue and the refuge would 

maintain current recreational fishing. The current facilities for wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, such as the observation tower, nature trails, and wildlife drive pull-offs, would be 

maintained and enhanced. Environmental education and interpretation requests would be increased 

and would be accommodated with the addition of a park ranger (interpretive). Law enforcement of 

refuge regulations and protection of wildlife and visitors would continue at current levels. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purposes and goals; emphasizes management and restoration of the refuge’s 

open wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, grassland habitats, and hydrology in support of 

migratory and resident waterfowl and other wildlife, especially forest breeding birds, amphibians and 

reptiles, marsh birds, white-tailed deer, wood duck, and woodcock; collects habitat and wildlife data; 
170 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these 

management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with 

existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program 

elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

managed, maintained, and enhanced and those lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

be prioritized for acquisition to best achieve national, regional, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals 

and objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively 

addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the Draft CCP/EA. Habitat management, fish and wildlife 

population management, resource protection, and visitor service management activities on Catahoula 

National Wildlife Refuge will result in increased migratory bird utilization and production; enhanced 

native resident wildlife populations; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Duck, shorebird, and marsh bird use of the refuge will improve significantly as intensive water 

management upgrades and efforts would provide dependable flooded habitats to match the migration 

chronologies of these species. Woodcock population numbers and habitat use will be monitored and 

managed and woodcock use of the refuge will be expected to increase. 

2. Migratory bird production will increase by enhancing forest habitat quality for neotropical migratory 

birds, habitat and food availability for wintering waterfowl, and through hydrological restoration and 

reforestation. Forest management practices, such as reforestation, selective harvests, and 

conservation of mature stand components will benefit nesting and feeding habitat for neotropical 

migratory birds. 

3. A refuge boundary expansion of 1,835.2 acres, reforestation, and protection will benefit the 

recovery of threatened and endangered species, improve the refuge’s access, ability to meet stepdown objectives for waterfowl and other wildlife species, and provide more opportunities for public 

use. Refuge reforestation and forest management actions will provide improved habitat in support of 

forest breeding birds and Louisiana black bear recovery efforts. 

4. The refuge’s habitat mix of open wetlands, early successional reforestation areas, bottomland 

hardwood forests, and grassland areas, as well as habitat management, will improve food and cover 

for migratory and resident wildlife species and enhance wetland communities within the refuge. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public 

use will result in some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife and user conflicts may 

occur at certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and 

implementing refuge regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of 

implementing the management action are positive. In the long run, wildlife habitat and increased 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities could result in an increase in 

economic benefits to the local community. 
Appendices 171

6. Implementing the comprehensive conservation plan is not expected to have any significant 

adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as 

actions will not result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor will 

they result in irrevocable, long-term adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust of the management 

action is to implement bottomland hardwood forest and open wetland restoration within the wildlife 

communities of the refuge that have been severely impacted by actions of previous landowners. 

Implementing the management action will result in substantial enhancement of forest and open 

wetland communities and net increases to the Nation’s bottomland hardwood forests and open 

wetland acreage and quality. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action 

are considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and 

populations present in the area. Implementation of the public use program will take place through 

carefully controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites 

and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such as nesting bird 

habitat, etc. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) will be 

conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations 

established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through wildlife 

inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities will be utilized, and public use 

programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

will be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action will not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property will be allowed through issuance of special use permits. Future 

land acquisition will occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the approved 

acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases and/or 

donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative agreements) 

from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue off-refuge stream bank 

riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service will result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 
172 Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel 

resources will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources 

unavailable for other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination 

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All Affected Landowners 

Congressional Representatives 

Governor of Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division 

Kisatchie-Delta Regional Planning and Economic Development District 

Local Community Officials 

Interested Citizens 

Rapides Wildlife Association 

Other Conservation Organizations 

Findings 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, pages 111-125). 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 
Appendices 173

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 109-125). 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and in 

foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, pages 123-125). 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or 

historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of Federal, State, or local laws imposed for the protection 

of the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 109-125). 

Supporting References 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, LaSalle and Catahoula Parishes, Louisiana. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in April 2007. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Drawer Z, Rhinehart, LA 71363.